Even the most experienced web gurus are likely not “gurus” when it comes to some part of the web.  Ryan Carson, Director of Carson Systems, is a well-known web entrepreneur. His company has built such apps as DropSend and Amigo. Yet, it was only recently that he had an epiphany based on some friend’s advice about how to successfully market one of them online (DropSend).

Ryan’s situation is not uncommon. The web is complex enough that you can’t be an expert at everything. That’s why we have a staff of individuals who focus in one of the four areas we consider to be key to any web solution (strategy, design, development, and marketing).  They even specialize within those core areas.

For example, while our developers are not ignorant when it comes to design, we don’t ask them to create design compositions. They are not selecting color gradients and fonts or laying out page elements. They are good at writing code and that is what they do.

The take home for you is simple: if you do hire a web agency or individual, make sure they can provide you with the expertise you need. Their response shouldn’t be, “Oh, sure, we can do that too.” Ensure that they actually have a specialist to help with your specific request. Ask questions about the backgrounds of their team members and other projects where they’ve done similar work.

There are lots of web folks who can do it all but, particularly as successful web strategies become more complex, only a few who can do it all well. Hiring by specialization will mitigate your risk of failure and provide you with more predictable (and positive) results.

The importance of correct grammar and snappy text can seem like a low-priority item when blinking, moving visuals, or mind-blowing development options are available to clients. But all the bells and whistles quickly can be forgotten if your content doesn’t convince readers that you are the authority.

Why? Aside from understanding that they should keep it concise, easy-to-read, and objective (thanks to Nielsen’s classic research), clients may not know how to write effective text. Often, in lieu of taking advantage of invaluable copywriting services, the project manager must spend hours of research on the client’s dime to craft content about a subject on which she or he is not an expert just so the plan can move forward — almost as an afterthought to the larger web venture.

So you may be asking, “But these entrepreneurs must have convinced at least some people that they are knowledgeable.” Of course — some of the best businesses are run by brilliant people who are naturals at articulating their expertise. But, translating that same voice to the web can be tricky for several reasons:

• Grammar: For those who remember at least a portion of the teachings of their fourth grade teacher like my own Mr. Grammer (and I’m not lying about that name), basic syntax and language usage are critical to demonstrating that you are credible. And credibility is vital to success.
• Usage: Don’t be outrageously embarrassed if you habitually use “over” instead of “more than” or “which” instead of “that,” or you never fully embraced the difference between “your” and “you’re.” Just stop doing it starting … now. Check out Strunk & White’s Elements of Style for a quick lesson or have an expert proofread your work. Don’t be too stubborn to learn.
• Styles: AP and Chicago are the most popular styles in writing for B2B. They are the styles you see in newspaper writing and throughout the publishing industry. MLA is used mostly in academic writing and is most notably remembered for its reckless use of the serial or Oxford comma (a major debate between English and journalism camps). Pick a style, buy a book (or an online subscription), and keep your site consistent. Or, come up with your own style guide, but write it down and use it in all of your communications.
• Voice: Pick a formal or conversational voice and go with it. I’m talking about the differences between, “Singading Company provides its customers … ” and, “We offer you … .” There is no correct answer as to which is more effective. You don’t want to turn off readers by sounding like a stiff; but, you don’t want to sound like you’re wearing paint-stained, cut-off jean shorts and inviting them to a BYOB barbeque. Find your happy medium and keep it consistent.

Be among those site owners who ask for help or, at least, a proofread. Above all else, make learning to use language correctly a priority. It’s the little things that make a difference.

Congratulations to Squidoo, winners in the Community category at the 2007 South by Southwest web awards.  This category honors “sites and wikis that have quickly developed an extraordinarily active multi-user community and an exceptional following of users who assist with content development.” 

The awards ceremony (hosted hilariously by zefrank) was a blast and showed off a lot of great sites.  We were thrilled to hear Squidoo called to the stage, and Gil and Corey (holding the award with me afterward in this photo) were really excited.  To no one’s surprise, Gil (on the left) was a bit more mic-friendly than his fellow squid as they accepted the award.  Our team built the initial Squidoo platform, and we’re honored to share it. 

Thanks to everyone at SXSW for putting together an impressive event.

Update: check out posts from Corey, Seth (explaining why he didn’t make the trip to Austin), and Megan on the Squidblog.

Rob and I are headed down to Austin for South by Southwest.  We’ll be hanging out with the guys from Squidoo (a finalist in the Web Awards for the Community category) and trying make it to as many of the endless panels as we can. 

If you’re there and want to connect, just email me at blog [at] viget [dot] com.

