Content management: keep it simple

In February 2003, Jupitermedia released a report entitled Web Content Management: Covering the Essentials, Avoiding Overspending.

It stated that, in content management, "over-complicated, end-to-end packages can as much as quintuple website operational costs over human alternatives. In fact, 61 per cent of companies that have already deployed web content management software still rely on manual processes to update their sites."

Jupitermedia analyst Matthew Berk said: "Business executives often mistakenly view content management as the silver bullet that will free them from IT constraints.

"However, all too often, content management solutions don't live up to that expectation, creating frustrated business executives and IT staff who somehow have to squeeze return out of this hefty investment."

So, more than half of the companies that buy content management software to automate their publishing processes end up still doing much of the work by hand.

We're not talking about the failure of the silver bullet here. The bullet didn't even fire. The software didn't even carry out its most basic function: automation of processes.

Nothing in these findings is new to anyone who has seen new technology installed in organisations. The sheer waste of time and money involved is often staggering. And yet the very same mistakes are repeated year-in, year-out.

Content management software hasn't worked for a large number of organisations. But that does not mean it cannot work.

Here's what software companies need to do to help the situation. First of all, stop promising amazing things that aren't feasible. And, while they're at it, get off the technology trip.

Ban the use of the word 'cool' within the company and put the new-feature addicts into cold turkey; too many products are so feature-rich they give organisations gout.

The most important thing is to focus on simplicity and on making sure that a product does the fundamentals well.

Publishing content is not nearly as complex as it is made out to be. Yes, personalisation is nice, but better still is a sound process that gets out-of-date content off a site.

Software companies also need to make their sales targets realistic and learn that it is pointless trying to pressurise sales people into quoting figures they cannot deliver.

Finally, companies must make sure that they hire people who understand content, not just people who write code.

Some technical people realise that content is about communication; that running a website is like running a publication.

Many others see content as nothing more than bags of coal: something to be shifted from A to B. It is important that companies make this distinction, and that sales and sales support reflect it.

However, it would be too simple and convenient just to blame those awful technology companies for everybody's content management problems.

The truth is that organisations which buy technology are often willing fools in the process. Customers need to be realistic. New software will only solve a small part of your content problem. If you want great content you need great people far more than great software.

Ninety per cent of your success from a content perspective will be down to the quality of your people. Can they write and edit great content? If not, don't even think about buying software.

Put an editor in charge of the purchasing decision. By and large, IT managers don't understand content. Nor do most marketing executives. Your website is first and foremost a publication. Printers don't run newspapers and, likewise, IT shouldn't be in charge of content management.

Take time to properly specify what you need. What is it about so many organisations that they never seem to have the time to do things right?

Time and time again I come across organisations that decide they must purchase the software by such-and-such a date. Then they spend the next year trying to untangle the mess.

Get away from the over-the-top 'kitchen sink' specification. Specify what you need, not what you want. Yes, we'd all love the fancy extra features. But the more features your new software has, the more it will cost and the more complex it will be to operate. Remember: the kitchen-sink specification gets the kitchen-sink software.

Don't assume that the best solution is always going to be bespoke. Standardised solutions can deliver a faster, cheaper result that is often much more satisfactory to the person visiting your site.

Consultants and technology companies rub their hands with glee when they hear you say: 'Our problems are unique.' Living within boundaries is a great way to live within budgets.

Content management software has improved a lot in the past few years. Remember the vapour-ware that companies peddled three years ago? There is now robust software where that vapour used to be. But do you need such software?

Most companies don't. I know organisations successfully running massive websites with Microsoft FrontPage.

It's not easy, but they can do so because they have excellent editors and writers, and because they have defined, well-policed publishing processes and policies.

They'd like to buy content management software, but they recognise that the cost versus the return is hard to justify.

Remember that it is really hard to make publishing pay. It is really expensive to create quality content on an ongoing basis. It's hard work keeping a website up to date.

If you're investing in expensive software, you had better have a very good return on investment justification. Otherwise, you might be looking for a new job fairly soon.

Gerry McGovern is an author and consultant. He has recently published Content Critical and the Web Content Style Guide (FT Prentice Hall).

Like this story? Spread the news by clicking below:

 del.icio.us     Digg this     reddit!