Why our sites cost more than $7.99/mo.

By Jonathan | Jonathan's articles March 21, 2012 | Permalink

And why we may not be the agency for you.

Resources like Homestead, Volusion and Intuit’s sitebuilder use pre-made templates designed to suit the wide-ranging needs of different businesses. Within those templates, you change things like color schemes, navigation elements and content. Plus, you can update text and imagery whenever you want, since a content management system (CMS) is built right in. All of which is fine. Great, in fact, if what you really need/want is a basic site, with limited functionality that more or less serves as brochure-ware; a piece of collateral that users can click through like they would turn pages.

That last bit isn’t meant as a pejorative. On the contrary: we acknowledge that, for many businesses, especially those of limited size and resources, using a ready-made site service is the way to go. It’s just not how we approach what we do.

We build custom websites. Rather than using pre-existing templates or assets, we create sites ‘from scratch,’ following a clearly articulated, proven-effective process. That process is professionally managed through clear estimates, collaborative meetings and scheduled reviews. It includes comprehensive requirements analysis, content & functionality development, detailed information architecture, high-end user centered design and hand-done code that’s fit for purpose—not just anyone’s purpose; your purpose.

We don’t pretend to have a monopoly on this process. Any good team worth its interactive salt (whatever that is; we totally just made it up) would go through many if not all the same steps. And we don’t mean to suggest that this is the only way to build websites successfully. Every business is unique, and in some cases a part or parts of the process can be replaced with existing work/inputs.

What we do know is that our way is better. The usability is better, more intuitive; the interface more nuanced and detailed; the content and functionality more aligned with customer needs. As a result, the sites themselves perform better, delivering some combination of improved task completion, deeper engagement, greater brand recognition & positive trending across KPIs.

As an agency that’s more accessible, approachable and nimble than the big boys, we get inquiries on the regular from prospective clients who want big-boy results, but have limited budgets. That’s understandable, especially these days, when businesses need to scrutinize every expense. In some cases, though, the folks kicking our tires lack a fundamental understanding of both what sites cost and why there’s such a variance between templated experiences and custom-crafted ones.

“we create sites ‘from scratch,’ following a clearly articulated, proven-effective process that’s fit for purpose—not just anyone’s purpose; your purpose”

We spend a decent amount of time helping prospects big and small reconcile their expectations with their budgets, taking care to avoid the “How much website can you afford?” approach. On occasion, though, we have to tell them they’d be better served with a different option. It’s odd to turn away work, but we’re in business, too, and have to evaluate potential clients as much as they evaluate us.

And although they may not be equipped to say how much our work is worth, we are.

Basecamp, you’re your own worst customer

By Jonathan | Jonathan's articles March 14, 2012 | Permalink

The customer is always right. Except when she isn’t. To be successful, companies have to be able to determine the difference and adjust accordingly.

The challenge is understanding your customer’s needs. We often say, when evaluating customer needs, don’t tell us what you want it (the app, site, brochure, widget, etc.) to do. Tell us what you want to accomplish, and we can engineer accordingly. Some companies, though, take a different approach. Like 37 Signals. They’ve come out with some very functional web-based tools, many of which have caught fire with a wide range of customers, Gabardine included. In particular, we use their Basecamp product as a project management/collaboration tool.

Well, 37 Signals just went live with a new version of Basecamp, called BCX, which has been met with mixed reviews.

Of course, people always have a problem with new. Humans don’t like change, even though it happens all the time. Online tools and mobile apps in particular update features and functions all the time, and users adapt. Except when something critical stops working, or even disappears, as happened with Basecamp’s time-tracking function.

BCX no longer has time tracking, because 37 Signals doesn’t track time. And because 37 Signals doesn’t track time, they didn’t think you did, either. Or at least, they claim they didn’t know enough about what you did to build that function effectively.

“However, since we don’t track time at 37signals, we don’t have a deep understanding of the time tracking problem. Plain and simple, this is why time tracking isn’t in the initial release of the all new Basecamp. We simply don’t understand it well enough.”

