> > I wonder... I am not arguing against content.
> > But what does content mean?
>
> it means exactly what you think it means
In the context of the original question and your answer I don't know what it
means; below your metaphor argues for *good* content, which is a
qualification (more below)
>
> i'll give you a metaphor
>
> what makes a grocery store successful?
>
> groceries
>
> ;o)
>
> i am, in a somewhat obscure way, trying to point out to steven that web
site
> success depends on content the same way that the success of a grocery
store
> depends on the groceries
But is the metaphor a grocery store, or all stores? We have practically no
grocery stores any more, just the supermarkets. Asda (now part of
Wal-mart), Tesco and Sainsbury lead at present. The content is not quite
identical and price variation might be described as random.
Why people choose one store over another in not likely to be content.
Sainsbury was the leader until a disastrous advertising campaign using John
Cleese. Now it risks going under, but the content has hardly changed. In
price terms it is more competitive than it used to be.
>
> i've been to grocery stores where the staff is surly and the aisles are
crowded,
> but that hardly matters
>
> if the selection is good, and the fruit is fresh, and the prices are
reasonable,
> it's a success
>
> same with a web site
>
> if the navigation stinks and the ads are annoying and the layout is
crappy, but
> the content is good, it's a success
>
> not as big a success as it would be if all the non-essentials were better,
but
> without content, it's a guaranteed failure
>
> content is the SINE QUA NON of web sites
>
>
> does that explanation help a little?
Well, no! It still says the same as you said before. Content is
essential - and I agree in the broadest terms. But that doesn't address
the question about success. The better the content the better the chance
of success certainly.
But success has to be defined too, as I was suggesting in my earlier mail.
Is success visitors or profit or teaching or spreading information or
spreading sedition or co-operating etc? Or perhaps winning awards?
If the single thing which **makes** success (the original question) is
content then web development withers, advertising withers, PR withers,
customer satisfaction withers... a working site withers...
I think you are saying getting content right is very important and I agree
with that. But what makes a site (or anything else) successful is a strong
mix of things in which what is generally described as 'luck' plays a part.
I am sure Steven takes your point very well that content is important, but I
am suggesting that that original question should be batted away because it
asks for the one thing that will give success. I say there is not and
cannot be any one thing.
It is the result of the mix in the light of the site objectives which
determines success. As a thought, if I set up a site to which I plan 1000
visits a day and 25 sales, because that is what I can supply and I don't
want the problems of greater production, is it successful to get 10,000
visits a day and 1,500 sales?
And before you answer think Hoover holidays (and in the UK a mobile -cell -
phone giveaway by Avon) where the results of oversubscription were
disastrous for the success and good name of the companies.
Joseph
>
>
> rudy
____ � The WDVL Discussion List from WDVL.COM � ____
To Join wdvltalk, Send An Email To: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] or
use the web interface http://e-newsletters.internet.com/discussionlists.html/
Send Your Posts To: [email protected]
To change subscription settings, add a password or view the web interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/read/?forum=wdvltalk
________________ http://www.wdvl.com _______________________
You are currently subscribed to wdvltalk as: [email protected]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at:
Jupitermedia Corp.
Attn: Discussion List Management
475 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10016
Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.
