Directing Websites || Adam Gross

Selling Optimization

January 2, 2010 at 4:20 am Leave a comment

One difference managing a website at a non-web company versus a web company is vocabulary. I make sure to note which words work and which do not.  One that clearly does not is “optimize”.  While there’s no question about its definition among my audience, it isn’t immediately tangible for them how it applies to a website.

That was surprising to me. If you’ve been in product management, optimization feels natural.  A recent post at On Product Management identifies optimization as a key component of a “Product Management mandate”.  I believe the underlying difficulty for non-web audiences lies with the concept of continuous improvement.  It’s a big shift to think that websites can – and should – be edited often. If web projects have always eaten up long cycles, that’s where your audience’s reference point will be

For me, the solution is to be as specific as possible.  For example, I recommend “improving the display of the registration pages to ensure as many members complete the process as possible” rather than “optimizing the registration process”.  Note the term “abandonment” is a bit foreign as well.

Below are the key hurdles to getting the necessary attention for the smaller improvements that, dare I say it, optimize your website’s performance:

1. Focus – Are stakeholders, such as content owners, incented by the website’s key metrics?  If so, they’ll be receptive to learning how to best update the website. If not, then examine whether divisions of labor are clear.  In this scenario, stakeholders will probably only update when they absolutely must (ex: compliance) and you will have to find another currency to get them on board.

2. Consensus risk– depending on your environment, it may have taken a great deal of consensus to get stakeholders to agree on what’s already been launched. Many will be weary of spending additional political capital on a decision they may not fully understand.  To resolve, scope your changes so that a minimum number of stakeholders must sign off.

3. Credit – many may feel that a post-launch change, even a small one, is a criticism of their contributions.  Ensure that stakeholders are receiving appropriate credit, be data-driven, and position your initiatives as “tweaks” not “surgery”.

4. Scope fear – stakeholders may not understand that optimization does not need to cost a lot. Be clear about timeframe expectations and expected impact. Don’t chew off more than your teammates can handle, even if it means curbing your desire to go fast.

5. “We did usability testing – it’s perfect” -  Usability tests are incredibly valuable, but they certainly do not preclude future edits.  Let’s say you brought in eight subjects to conduct testing of a recently launched website. What are the odds they’d all fawn in amazement over your perfect work? Or is it more likely that you’ll receive at least some additional insight?

6. Not sexy enough – Be data driven and have key metrics well-understood by senior leaders ahead of time.  Make sure the key metrics are clearly connected to organizational goals. Then demonstrate the impact you can make on these key metrics.  Highlighting web news from your competitors make never hurts, too.

7. Task-based vs. holistic approach -  Many may be used to solving discrete website problems as part of project teams.  Optimization contributes to holistic website management.  I find that most people will be receptive to the big picture if you are clear about your approach.  Clear metrics and executive-level engagement are big helps.

What are your organization’s optimization efforts like? What opportunities and challenges do you face?

Entry filed under: Recommendations. Tags: evangelism, product, projects, Reference.