How is that possible?

Basecamp started as an internal tool. 37 Signals realized others could use it, and they could monetize it, and the product was born. The issue is that it stopped being a 37 Signals-only tool a long time ago, but 37 Signals still thinks of themselves as the primary customer. No weight given to the 14% of paying customers that actually used time tracking, and no apparent research into why the other 86% don’t use that feature.

37 Signals can get away with this approach, leaning on their heavily monetized “less is better” approach. But it doesn’t mean they should. Something in their process diminished the results they got from testing, or their very testing was flawed enough that this requirement wasn’t revealed. Or they decided that the 14% wasn’t important.

They acted as their own customer for the development of BCX, developed accordingly, and then release a product that doesn’t meet the needs of their actual customers.

Gabardine.com redesign: testing, continued

By Jonathan | Jonathan's articles February 24, 2012 | Permalink

Ye Olde Pepsi Challenge A couple of weeks ago, we wrote about the ongoing redesign of gabardine.com, and our use of some simple testing (using Verify) to provide some direction and early course correction to layouts and architecture.

Based on our previous A/B test, we learned that folks responded well to one concept in particular. From there, we ran additional tests to see if people understood our navigation labels and could find things on the pages. There were also a couple of different approaches to copy placement and some aesthetic elements on which we wanted to get a gut check before proceeding with design.

Mostly, though, we tweaked our testing approach to try to get the purest possible results. Here’s how:

We anonymized our layouts to remove all traces of our name and our actual client roster. (There was some debate about transparency, but decided the process was paramount and revealing details about Gabardine might skew the results.)
We paid for test results. This allowed us to get results outside our circle of friends/family/colleagues and eliminate bias.
Where possible, we replaced ‘lorem ipsum’ with semi-real looking content; at this point we were testing real copy and the ability of people to understand our business.

So how did it go?

In the tests where we asked for aesthetic judgements (A/B preference tests), we ended up with close results, usually around 60/40 or so. In those instances, the comments provided the most interesting information (ex: respondents like one design over another, but a majority disliked the same element of the preferred design). People have different tastes, and they seem to be divided into two camps on issues regarding color and layout. At the end of the day, we’ll just need to make some judgement calls based on our own tastes and preferences (it’s our site, after all). Luckily, the layouts in question are more similar than different, so it should be pretty easy to work out.

In tests that were task-based (“Where would you click to see our services?”), we got great feedback that will help us re-label and create stronger visual cues. We’re very conscious of the balance that needs to be struck between how we view our own offerings, and how the general user on the web tends processes what we do. Eliminating organizational bias from labels can be hard, but ultimately it’s about usability, not pride.

We’ll continue to test as we refine. And when we have stronger results and a design we like that’s supported by numbers, we’ll update you.

Have questions/comments about our process or testing in general? Leave ‘em for us and we’ll respond.

Awkward holiday pics update: what we’ve learned

By Jonathan | Jonathan's articles December 16, 2011 | Permalink

The Gabardine Awkward Holiday Photo site was a blast to make. (You can read more about the idea behind it here.) We had so much fun brainstorming ideas, staging pictures and building the thing that it almost didn’t feel like work. But we applied the same effort and rigor we do to our client projects, both up-front and post-launch.

Looking at the metrics (GA’s real-time tools are insane, BTW), we’ve found opportunities to improve the UE and make a few subtle changes to remove unforeseen barriers to interaction. It’s also provided some interesting statistical tidbits, including:

Our overall site traffic went up 280% This is significant because we use the Gabardine site as a marketing communications vehicle, giving potential clients insight into our people and our work.
Of the traffic, we had over 63% new visitors, which is great since a secondary objective of the initiative (i.e. site, social platforms, emails, etc.) was to push beyond our network of usual suspects.
Of the total visitors, ~5% actually interacted with the caption contest, either by submitting their own or voting for others’. We anticipated participation in that range and continue to push for more.
Of those 5%, 51% actually submitted a caption. Clearly, there is less risk in simply voting. Actually clicking the submit button and displaying your handiwork for all to read is a brave thing to do. We were pleasantly surprised by people’s willingness to be so creative.
It’s a Facebook world. In order to vote or submit a caption, you need to sign in via FB or Twitter (more on that in another post). The majority of participants used FB. We even checked to make sure the Twitter auth was working (it was). Maybe our audience is a self-selected FB based one. We’ll keep an eye on that over time.

