The Spiral Insider

Top 10 Sites: Eye Surgery – Part 3

rubinsky — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:13:57 +0000

Results: Top 10 Eye Center Websites

Here are the results of my website competitive review for eye surgery. Only four sites ended up in my “Great” sites folder which means I had to go back through the “Passable” sites to find some that stood out to make a top 10 list. Also, I didn’t find any one site that I thought did everything “right” from an internet marketing perspective. However, since my goal is to convince my client that his site looks pretty bad and that he needs a new one, I want to create a top 10 list that is well-rounded and has all different kinds of websites that, together, illuminate all the elements that create Visual Value.

#1 - Pacific Vision Institute

Initial Attractiveness – YES!; Soothing, yet crisp and professional
Creative is on target – Yes; Lifestyle and regional focus
Clear Primary Call to Action & Associated Functionality – No
Intuitive Site Navigation – Yes; clear, simple and easy
Intuitive Relational Content – Yes; and it does not usurp the main content area for attention; kudos!
Balanced Dynamic Functionality – There is very little dynamic content on this site, yet the site is able to exude the sense of excellence and technological prowess through understatement.

#2 EyeTech Lasik

Initial Attractiveness – Yes; However, there is a little bit of visual imbalance with the content below the main graphic.
Creative is on target – Yes; Banner messaging, which rotates, is particularly engaging
Clear Primary Call to Action & Associated Functionality – YES!; Both phone number and form with call to action are placed prominently, yet are unobtrusive so a user can peruse the site easily
Intuitive Site Navigation – Yes
Intuitive Relational Content – Yes; but it’s not integrated that well with the overall design; looks like it was tacked on
Balanced Dynamic Functionality – Yes

#3 Hines Sight

Initial Attractiveness – Yes
Creative is on target – Yes, captures both the regional outdoorsy sporting lifestyle folks as well as Denver Broncos connection; Dr Hines is the “official” eye doctor/surgeon for the Denver Broncos.
Clear Primary Call to Action & Associated Functionality – No
Intuitive Site Navigation – No, but uses great relational paths
Intuitive Relational Content – YES; good use of relational content to draw users down their own paths
Balanced Dynamic Functionality – YES; there’s a lot of dynamic content here, yet it all works and does not “fight” each other for your attention. They did a good job optimizing the download/streaming process as well and the site loads fairly quickly given the amount of dynamic content.

: #4 Ken Moadel, MD

Initial Attractiveness – Yes; this site has an obvious specific audience in mind; It’s male-centric with a focus on tech and sports.
Creative is on target – Yes; Here’s an example of how a company can take a template and bring it to the next level with exciting unique content that is relevant to a specific audience or consumer base
Clear Primary Call to Action & Associated Functionality – No/Yes; This is one of the few sites I saw that successfully balanced multiple calls to action within the main content area – they did an exceptional job of it.
Intuitive Site Navigation – No
Intuitive Relational Content – YES!; this site makes up for lack of intuitive navigation by offering many balanced relational paths for users. It would be very easy for this site to be overwhelming due to the overabundance of content, yet it is perfectly balanced visually so it is not overwhelming
Balanced Dynamic Functionality – Yes; It would have been all too easy for the site producers to ruin this site with a bad audio clip or an awful rotating graphic, yet they did not do it. It is like they pushed it to the edge of acceptability and then stopped before they overdid it.

