If you spend some time on this site you will have realised just how firmly I believe that responsibility - and control - of the organization's web presence
must be with marketers [albeit, with a caveat : marketers that know what they are doing].
Of course I recognise the input of others - designers, programmers, copy writers and so on - but the decision making must be made be
someone who understands the website's importance in the organization's communications strategy.
To that end an analogy : website development and movie making.
A movie is made using the combination of a number of skill sets, including: camera operators, sound technicians, costume-makers,
location finders, set designers, script writers, actors and so on and so on. For a film to succeed these all need to be at - or near -
the top of their game. But if they all did an outstanding job in isolation they will not produce a block buster. For that to happen
you need someone who can pull all those skills together in a common aim. Someone who can combine the individual parts to make a
You need an excellent director.
So it is with website development. The greatest practitioners of the various web design skill-sets cannot be successful in isolation.
In much the same way as a fabulous camerawork and scenery cannot make up for wooden acting or terrible scripts, so fantastic design cannot
make up for rubbish content. And poor navigation will cancel out excellent content if users cannot find that content.
You need a manager - a director if you will. Be here's the kicker - that director must be someone who sees the bigger picture
of what the website's objectives are within the wider context of the organization's marketing and communications objectives. Sure,
there will be exceptions - but in the majority of cases, that person will have to know about strategic marketing.
Maybe I've just created a new job, or a least a new job-title - the website director. Hmm, I like it - I wonder if it will
This musing was written circa 2006/7