Of course, this is just a smattering of the goodness we’re seeing as the site continues to be shared and people contribute to it. And as positive as the results are, they pale in comparison to the ultimate goal: to donate generously to multiple charities.

Thanks for your help.

Design makeover*: The Five Guys bag

By Jonathan | Jonathan's articles October 7, 2011 | Permalink

Who doesn’t love Five Guys?

Sure the burgery, french fried goodness is positively drool-worthy.

The design, not so much.

And we get it. The remedial red-and-white color scheme and generic decor practically scream “It’s about the food, stupid.” But that doesn’t mean there’s no room for improvement.

Take the plain brown sack in which every order is delivered. Sure, it’s functional and no-frills, like everything Five Guys (save the food). But it also does the brand a disservice in many respects, showcasing the greasiness of the contents and making for a generally unattractive presentation. So we decided to do something about it—you know, just for grins and giggles. Not that we wouldn’t gladly take on the assignment should the Five Guys crew come calling…

First, we gave the bag a (new) look using the bold brand color blocks and celebrating the third-party quotes that are so integral to the Five Guys identity. These helped make the bag meaningful and relevant, rather than just a transportation device.

Then we added handles, because even Five Guys employees cop to the fact that an open-top bag helps the fries retain their crispiness.

Finally, we added some touches to help enhance the overall experience, including a wax liner (not seen), a slit in which Five Guys folks can place the receipt (cool, right?), and a perforated front panel, providing greater access to the fries—including those that inevitably, wondrously wind up on the bottom.

The guys at Five Guys might not bite, but this re-imagined bag helped us exorcise some design demons that eat at us every time we enjoy one of our favorite lunches.

Download the hires PNGs (Front Back)

Hat tip to Scotty G for the research and design

* Gabardine’s Design Makeovers are for our own amusement and are not tied to any client projects. We do them because we love good design and want to make the world a more beautiful place.

The Evolution of the Client, part 1

By Peter | Peter's articles June 22, 2011 | Permalink

I’m old enough to remember when just about everything about the Web was shiny and new and had the glow of something altogether different than what preceded it. There was a sense of excitement; of mystery. Even a little magic. And back then, the people who practiced the dark arts of the Internet were, themselves, more than a bit enigmatic…

One group, comprised of those who came from the traditional, offline world, tried to reconcile their accumulated knowledge with this new media, which didn’t conform to many—if any—of the old rules. They were alternately fascinated and intimidated by the possibilities, and they struggled to make the online world fit into their offline worldview.

Another group, made up of what we’d now call millenials (but who were then referred to as ‘kids,’) were struggling too, but in a very different way. They’d grown up tinkering with Commodore 64s, using Archie, Gopher and FTP to find information and trading ideas on USENET. They were enthralled and inspired by the promise of the Web and endlessly curious. Like most young’uns, they were also irascible, charming, funny and unintentionally insightful.

The third group consisted of clients—people on the ‘brand side’ tasked with increasing awareness/usage/trial/redemption/conversion/etc. for their products and services—who knew they needed to leverage the emerging technology, but for the most part didn’t know where to begin. Moreover, because they worked in what were generally insular environments, they weren’t encouraged to go out and embrace the next big thing so much as they were flogged to beat last quarter’s numbers.

Together, those three groups helped push the commercial Web forward and, in so doing, pull much of the developed world online. Here’s how it went: Clients tasked their marketing partners with helping them increase sales and acquire new customers. In turn, the marketing partners worked with creative and technology peeps to come up with new ways of communicating with target audiences, from toddlers to teens to those with false teeth. The result was some of the most genuinely innovative marketing the world has ever known.

