Corporate Eye

...compare, compete, excel

Cynthia Giles

Cynthia Giles

Website Impressions: Faster than a . . .

Umpqua

Looking for some insights into website design, I found myself time-traveling back to 2005.  That was the year two well-publicized studies appeared: one on first impressions, the other on gender preferences.  Although there have probably been some shifts in the meantime—as more people (and especially more women) have spent more time on more websites—the basic findings of these two studies almost surely continue to offer useful information.

First: The Human Oriented Technology (HOT) lab at Canada’s Carleton University found that people made their judgments about a site in 50 milliseconds—and those judgments did not change much with extended viewing.  (Here’s a BBC summary of the HOT study.)

Obviously that instantaneous impression is created by the graphic design, not by usefulness of content or ease of navigation.  It turns out, however, that the initial pre-cognitive response creates a “halo effect” which carries over into the visitor’s perceptions about everything else on the site.  So a positive first impression creates positive expectations—and since people like to be right, they tend to continue reinforcing their own opinions.

The HOT study does not provide details about just what attracted/repulsed test subjects.  When viewers spent a longer time looking at the sites, they were asked to rate on broad categories such as “interesting/boring” and “good design/bad design.”  So the major takeaway from this study is . . . whatever you do, it had better work really fast.

Second: A study at the University of Glamorgan found significant differences in site design preferences between women and men.  (Here’s a BBC summary of the Glamorgan study and here’s the more detailed Glamorgan account.)  Generally, men preferred straight lines and formal language, while women liked rounded shapes, more color, and informal language.  That in itself may not seem too surprising, but the study also found something we might not have anticipated.  When asked to evaluate the websites of more than thirty websites from higher education institutions, the male test subjects preferred sites designed by men, and the women preferred sites designed by women.

Problem?  Most of the websites (92%) were designed along the “masculine appeal” lines by male web designers.

It’s important to note that the websites evaluated in the study were academic institutions—which typically have the need to attract people of both genders.  And in that, they are very like the corporate Careers site.

Once I started thinking about this, I realized that a substantial majority of the Careers sites I visit are arranged on a straight-line grid, with a limited palette and a fairly formal approach to language.  Put another way:  they are designed to appeal to men.  And that may be why I (not a man) find so few that really appeal to me.

For example . . . this probably accounts for why I especially like the Umpqua Bank site.  It is very slightly feminine.  Not, I think, in a way that would offend men, but there is a bit of curviness (subtly placed in the background pattern) and the design is more colorful and less formal than the majority of sites.

Obviously, what’s wanted is balance.  So consider whether the landing page for your company’s Careers site offers visual elements that appeal to women as well as men—in one-twentieth of a second.

A Super-Simple Website Checkup

The holiday season has begun, and it’s also nearing the end of the calendar year.  That means the workplace is either extra-busy or extra-lazy, or (more likely) an unpredictable combination of both.  So you might find an hour or two available for a little creative research.  Why not assess your company’s Career site?

Here’s a speedy approach that will hit the highlights and produce some useful insights.

First Impression. When a visitor arrives at the home page of the Careers site for the first time, they will instantly have an impression along one of these lines:

Positive:

1. Bold/energetic
2. Crisp/professional
3. Warm/friendly
4. Interesting/unusual
5. Inviting/appealing

    Negative:

    A. Messy/confusing
    B. Dull/lifeless
    C. Cold/formal
    D. Typical/boring
    E. Superficial/not worth my time

      There could be a few other variants, but that’s enough to work with.  And different people will have different reactions–but the majority of visitors will probably fall into one of these categories for any given site.  So . . .

      Step 1: Look at your company’s Careers site and decide where most people would put it.

      Step 2: Decide whether the majority impression fits the company accurately.  If the impression is positive (1-5) and the fit is accurate, jump to Step 3.

      If the impression is negative (A-E) . . . now it gets harder.  Is the website Dull/lifeless or Typical/boring because the company is?  Or because the company refuses to invest in a better site?  If either, stop reading and find something more useful to do.

      But if not—that is, if the website is Cold/formal but the company is actually Warm/friendly (for example)—then you have identified an opportunity. Add it to the opportunity stack, and move on to Step 3.

      Step 3: Count the number of clicks it takes to find some jobs, using reasonable criteria.  Now go to your company’s two nearest competitors and do the same thing.  Compare the ease of search, and find out if your site is at an advantage—or a disadvantage.

      Step 4: Repeat Step 3 for a job application, but use minutes instead of clicks.

      Step 5: Count the number of interesting/useful items on the site.  Count the number of useless/uninteresting items on the site.  Which number is larger?

      If the comparisons in Steps 3, 4, and/or 5 reveal weaknesses, you have identified additional opportunities.  Add to stack.

      Step 6: Review the opportunities and decide which ones could be addressed under current circumstances in this company.  If none, put a reminder on the calendar to review again in future.  If several, prioritize and add to task list, or pass on some suggestions to the appropriate people.

