That’s the question that kicked off the discussion at a session I attended on Integrated Fundraising at the recent Direct Marketing Association conference in D.C. As soon as it was asked five different attendees offered five different scenarios on “ownership.” Accompanying most of their remarks were slightly snide references to the web staff involved and frustrations surrounding getting that staff to address needs in a timely manner.
As one of those web staff people, it was hard for me not to take offense to both the tone and the terminology. Own? From my perspective, the organization owns the site – and in the best of all possible worlds each division is informing and supporting that presence. Ownership, in this context, is a collaborative process and one that often requires reconciling a number of inputs. The role of web staff is to guide those inputs alongside the strategic goals of the organization on a parallel track with [ever emerging] web technologies and trends.
But as nearly all business functions are now filtered through the web, web properties (and subsequently, web content) are highly charged topics. As someone who was around during the early days, when no one seemed to care what the webmaster did, the contrast is striking. Today, when it comes to web properties, it seems everyone wants to own them but no one wants to support them.
Every webmaster knows only too well how vulnerable their work is to criticism by their colleagues. Yet, when it comes to constructive input or administrative support – the work required to sustain a web presence, those same colleagues seem almost eager to defer to your expertise.
Which brings me to this blog and why I’m posting here today…Webmasters and web marketers out there, I share your frustration. But I also think there’s a lot we can learn from each other. As most of you who are reading this know, the unique properties of the web can allow you to transform your organization online. Through the web, the divisional lines of an organization can be blurred as the focus shifts (rightfully) on the visitor (the end-user of our parlance). How to serve that visitor (or potential
visitor) most effectively is the goal…cutting through the internal politics, the challenge.
So who owns your site? And how is that going? Lets talk about it.
Best,
TW
Comments (5)
I completely agree. We are having that struggle right now. Suddenly the spotlight is on the Web site. Different departments are trying to reorganize us into their area of "ownership." A big change for our tiny staff that is used to running the show under the radar on a shoestring budget. However, now that everyone wants a piece of us, we can't meet everyone's needs on that budget or with the resources we have. We are drowning and, to top it off, are being treated disrespectfully by others who now think they know better and want to tell us what to do. It is frustrating and demoralizing.
I'd love to hear what others are doing to gain control over this type of situation.
Posted by skh | March 30, 2007 9:38 AM
Posted on March 30, 2007 09:38
He who hath the resources, owns the property. That seems to be the scenario we're operating under for our intranet these days. Most departments want to post content to our intranet, but no one is stepping forward to manage the entire site, because no one has the operational bandwith -- or so they say.
My other words of wisdom today are, "Beware of IT people in sheep's clothing". IT budgets are being ratcheted down these days by demands for ROI, and I've noticed a corresponding decline in web support. We were recently floored by an IT director who approached our Communications department, asking it to take over some major responsibilities regarding a SharePoint server that operates our intranet, "because you guys are the ones who use it most." Doing so, would "relieve him of an FTE," he explained.
Posted by weblackey | March 30, 2007 10:19 AM
Posted on March 30, 2007 10:19
In my company, the Online Marketing and Communications department "owns" the website, (the real estate, if you will), the business area we serve internally "owns" the content and, perhaps, "owns" or shares the audience.
My role as a client service rep (we have developers who do the coding) is to provide strategic communications counsel to the client in determining how best to achieve their goals online, and to play gatekeeper on the requests from my clients for changes or additions to our web presence.
In that latter role, I act as a steward of the corporate image and can tell a client "no" to a request I believe will make the company look bad.
Works pretty well, and though we don't always have that seat at the planning table for all our internal clients, we're slowing earning that place.
Michael Clendenin
Posted by Michael Clendenin | April 2, 2007 10:29 AM
Posted on April 2, 2007 10:29
Ownership per se is based on who controls the site or tool but "control", in my experience, is where the issue breaks down. In my company our ownership model is supposedly like Michael's but is in reality like weblackey's.
I manage our intranet on behalf of the corporation, post content for any and all departments, and my department (Employee Communications) supposedly owns the site and the tools on it (at least when it comes to looking for a head to roll). I write the guidelines for site use and I am supposed to enforce these. I, however, need to enlist IT when I want to make some major administrative changes to the tools.
IT doesn't like asking for permission to post content (since they think everything they do is important to everyone and in earlier days they would've just sent out an e-mail to everyone) so they assume that they have free rein when they need to use the tools for their own purposes and can operate above the law. They never take ownership if it involves working to bring another group in line, they never take ownership when it means handling regular maintenance, but they take ownership when it suits them and lets them post or send out a message they know wouldn't pass muster.
I have no cross-departmental authority so I can't enforce any rules when IT's concerned. I can refuse to provide access to non-IT offenders, but IT can set themselves up as administrators for any of our tools and I am, therefore, but an owner on paper, a powerless figurehead, a toothless tiger.
Ownership is useless without the power to enforce guidelines.
Posted by Brett Tremblay | April 4, 2007 12:43 PM
Posted on April 4, 2007 12:43
Thanks for the great comments. I had posted the original message just prior to a long-delayed vacation and wondered if I didn't sound just a bit, well, harsh. What you've collectively confirmed is that many organizations are struggling with ownership and management issues (no matter how you structure it up). So thank you for validating my pre-vacation frustration!
Posted by Todd Whitley | April 12, 2007 9:50 PM
Posted on April 12, 2007 21:50