#5 Christianbury Eye Center

Initial Attractiveness - Yes; This site does something interesting by breaking up one long image into several blocks. This creates a visual tension that is engaging. The woman is running freely (the freedom of seeing clearly without glasses) yet because the image is methodically broken up, the viewer is engaged in the tension that all is not perfect – because perfection can only be achieved by fixing your vision. Of all the sites I looked at, this one kept lingering in my mind because of that tension. What’s even more impressive is that this is a stock photo that I saw in several other sites yet the designer took it and made completely unique despite it’s ubiquitousness.
Creative is on target – Yes BUT the content could have focused more on consumer issues/needs rather than products. However, if you hover over each of the four long blocks in the main area, a “hidden” consumer-focused graphic comes into view. This puts the onus on the user to find the hidden content which is a liability to this site. The “hidden” content is excellent.
Clear Primary Call to Action & Associated Functionality – No; this site could have done a better job with Call to Action
Intuitive Site Navigation – No
Intuitive Relational Content – Yes/No – See above for more info
Balanced Dynamic Functionality – Yes; site is visually interesting without being distracting or overwhelming. Site loads quickly.

: #6 Pacific Laser Eye Center

Initial Attractiveness – Yes. This site does something that could have felt “gimmicky” yet somehow did not; when you first load the site, it’s completely blurry and it eventually comes into focus. It caught my attention and made me smile. It gave me what I call the “warm fuzzies” which is something that is entirely difficult to do given the nature of my search. Normally, a site with something on the gimmicky side like this would quickly fade in my memory but then the banner images captured my attention. The banner has several images that slowly rotate through. Each one starts off blurry and slowly gets clearer. The one above says “Imagine… seeing the leaves on trees again.” Overall, the site quickly made me feel as if these people “get it.” There is nothing like being able to see leaves clearly. Then I noticed one more thing that further pulled me in, 4 little tabs at the top of the page that arrange content by your age: “For your 20s,” “For your 30′s,” “For your 40′s,” “For your 50′s & Better.” At this point they stole my heart. I have been looking at eye surgery centers for months now and have even visited several for free exams. I have asked about my concerns as related to the aging process and I was brushed off by everyone I spoke to. I have looked at hundreds of sites and this is the first one that at least considered addressing my concerns.
Creative is on target – Yes (see above). One thing that is a negative about this site is that the initial creative is great but the deeper content is flat and boring – it’s not engaging after that. They are all cover and no book. This counteracts and nullifys the great work they did initially grabbing my attention. They need to work on fixing this by offering: calls to action (short inline forms on each page would work great), better written internal content and related graphics.
Clear Primary Call to Action & Associated Functionality – No; Needs serious work.
Intuitive Site Navigation – No.
Intuitive Relational Content – Yes! The alternate content path by age range is exceptional.
Balanced Dynamic Functionality – Yes. The initial load rate that is fuzzy might loose potential consumers, however, the site was coded so that once you’ve been there, it always shows you the “in-focus” version so you don’t have to wait for it to load and zoom into focus. This was well conceived and planned.

#7 Larson Eye Center

Initial Attractiveness – Yes. This site did not originally land in my “Great” folder but of all the sites with a technology focus, this was among the best. If you compare it to #1, The Pacific Vision Institute, it does not do as good a job of relating the idea of excellence. Here’s why: they tell you they are excellent first before they show you how excellent they are. We all know that when someone tells us they are excellent, we are a little turned off. What we want is someone else, a non-partial person, to tell us how excellent Larson Eye Center is.
Creative is on target – Yes
Clear Primary Call to Action & Associated Functionality – Yes, but not as prominent as it could be. The Phone number placement is clear and excellent but for potential consumers who do not want to call, it is not quickly noticeable where to go. You have to scroll down the page to get to the inline “Ask a Question” form, This form should be shifted up the page so users do not have to scroll to find it.
Intuitive Site Navigation – No
Intuitive Relational Content – No
Balanced Dynamic Functionality – No; the flash banner takes too long to load

: #8 William Goldstein, MD

Initial Attractiveness – Yes
Creative is on target – Yes, this site is a little overwhelming visually. They made a great choice by featuring what the viewer perceives to be a “customer” in the banner but it visually fights with the image of the doctor below it. This site looks like it’s struggling with not having one unique value proposition. Do they want to be “LASIK in Michigan” or do they want to be “America’s Top Ophthalmologist” or do they want to be the “easy” solution: “20/20 Vision has never been easier” or do they want to be “William Goldstein, MD”? They have a minor identity crisis which they need to clarify.
Clear Primary Call to Action & Associated Functionality – Yes, could use an inline form
Intuitive Site Navigation – Yes
Intuitive Relational Content – Yes, The calendar link to schedule an appointment is well done
Balanced Dynamic Functionality – Yes

