Choosing a web designer can be difficult, especially if you do not know what to look for. Far too often I hear of web developers getting work because they know the right people. Frequently, this leads to the developer overcharging for services since the client does not really know what all goes into building a website. Here are a few issues you should explore before settling on a web developer.

First, does the developer actually have solid web experience. I know of several traditional marketing agencies that claim to know the online business when in fact they do not. Frequently, marketers (and far too often graphic designers) believe that a web site works similar to a pamphlet. It is easy to see where this fallacy originates. Both a pamphlet and web page are informational in nature. But here is where that logic breaks down: a website is interactive, a pamphlet is not. A pamphlet provides information that you can read and that is the end of the story. A website is a “place” where people do things such as clicking on links or signing up for mailing lists. A website has traffic which can be measured and refined. Through the web you can actually reach out and interact with your constituency. The possibilities extend way beyond just providing information (note: you cannot sign up for a mailing list or donate through a pamphlet). Make sure to ask your potential developer why a website is different from mailings, television ads, and other traditional media outlets. The answer “Well, it is just another place to provide information” is never good enough. You developer should have a deeper understanding of the Internet.

Secondly, capability and scalability. A certain developer may meet your needs today but tomorrow you may need to scale up your site and add certain features. Check their work to see if there is diversity in the type of sites they have built. Furthermore, talk to your developer about how easy it will be to add new systems or pages in the future. If the site is done right, it really should not be much of an issue to scale up and add new features to the site.

Finally, ask about pricing structure. A good Internet strategy and a well developed website can be expensive. However, you need to ask questions to make sure your developer is not taking advantage of you. For example, embedding a Twitter feed should not cost a fortune. I can do that in under a minute. Designing the page to integrate Twitter feeds and styling the feed to look nice is a legitimate expense. I could give you an endless list of examples and there would still be many more I would miss. The point is to have a discussion with your developer about what all will be involved.

By no means am I suggesting all developers out there will take advantage of you. I am merely suggesting that you shop around. Above are a few topics to begin you discussion with potential developers.

The next post will be August 18th.

So your campaign does not have all the resources in the world to support a super fancy website. This is a common problem. I know all campaigns want to find a cheap solution but also want to make sure they get some bang for their buck. The natural question thus becomes “What is the bare minimum I should have on my site?”

The biggest obstacle here is overcoming a common fallacy in terms of the Internet. Too many people think the Internet is just another place to post “billboards.” Information, often copied straight from the campaign pamphlet, is placed on static websites. A related problem arises where Facebook and Twitter accounts are created and then just sit idle during the campaign. I have seen this mistake done by organizations and businesses, but it is especially troubling when politicians fall victim to this error. The Internet can be used for so much more, and it makes little sense to hand out fliers with the website that contains the same information that the flier did.

What needs to be done to overcome this common reaction to the Internet is to sit down one evening with your committee and ask “How does the Internet relate to our campaign strategy?” Try not to think of the Internet as some sort of remote, detached, and amorphous part of the campaign. It is a tool that should be kept very close to you and used to accomplish specific, well defined goals. It can do so much more then just announce you are running for an office.

Now that there is an understanding of purpose, we can go back to the original question. “What is the bare minimum I should have on my site?” Part of the answer will depend on the office you are running for and where you have deemed the Internet to fall in you campaign strategy. However, there are a few things that you should consider. First, what sort of information can be posted on the web that cannot easily be put on a pamphlet, commercial, etc.? This could be a more personal biography. This category tends to be the one that is most used, but often leans towards the side of being a “billboard.” It is important and should be present, but will not make your website as useful can it could be. Secondly, and more importantly, add resources that encourage voters to visit more then once. This could be news, a blog, or a Twitter feed. It will get voters more engaged (and see your name and face more often) and show that you are actively committed to solving the needs of the constituency. Finally, a little interaction cannot hurt. For example, have a place for voters to submit comments or questions. It will help make the website part of your campaign, and not just another advertisement.

I hope you are not too disappointed that I am not providing a concise formula for what is the bare minimum needed in a campaign website. The truth is there is no one formula. Like I mentioned before, you have to determine what function your website will serve in your campaign. The minimalist website should be unique. What I have done is provide a rough outline to determine what that formula is for your own website. It may also help to talk to someone who has experience with websites. They can help you generate ideas. To often the extent of the strategy is simply just to have a website, period. The Internet deserves a bit more attention then that.

One final note: I know what you are probably thinking – “Doing more then just static information sounds expensive.” In some cases it may be, but if you get a developer who knows what they are doing and are honest about costs, the expense should be marginal. Embedding a Twitter feed just takes a few minutes and you should not be charged much if anything more for one. Talk with your developer or someone else who knows the Internet to find ways to reduce costs. Weigh the costs and benefits of each proposed element to the website in order to find what the minimum you will need. And what every you decide do not just have a website, have a useful “minimalist” site.

The next post will be May 26th.