It was awesome.

Of course, a lot’s changed since the heyday of corporate Web sites and inflated IPOs. Marketers have become more resourceful, and the kids have all grown up and found places of their own. But the biggest shift has been on the brand side.

The rise of Web technologies, social media and mobile platforms has made every client a user—posting, Tweeting, blogging, checking in and commenting on the world around them. Like everyone else, they’re more connected than at any time in history. Which means they no longer need to wait for market studies and campaign analyses to find out how consumers really feel; they can just log on and see for themselves. Just a few minutes a day on social media networks, blogs and news sites can tell them all they need to know about what people like—and vehemently dislike—about their product or service.

Is this feedback loop flawed and prone to misinterpretation? Yes and definitely. But that’s not really the point. The point is that by using the same online tools as their customers, clients are smarter and more sophisticated than ever before.

In the next installment: How the evolution of the client has affected relationships with agency partners.

WGAB in Westport

By Peter | Peter's articles April 11, 2011 | Permalink

We considered anchoring a pirate radio station off Connecticut’s gold coast in an effort to foment revolution—you know, flash mobs at J. Crew; rickrolling Lexus sales staff—but decided it wasn’t really consistent with our business model.

Instead, we figured it’d be more productive to share our wit and wisdom with Maureen Kedes on her weekly radio show, PR Insider.

Now, we know what you’re thinking: Gabardine doesn’t do PR. True that. But the radio show (this is actually Gabardine’s second appearance) covers the full spectrum of marketing communications, featuring guests from a range of brands and agencies on a host of topics.

Our own Jonathan Sawitsky, head of digital experience, and principal Peter Leeds stopped by to talk about social media, emerging technologies, Charlie Sheen and the earthquake in Japan. (Like we said, ‘a host of topics.’)

Have a listen.

We’re looking for a Project Manager’s Project Manager

By Peter | Peter's articles December 13, 2010 | Permalink

You know the type: Organized, diligent, vigilant and passionate about getting work done—and not just finished, but finished on-time, on-budget and in-scope. But wait, there’s more…

The role

We want a mid-level PM who’s great at collaborating with creative types and interfacing with client teams in the course of managing multiple projects at once.

Candidates should have broad experience managing projects (ideally online as well as off), from initial scoping/estimating/planning, to creating schedules, allocating resources, setting milestones, coordinating work across teams, prioritizing deliverables and ensuring delivery.

The right person for the job will be a good communicator and decision maker, and be able to appreciate Keith’s borderline obsession with Coke Zero.

About Gabardine

We bring together creative strategy, design and messaging in a single, continuous thread and then weave it through our clients’ marketing communications—online and off—to help strengthen their brand fabric.

We’re a smart, nimble shop that does the creative stuff of advertising and marketing communications: Creative strategy, concept, design, copywriting, photography, production—the whole shebang.

We’re not focused solely on interactive or, for that matter, on anything else that might limit how we can help our clients improve results and build business. Nope, our goal is to do what needs doing. And we’ve got the experience and expertise to do pretty much all of it.

Qualifications, skills, attributes

To be considered for this position, you must have a minimum 3 years agency experience leading a mid-sized (5-9 person) cross-competency team, across a range of project types. Additionally, you should be able to…

Create project plans that set firm and realistic deadlines for each phase of a project, while setting client expectations aligned with their needs
Track and communicate project progress to all stakeholders
Identify and mitigate project risk by adjusting timelines and budgets accordingly
Speak knowledgeably about varying approaches to creative development for the Web (design and IA)
Act as liaison between Client, Gabardine and 3rd-party teams to gain consensus on priorities and tasks
Recommend and implement solutions to process inefficiencies
Prepare and maintain weekly status documentation
Coordinate and actively participate in client presentations
Monitor and track hours for all internal resources to ensure project profitability
Identify future, evolutionary and new business opportunities to help drive Gabardine’s business
Show proficiency in Microsoft Project scheduling
Have a current working knowledge of standard Web tools such as HTML, Flash, JavaScript, and database utilization and methodologies

To Apply
Email us at JoinTheGab@gabardine.com with your info. You should also feel free to ask questions or refer us to someone you may think is perfect for the role.

