IA and Marketing Sneezers (was Re: [Sigia-l] Site registration

[Alexander Johannesen]

On 8/26/05, Skot Nelson <skot at penguinstorm.com> wrote:
> I fail to understand people who won't register for the New York
> Times. All that good content (especially those Jayson Blair
> articles :D) for the simple exchange of some information. I'm onside.

I'm crazy enough not to want to register, so I'll tell it from my angle;

Every day there are bucketloads of links to articles and content that
comes into my path, and I need to make some quick descission as to
what to swallow and what to discard; I simply don't have enough time
for it all (at least while getting paid!). How do I determine what's
worth registering for?

The NYT has a two-three liner about the article, which normally don't
say more than what the link I clicked on in the fist place didn't tell
me. Unless I'm *dying* for that information, I'd simply kill the
window and move on. What am I dying for?

Most content out there is news, and most of the articles that pop up
that people link to are news articles. As news, I know that sooner or
later I'll get to it if it's important; others will comment on it,
other news-outlets will tell, and so forth. I have no need to be the
first to hear about some new fadangled thing; my life does not depend
on it.

We live in a faster world, the bloggers world. Links I have to stop
three seconds and fiddle with username and password (even if I'm using
Opera and can make this automatic!) it's simply not worth my time.
Maybe I've signed up at some time for them, but I can't remember, so
do I chuck in my username and password and hope, or click on the
register link, or do I go straight to "sign up"? And *what* am I
signing up for? I have to sign up to get content for free? I know
there's no such thing as a free lunch, so what gives? The content
never seems to be important enough to fix all of these issues when I
get to these pages ;

   http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/25/technology/circuits/25doll.html&OP=2c2078eQ2Fc528c9Q25Q7CIQ27Q25Q25Facaoo(coUca(cF2Q7CnYQ25XQ25Q23xcQ7CQ5EQ27Q7ClQ5EFIca(9Q25XXqnF!X

> For lesser established sites, a "register and get MORE content" is
> probably a better strategy. Also good for many established sites too.
> This gives me a chance to nose around, check it out and decide if the
> higher value content is worth trading my info for.

The latest service I'm developing for where I work has anonymous
access, registered access, registered internal access and staff
access, plus admin access. We show everything, but show you the full
details (and links) if you've got the access rights to certain
resources. Maybe it will be enough so that people will register for
the full shebang (free to register, of course) but testing shows that
people do get annoyed with it no matter the value of registering. (In
our case, registering is a licensing issue, not marketing) Why is the
internet becoming more restricted in certain areas while becoming more
open in others?

> I'm continually impressed by sites that don't ask me to register and
> continue to provide substantial free content - Fast Company is one.
> I'm also continually amazed that they're in business.

People are surprised that Craigs List is in business too. :)

> >> c. Neither is it
> >> mandatory for targeted marketing.
> 
> Wow. I'm intrigued to understand how marketing departments are
> supposed to target an audience without gathering information.

Gathering information is a lot more than registering users.

> Certainly direct marketing information can be purchased, but this is
> a dubious practice - even more so online.

Agreed. Marketing information is most of the time a static snapshot of
the current state / trend of things, rarely about adopting to what
users want, etc.


Alex
-- 
"Ultimately, all things are known because you want to believe you know."
                                                         - Frank Herbert
__ http://shelter.nu/ __________________________________________________