      Done!

      PS:  For another approach, revisit a previous post titled Test Question.

      Another Example of Unintended Messaging . . .


      Man and Woman Small

      Recently, I went looking for a report on the website of a fairly well-known company, so of course I stopped by their Careers page—and through a series of events, I ended up noticing something that wouldn’t be obvious to most visitors.  But even if it won’t be seen by the public, I think it’s important for two reasons:  (a) no one caught it in-house, and (b) it suggests a pattern of thinking that seems problematic, even though it’s surely not intentional.

      In order to be kind to the company in question, I’ll disguise the specifics, but here’s slightly altered version of “the scoop”:

      To get the report I wanted, I had to register.  To register, I had to select a “title.”  Let’s say my selected title was “Channel Manager.”   There didn’t seem to be any special benefit to having a title, but once I had picked one, it followed me to every page on the site.  And next to my title at the top of the page was a small picture (it definitely looks like a stock photo, not a real employee) which is presumably meant to represent a “Channel Manager.”

      I couldn’t help wondering what the purpose of the whole title idea might be, so I decided to try on different titles and see what changed.  Actually nothing important seemed to alter according to my title, in terms of the information presented.  But–I did see a different picture every time.  And that’s where I noticed . . .

      Stereotyping!

      If you took a list of the two dozen or so possible titles and had ten random people divide the titles into “gender piles,” I’ll bet the piles would exactly match the pictures on this site.  Titles/descriptions that had words like strategy, architecture, or infrastructure got a man’s picture.  Titles that had something to do with marketing or managing got a woman’s picture.  A couple of exceptions, but overall, a pretty noticeable pattern.

      As mentioned, this pattern probably won’t be noticed by visitors, because most won’t try out more than a couple of titles.  And if you go straight to the Careers page without registering on the main site, you won’t even have a title, so it’s moot.  But if you do register, the title will show up any time you go to the Careers page, and that’s how I got started down this particular rabbit trail.

      Once I focused on the Careers page, the plot thickened a bit.  Let’s set aside the whole matter of titles, and just assume the visitor came to the Careers page without any previous picture experience.   As they looked around the site, they would find (all on a single tab) four employee profiles, each with a real photo of a real person.  And all four are men.

      I doubt very much that this company is a hot-bed of stereotyping or gender bias.   I doubt anyone there even realizes that this unintended message has taken shape on the website.  But–that’s exactly the problem.

      One other note:  The “title” pictures were also somewhat lacking in ethnic diversity, but I left that out in order to focus on the gender point.  As for ethnic diversity in the employee profiles . . . zero.  So at that point, you really do have to wonder who’s minding the messaging.

      Quick Take On: Benefits, Bushels, and Business Blogging


      Lion Brand

      Creative perks can go a long way to boost the employer brand.  They improve employee morale, attract publicity, and entice passive candidates. But only if people know about them!

      Recently I was reviewing the website of a fairly well-known company.  They have a nice set of benefits—definitely above average—but the goodies aren’t given an effective presentation on the site.  Instead of being highlighted with bullet points, bold type, etc., so they would jump out as the reader scans the page, they just sort of trail along in a lifeless list.

      Lights under a bushel.  But that’s not even the whole of it.  One of those hidden highlights is genuinely novel and delightful:  onsite music lessons!

      Not every potential candidate will be as excited as I would be—but most would recognize this as a creative idea.  And since the company is not in a creative business (really, not) that in itself is a plus. So why not give it feature status?

      Turning to another gap, we have a company that focuses on employer branding and online communications.  What do you think is on their own blog?  As of this writing:  two entries, the latest of which was posted two weeks ago.

      This company is actually a specialty group owned by a name brand in media—not a start-up or a niche wannabe.  So this seems like a really big miss!  If there’s a cardinal rule for business blogging, it’s “Content, content, content.”  Start with plenty, add often.

      To see a lively, content-rich business blog, drop by Lion Brand Yarns.  And for benefits well displayed, check out Starbucks–not flashy, but nicely defined, and supplemented with a very thorough downloadable brochure.

      Last thought:  I see a lot of missed opportunities and “incomplete passes” when I visit sites.  I think this often happens because an idea seems fairly simple–like adding a blog or putting some content on the website—so no one is tasked with thinking it through and following up to ensure the implementation is both excellent (not just adequate) and complete.

      Or it may be that whoever does have the responsibility is ill-suited to the task, over-burdened, under-supported, not incentivized, not empowered, or (for whatever reason) not willing/able to prioritize the task.  But even simple ideas have to be executed well!  And when they are not, the best-case scenario is a missed opportunity, while the worst is a glaring fumble.

      Notes from a Disappointing Webinar

      I can’t figure this one out.  I attended a webinar featuring a panel of people who ought to have been interesting, talking about a topic that ought to have been interesting.  I came away with nothing.