: #9 Pacific Laser Eye Center

Initial Attractiveness – Yes
Creative is on target – Yes
Clear Primary Call to Action & Associated Functionality – Yes, phone number is prominent but they could use an inline form
Intuitive Site Navigation – No
Intuitive Relational Content – No
Balanced Dynamic Functionality – No; the flash banner takes way too long to load and takes up too much screen space so that there’s not a lot of extra room for call to action and value proposition.

: #10 Prado Vision

Initial Attractiveness – Yes; This is the only site I saw that is about LASIK as style/fashion. They do a lovely job of it. It’s also quite amazing that this site was created in 2004 yet is still viable and on target. One thing they did was photograph real customers for the site in very stylish sets; the photos then acted as testimonials. This is extremely engaging because they are showing us results instead of telling us they get results. They were ahead of their time in the design of this site.
Creative is on target – Yes, for a niche market focused on style. They may need to consider developing an alternate UVP given the current economic climate. The site looks “expensive.”
Clear Primary Call to Action & Associated Functionality – No; they need to develop this. There’s a form at the end of the page if you scroll but it does not have an engaging call to action or page placement
Intuitive Site Navigation – No
Intuitive Relational Content – No
Balanced Dynamic Functionality – Yes, this site is really quick. Given the average time you have to deliver the content users are looking for — about 3 seconds*, they have this nailed.

*Most of the recent studies show that a user will leave your site if they do not see what they are looking for within the first 3 seconds. You can quickly assess if are not engaging your consumers by checking your site’s “bounce rate.” The higher the bounce rate, the more serious the problem. This “3 second rule” is also why it is highly important to not slow down your site with too much dynamic content.

Top 10 Sites: Eye Surgery – Part 2

rubinsky — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 16:34:53 +0000

Industry & Competitive Website Review
This is where I look at websites of competitors. I look at sites that my client perceives as the competition and I also research other websites that may also be “invisible” to my client. I also want to look at related sites and industries such as plastic surgeons, optical centers, etc.

I look at the competitors pointed out to me by my client. It’s a small list of only four local competitors. I also decide to do a Google search on “eye surgery doctor” and look at:

Every site listed in the natural/organic search results in the first 20 Google pages, about 200 sites
Every site that appears as a sponsored link in the first 3 Google pages
Every site that appears under “more sponsored links” at the end of page 3

I purposely do not specify the search to my locale or region because I want to see sites from all over the U.S. so I can see a lot of different messaging and creative.

In the sponsored section, I see many of the same regional or local providers I was already aware of but also see some that my client did not mention. This is important because I consider them to be local competitors even though my client does not. A local competitor like this can easily be skimming local leads off the internet, especially if they have a passable website. My client’s website is so bad, it’s almost embarrassing.

I review the websites and categorize them as follows:

