doh ! doh ! doh !

It's not that unusual for a direct marketing email to fail to render [show] in the receiver's inbox. Well this one's a doozy. Below is just a fiftieth [yes, 1/50th] of the code which appeared when I opened this email:

 

But it gets worse. This was from a digital marketing company promoting their new website. As I said; triple doh!

There was a follow-up email half an hour later, but it said:

"Note: A previous version of this email contained an image that did not render correctly in some email clients. We are re-sending to those affected and we apologize for any confusion."

In my opinion, a less formal approach would have been better. Why not admit to the error rather than - seemingly - blaming the technology of the receiver.  

Oh, by the way, I'll refrain from naming the company - they should be squirming enough as it is.

is this why International Business Machines became IBM?

... so they could get their email address on contact forms?

 

I was filling in a form to get a free IBM report - but sadly there was a limit in the amount of characters I could enter for my email address ...

 

Yep, two characters short. Schoolchild error.

 

 

long-lost relation[ship]

I got this email, ironically it's about relationship marketing. Shame I haven't owned a Ford for over 35 years.

guess the price ...

I don't really need to say anything about this web page do I?

every organizations should have one ...

... so congratulations to Bath University. Reasonable wage too - and it doesn't ask for any 'techie' qualification, this is for a writer not a website developer.

no place for no space

I was buying something on the IKEA website for the first time - but was confused when it wouldn't recognise my postcode

 

After a few attempts I used my experience from about 15 years ago when form developers expected the customer to know what those developers were thinking when they designed forms - and I put a space between the first and second parts of the postcode.

 

 

Now, I now postcodes should be split - but how many people know that ... or are even bothered?  

 

My point is that the postcode field in the form can be easily set up to accept postcodes as one 'word' or split. Just plain bad practice from whoever designed the form.

Footnote: when I got confimation of the order the delivery was for 9 days later. I'm not in a hurry for the product - but that's just not good enough.

right ... but wrong

This one has left me without a comment to make.

 

I was trying to pay a bill to Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council. I tried four times and each time ended up with this message.

 

Yep - apparently the card details are correct but there is a problem with the card details? Try another card? This is my only debit card - they charge extra for using a credit card.

 

I'll wait until they send me a rude letter about the bill not being paid. 

 

Update: when I tried the same card a week later, and inputted the same data - it worked. This suggests the problem was with the online system, not me or my card.

getting your act together...

On the Andrew Marr show this morning was a singer I had never heard of - and as I liked his sound I looked him up on Google. Dan Owen's stage name is 'Blues Boy Dan' - and a search brought up website, Facebook page and Twitter presence. The latter seems to be Dan's communication of choice, with plenty of entries. Similarly, Facebook has consistent updates. The website however - and it is top of the SERP - showed signs of neglect. I had thought that I would like to see him live, so I went to the 'gigs' page and got this.

 

Yep, no gigs after December 2012. Given that he was on the BBC to plug his new single, I thought this odd. So I went back to the social media sites, and sure enough there was a link to 'live' page. Well, let's ignore the fact that the link  went to a dead page as I clicked on the 'live' link which took me to a page called 'gig'. But hold on, I thought, this is different to the previous gigs page [shown above].

 

I then realised that I was now on www.bluesboydanowen and the previous site was www.bluesboydan.co.uk. Hmmm, I thought - 'fansite'? But no, both seemed to be 'official'. You cannot look up ownership details of .co.uk domains [it's a Data Protection Act thing] - but the .com is owned by Contact Privacy Inc of Toronto, Canada - a company that registers sites for folk who wish to protect their privacy.

 

All in all then, no great mystery or problem with the domains and sites. I would suspect the .co.uk was an early effort from Dan's management - or even him - as it is on a self-build hosting site. I also suspect that as he has become more well known Dan has taken on a manager or agent who has organized the new .com site.

 

So here's my issue. Dan is obviously a great talent. His management may know their way around the music business - but they don't know much about SEO as the redundant .co.uk is top of the SERP and the .com nowhere. Is it  that big a deal? Probably not, the guy's going to be a success anyway - but I just like to see things done right. In this case, it is just as easy as getting it wrong.

Shell: driving visitors in circles

I've been a member of Shell Drivers Club for a long time [I'd guess at around 25 years] and my card - that has to be swiped when you purchase petrol - stopped working properly. So I rang them up and was advised to pick up a new card in a petrol station and register it online - from there the new card's number could be transferred to my account.

 

So I collected a card, and went to this web page which seemed to offer the link I needed. And when I clicked on the link went to - what seemed to be - the right page.

However [and let's ignore the fact the the 'here' link was not identified as a link until you scroll over it] and I was taken to - regular readers will be ahead of me here -  this page

Yep ... back where I started. Of course I tried it a few times, but the same result. So I've sent them an email, I'll let you know the response.

celebrity cook's website leaves a bitter taste

OK, so tell me I don't keep up with TV events [I don't] but on the BBC's breakfast show there was a celebrity chef called Gizzi Erskine who I had never seen before. Now, I don't mind admitting I was taken by how attractive she is and so I did what is now the norm – I Googled her [hey, I'm a man :-)]. Top of the SERP was GizziErskine.com – so I switched from admirer to website analyst, and I wasn't as impressed with the website as I was with the person.

 The first thing I noticed was that the textual content switched to and from the first and third person ['I like …' / 'Gizzi is …'] – I prefer the more personal first person, but choose one and stick with it.

Then I saw the 'on TV' section, expecting to be able to see her appearance on the BBC that I had seen a couple of hours earlier? But no, the two links took me to the ITV's This Morning home page. The other 'on TV' took me to a page on rachaelray.com/blogs which said: 'No Posts. Not Found. Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.' Hmmm.

On then to Gizzi's blog – but the last entry was November last year. A quick look at the blog's archive suggests that it was started with the best of intentions, but then became little more than a series of recipes – which I would guess are in Gizzi's book or elsewhere on the website. Perhaps a prime example of what I always say about blogs being time consuming.

So I then checked the 'page info' for the latest page update – and found that it was '28 March 2013 09:45:53' – which was the time I arrived on the site. Coincidence, or some software running on the site which caused it to record an 'update' every time someone arrived at the site? [Google likes websites that are frequently updated].

I am also concerned at the '© Random House Group Ltd' at the bottom of the page. I will assume Gizzi will have signed a similar contract with her book publishers to the ones I sign with mine. Those state that the contents of the book[s] are copyright to me. I would expect similar with the associated website.

So there you go – I could use this website as case study in 'what could have been', Gizzi has all the attributes to have a 'must visit' web presence, but she hasn't. I wonder whose fault that is?