      Couldn’t tell you what it was supposed to be about.  Can’t imagine what they thought they were communicating.  Have to wonder whether I’m just dense, or whether other attendees felt the same way.

      Here are some observations prompted by the experience, along with some points of relevance for Careers and the corporate website:

      1. The whole webinar concept was really popular for a while, but has somewhat petered out.  That may be because most of them were not very good.

      Which is a reminder that executing well is the key to success.  Doing the “latest thing” has little value if you don’t do it well.  (Let’s think Twitter . . . )

      2. Speaking of execution, presenters should never read out loud what is on the slides.  NEVER.  Doesn’t everyone know that by now?  (Actually this point isn’t really relevant, but I just had to say it.)

      3. People with alluring resumes don’t necessarily make good panelists.  In fact they may be too charmed with themselves to bother about the audience.

      Which is a reminder to focus on substance first, style second.  Ideally the two go together, but the order of priority is important.

      4. If there’s a purpose for getting panelists together, you shouldn’t need to spend time on ice-breaker questions.  (“How many of you have . . . ?”)  Take off fast with crisp, specific questions that draw out the panel’s expertise!

      Which is a reminder that the Careers home page should be sharp and engaging, not just a landscape of illustrated links.

      5. Even if the audience is sitting at their desks, probably multi-tasking while you’re talking, they’ve bothered to show up, so they deserve the best show you can put on.  (By golly!)

      Which is a reminder that every visitor to the Careers site should go away feeling they got something worthwhile.  Every single one.

      6. Although it’s the right strategy to educate rather than sell in a webinar—you still need to provide some kind of value proposition.  Don’t expect the audience to search out their own meaning from an hour of random chat.

      Which is a reminder to provide a clear message about the employer brand, not just an aura of implication.  There’s a lot of territory between “heavy-handed” and “terminally vague,” so find a good spot somewhere in the middle.

      That’s a wrap!  Thanks for listening.

      Recovery: Get Ready for the Wild Ride


      Carousel

      In many countries, cities, and industries, the “economic recovery”—with its inevitable hiring spree—may still seem like a distant notion.  But the fact that some things are hard to imagine is one of the reasons we are sometimes surprised.

      So I was fascinated by a group of stories on National Public Radio’s Morning Edition recently.  Let’s start:

      In Las Vegas. It’s a busy time at the soon-to-open CityCenter complex, where thousands of hospitality workers are being outfitted for their new positions.  Their jobs are among 12,000 created so far by CityCenter.  The lucky 12,000 were culled from 170,000 applicants—and that kind of hiring offensive must require a small army of people to locate, process, equip and orient the new employees.  To say nothing of an industrial-strength website.  Like everything developed by MGM, CityCenter Careers is a seduction in itself, so drop by—and don’t skip the intro.

      From a recovery perspective, however . . . hold on for the whiplash.  Completion of CityCenter means 9,000 construction jobs are ending—and with new building projects still far between in most cities, it won’t be easy to absorb that capacity.  On the other hand:

      To Poland! Eastern Europe has had a lot of experience already with economic rebuilding, which was not a simple matter after decades of Communist rule.  Poland is one of the happy stories there, however.  We learn that “Strong internal consumer spending has helped insulate the country from the worst effects of the global financial crisis. Poland remains the only country in Europe with positive growth in the second quarter this year.”

      And then there’s huge, complicated . . .

      China, where:  “The global recession threw some 20 million migrant laborers out of work.” Many of these workers had migrated from the populous and primarily rural interior of China to the coastal cities, where jobs have been more plentiful.  But now many of those unable to remain employed on the coast are going back to their inland homes.

      Here’s the twist.  Some returning migrants are using their experience to open new businesses.  And some coastal companies are following incentives into the interior.  “All this has helped make labor a sellers market,” according to the report. Xiang Wenbo, who recently established an association of labor recruiters in Wanzhou, says “We’re now suffering shortages of workers here.  Even though we’re a big labor-exporting region, economic growth is speeding up and local firms need more new hires. Our fees for introducing employees to companies have gone up steeply.”

      So?

      The moral is that sudden growth in hiring can come about for a variety of reasons—and they are not necessarily predictable. Or even logical.  Above we have three flavors of surprise:

      • Did it make sense to go ahead with a megaventure like CityCenter during such gloomy times?  No telling yet.  But who knows what plans are afoot in the boardrooms of big companies at this moment.  And it’s not likely that executives will consult with HR before deciding to launch some improbably (yet labor-intensive) initiative.
      • Poland’s prosperity is in many respects the result of decisions made during the 1990s, now bearing fruit.  There are plenty of companies around the world where good ideas and patient planning are spring-loaded in the background–so a relatively slight trigger could produce explosive growth.
      • When labor demand exceeds supply all of a sudden, the cost of hiring goes up—whether in China, Manchester, or Chicago.  Planning ahead can help reduce this effect.

      Big takeaway:  Be ready.


      (Thanks to ishrona for the colorful carousel.)