Bad – After I look at about 20 sites, I stop saving the “Bad” ones because they are so awful I can’t imagine why I even want to save them or why they are still up on the internet at all. They look shabby and unprofessional. My thinking is that any eye surgery doctor will be negatively affected by such a site. If the site looks unprofessional, how professional can the doctor be?
Passable – Most of the websites I look at fall into this area. Along the way, I create the following sub-categories:
- Redundant Templates – These are the sites that look almost exactly the same because the eye center invested in a “template” you can buy online; these are highly affordable which is why so many websites look the same. The problem with these kinds of templates is that after they are on the market for a year or so you end up with a lot of websites that look the same. For businesses, it is hard to distinguish yourself from the competition if your competitor looks the same as you do and says the same things as you do. (By buying templates, businesses actually take part in diluting their own brands.)
- People-centric – These are sites that look like the main focus is people
- Tech-centric – These are sites that look like the main focus is technology
- Sports-centric – These are sites that are going after a specific marketing niche: Eye Surgery for professional athletes or sports enthusiasts.
- Schizophrenic - These are sites that have so many messages, images and/or animations that there is no focal point to the site nor is it clear what the main focus is.
- Price-centric – These are sites in which the most prominent thing on the site is a price/offer
- Dr is the brand – These are sites in which the Dr is the brand instead of the name of the eye center
Great Sites – Only four sites ended up in my “Great” sites folder which means I have to go back through the “Passable” sites to find some that stand out to make a top 10 list. Also, I didn’t find any one site that I thought did everything “right” from an internet marketing perspective. However, since my goal is to convince my client that his site looks pretty bad, I want to create a top 10 list that is well-rounded and has all different kinds of websites that, together, illuminate all the elements that create Visual Value.

Top 10 Sites: Eye Surgery – Part 1

rubinsky — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 20:10:25 +0000

My website sucked until recently and I’ve done a lot of talking over the years about websites that suck. But one mystery seems to haunt almost every potential client I speak with. It goes something like this, “I know my site sucks but I’m not exactly sure why.”

When clients come to me with this observation I usually conduct a strategic marketing needs analysis but the truth is people don’t want to pay for a needs analysis. Clients want to pay for something “real” like a new site that doesn’t suck.

The problem is, though, that without demystifying the problems of why a site sucks, the chances are that you’ll just create another site that sucks. It might look prettier but it will still suck.

Instead of bloviating on and on about my high ideals about strategy and websites, I thought I’d actually try to show you a bit about my process through some research I’m doing for an actual client.

Client & Situation
My client is an eye surgery center that specializes in cataract and vision correction surgery. I have been working with this client for several years on other projects but I have been keen on redesigning the website because it is poorly designed and organized and the content is not focused on consumer needs. Since my client is uncovinced he needs a new website, I need to show him why he needs a new site. One way to do this is to show him some competitive websites that are doing a great a job with their websites.

This is what I think of as comparing Visual Value. If the competitive websites are a lot more attractive than the client’s site, the client may be compelled to do something about fixing his own website.

Here’s my basic criteria for Assessing a Website’s Visual Value:

Initial Attractiveness – Do you want to stay and look at the site or do you want to leave?
Creative is on target – the site messaging (copy, images, visual animations, etc.) engages site visitors. The messaging speaks to the needs and wants of the potential consumer. The site messaging is unique and different than the competitors and is in alignment with the services (or products) offered.
Clear Primary Call to Action & Associated Functionality – There’s a clear primary call to action that enables a site to easily collect leads. Sites with too many conflicting calls to action are penalized as this usually just confuses users. However, there are cases when many calls to action work and sites that can pull this off are highly prized.
Intuitive Site Navigation – Does the site navigation make sense to the user or is it difficult to figure out? Sites that categorize based on consumer needs are more highly ranked than sites that use traditional categories.
Intuitive Relational Content – Does the secondary content on the site make sense? Is it easy or confusing for users to choose relational paths? (Most first-time website users will choose a relational content path over using your site’s navigation. Are you correctly placing the content they are looking for in their path?)
Balanced Dynamic Functionality – The dynamic features on the site are balanced, use a minimum amount of bandwidth and are easy to understand and use. Many site producers today seem to think that they should bombard users with several dynamic features all at once. This only serves to drive your potential customer away.
1. NOTE: For example, the site may load several flash animations, audio, a whirling logo, and a video upon initial load. It’s like someone left everything on in your car yesterday so that when you go to start it today, the windshield wipers go off, the radio is blaring, someone moved the seat, the defroster blasts off on high speed and your right turn signal is on. It’s overwhelming NOT engaging.