Applicants must submit resume and salary requirements. No phone calls, please.

Senior art director wanted. Inquire within.

By Keith | Keith's articles November 30, 2010 | Permalink

The role

We’re looking for a Senior AD (initially for freelance work; full-time’s a possibility down the road) who can collaborate with our creative and account teams to come up with strategically sound creative for our clients.

Candidates should have a broad portfolio (of actual work or spec, doesn’t matter) that demonstrates the ability to work across design platforms, from Web sites to print collateral, event signage to branding, direct response to online advertising and more.

We don’t want just another set of hands, but rather someone who can contribute to our brainstorms, improve the quality of our creative product and help us explore interesting new places for lunch (possibly the one area in which we’re running out of ideas.)

About Gabardine

Gabardine brings together creative strategy, design and messaging in a single, continuous thread and then weaves it through our clients’ marketing communications—online and off—to help strengthen their brand fabric.

We’re a (deliberately) small shop that does the creative stuff of advertising and marketing communications: Creative strategy, concept, design, copywriting, photography, production—the whole shebang.

We’re not focused solely on interactive or, for that matter, on anything else that might limit how we can help improve results and build business. Nope, our goal is to do what needs doing. And we’ve got the experience and expertise to do pretty much all of it.

Qualifications, skills, attributes

To be considered for this position, you must have a minimum 3 years of agency experience and be…

proficient in Adobe Creative Suite, Photoshop, Illustrator, Flash (including Action script), HTML
experienced in both online and offline media, including a combination of direct response, interactive, print and display
familiar with typography, color, navigation, animation and accessibility standards
willing to take and execute on creative direction in a fast-paced environment
able to present creative work confidently and effectively, explaining complex concepts in simple, easy-to-understand terms
an independent and efficient worker who takes ownership of deliverables
personally accountability for on-time, on-budget, quality execution
possess a basic understanding of information architecture
comfortable documenting interactivity and animation through wireframes and storyboards
knowledgeable about current print and Internet design techniques/technologies
part of social media communities, with active accounts on the likes of Facebook/Twitter/Flickr/YouTube/FourSquare
the kind of person who carries a sketch pad and camera phone…everywhere
artistically inspired in different ways by at least 10 Web sites that you can reference at the drop of a hat
capable of describing passionately and convincingly about the one piece in your portfolio that best represents you as a person

To Apply
Email us at JoinTheGab@gabardine.com with your info, or feel free to ask questions or refer us to someone you may think is perfect for the role.

Applicants must submit resume, salary requirements and a portfolio (pdf or Web site) of work. No phone calls, please.

The week that was, in 10 links or less

By Peter | Peter's articles November 19, 2010 | Permalink

Maybe it’s the fact that the holidays are upon us. Or maybe it’s just that we’re a bunch of romantics at heart. Whatever the reason, this week’s list is all about relationships..

The original punk, Johnny Rotten, on letting love rule in the UK.
Way on the other side of the universe (i.e., Alaska), Sarah Palin disses her daughter’s baby daddy.
Speaking of splits, it appears that 40% of us think the whole marriage thing is obsolete.
So rather than take the plunge, OGs and other folks can just kick back with their shorties and chill, yo.
In some cases, though, even platonic relationships on Facebook threaten to go too far.
Heck, Harry & Hermione almost let a platonic fictional relationship go too far.
Exactly how far is too far? For us it’s sending a bride-to-be to the Shibali River women’s labor camp on her wedding day for a single, innocuous tweet.
For others, Like Penn Gillette, it’s a wandering hand at the airport.
When it comes to celebrity relationships, it’s not the tweeting you need to worry about so much as the texting (to say nothing of the sexting).
‘Cuase let’s face it: That’s the kind of thing that could send a woman over the edge.

Any links or thoughts you want to share on togetherness are most welcome.