Earlier this week, USA Today re-launched its online presence with a larger emphasis on engaging readers. They launched a handful of new features, including being able to create a personal profile page that tracks a reader’s contributions. Parts of the site definitely have a social network feel to it a la MySpace or Facebook. You can check out all the new features they list via their Quick Guide.

USA Today’s re-launch included: 1) adding social media elements to the site (mentioned above); and 2) changing the look-and-feel and organization of the site. Neither element of the re-launch was well received. You can browse the comments of readers on the announcement post To our readers.

Don Dodge, a member of Microsoft’s Emerging Business Team, had some good initial take-aways from the re-launch:

So, I would have introduced the new features, but applied them to the existing layout and design. I think the 92% of readers with negative comments were reacting to the layout changes, not the feature enhancements.

The lessons for entrepreneurs?

1. Test changes carefully with a test group of users before implementing a design.
2. Don’t change features and UI design at the same time. Do one or the other, not both.
3. Communicate with your users well in advance about coming changes
4. Listen to user feedback and respond immediately

I’m assuming USA Today didn’t simply push this re-launch / re-design on its readers. They hopefully tested and incorporated feedback from all important stakeholders through the re-launch process. The key is having the appropriate representation of those stakeholder groups.

You cannot please everyone through as massive an undertaking as this one. But, from the comments, it’s obvious that there is a large group of readers whose voices were not heard at all. And, in the Age of Social Media, people are eventually going to be heard (whether on your site or their own). It’s better to hear them sooner, rather than later.

ComputerWorld listed The Top Five Technologies You Need to Know About in ‘07 last Friday and Ruby on Rails topped the list (congrats, 37Signals).  As they put it:

Equal parts design philosophy and development environment, Rails offers developers a few key code-level advantages when constructing database-backed Web applications. One of the central tenets emphasizes using less code for application development by avoiding redundancy and following Rails conventions. This means increased performance and, ideally, decreased development times.

We agree.  We evaluated Rails for awhile (with some prodding from Ben); ramped up the whole team through training, events, hiring, and internal work; and now focus most of our new development projects on the Rails framework.  In addition to working on some large sites, we’ve recently launched a couple of smaller ones (example: funside.com) and found that even though Rails was designed more for web apps than mostly-static-content sites, it still offers advantages over a traditional LAMP (as in PHP) solution.  Hence Ben’s talk coming up at RailsConf this year: Building and Working with Static Sites in Ruby on Rails.

With Rails, we’re able to provide better solutions to our clients faster.  We also create a more enjoyable work environment for us.  As ComputerWorld notes:

Chances are you’ve heard the term Ruby on Rails — probably from someone on your Web development team lobbying heavily to use it for some or all of your company’s Web development.

Developers love Rails because it lets them focus less on the repetitive mindless grunt work of web development and more on the elegant problem-solving part of it.  But, that’s another blog post altogether …

Seth was nice enough to mention our work on Squidoo yesterday in a post about what separates the best B2B businesses from the very good (How to Succeed in Business (to Business)).  In it, he articulated a characteristic of Viget that, to be honest, I hadn’t thought much about: we’re frank, not flashy.  We don’t have slick sales guys or fancy presentations.  We don’t over-promise.  We try to be direct and realistic about our business and our clients’ businesses.  This is more about the kind of people we are than it is a predefined business strategy (though it’s an approach I’d certainly recommend).

Seth uses the phrase “honest connection” in describing a relationship between us and a client and that is something we focus on.  You can call it a “partnership approach” or anything else; but, at the end of the day, it reflects the very core of why we do what we do.  Why work so hard?  Why get emotionally attached to our performance?  Why go through the “thrashing” as Seth calls it, even if we do try to (wisely) do it sooner than later?  Why deal with the stress of fast-paced start-ups and amorphous web projects when there’s so much boring more stable work around, especially in this town?

It’s those honest connections that we’re passionate about.  It’s about transparency and communication, about building mutual trust and respect.  Being able to really connect with our clients, earn real relationships, and become emotionally invested in their success (and ours).  As Seth points out, you also have to happen to be the very best in the world at what you do (we’re working on that); but, without that passion, would it matter?

Specifically regarding our work with Squidoo, I have to give credit where it’s due: Seth has a great internal team that made the process of finding the success he describes both possible and enjoyable.  Megan, Heath, Gil, and especially Corey (our primary contact) did wonders to shape the concept and facilitate communication.  Here at Viget, Bryan, Ben, Thanny and a few others worked their tails off to make sure our promises were kept.  For his part, Seth struck a crucial balance between having a clear, consistent vision for Squidoo (so we had a mostly-stable spec to build to) that he pushed for relentlessly with a flexible, practical attitude that allowed priorities to shift and that vision to evolve. 

In the end, we had a site that both teams were thrilled about and a connection between the teams that made the success both possible and that much more rewarding.