“I sympathize with your situation, and it’s one that’s all too common: Lack of clear thinking and objective facts leads to decision-making based on power, position, and experience, with conflicts resolved along these lines.

“As is so often the case with start-ups, it appears that the hard conversations around just who the customers are and the fundamental nature of the business were never conducted, or at least never resolved clearly or correctly. And in the middle of this the CMO was brought in and charged with, among other things, redoing the website. ‘We signed a term sheet! Quick, get me marketing! We need Marketing!’

“In the minds of the leaders of many technology-centric companies, marketing = ‘Explaining to the world why I, the inventor, am a genius—using my words, of course.’

“This turns into directives to the new CMO, such as, ‘Re-do the website!’

“The superior approach, proven time and again, is to get objective information straight from the market—customers and potential customers—and then use that to make recommendations to the management team. The goal is to drive fact-based decision making, which is resolved through the creation of a simple document that would contain the elements of a creative brief. In the case of a site or other marketing material, the work product would be judged based on the implementation of the document.

“If this would have been done, the project’s goals would have probably been different.

“And in the absence of this approach, each viewer judges the site by comparing it to what’s in his mind. Of course everyone’s a critic of marketing materials (advertising, PR, websites) because the general perception is that anyone can do the work, and without objective measures of success, or the ability to clearly tie effort to results, every viewpoint seems equally valid.

“Because the basic issues about the company appear not to have been resolved or the wrong decisions made and wrong project goals selected, viewers are judging both the muddled thinking about the company (and the target customers) and the explanation of those ideas.

“Topline comments about the new [company name withheld] website (and the project goals you listed):

(1) Your company’s target customer is the owner of the site that will use your services. There is no need to introduce a brand that competes with your customer’s brand. In addition, with limited resources and a lot of noise in the marketplace, you need to focus your resources on the one brand that matters: The name of the company.

“Product- or service-specific names can be added on to the company name. . . . You could also use a ‘Powered by’ ingredient brand, which is the approach I implemented at CoreStreet, and which you appear to use in your fashion example. However, [your company] should be the focus; the ingredient brand is designed solely as a means to get other potential target customers to know that you’re out there and to make an inquiry.

(2) The site should speak to your target customers and should deliver this simple value proposition:

• Signing up for [company's] service is the easy, low risk way to boost your site’s ROI.
• You will make more money using our service than you will with any other solution
• You don’t have to believe us or trust us because . . .
  • You don’t have to invest any significant time or money to get started.
  • If you ever want to leave, we make that easy, too. (We’d hate to see you go, but staying is your choice, not your contractual obligation.)

• How can you be certain that your current solution is the best one? After all, other companies you trust have made the decision to use usor are us right now. And as more people—possibly your boss or his boss or your peers—learn about us, you need to defend your current choice, and that means at least meeting with us and taking a close look.

“One wouldn’t use those exact words, but would choose language that conveys that sense.

(3) There need not be anything flashy about delivering this message. And given the froth in the market, and since flash is often used when there is no content, erring on the side of straightforward and clear—dry, even—will make it easier for prospective customers to understand what you do and help convince themselves that they should invest the time to make an inquiry.

Along these lines, the customer quotes are critical, but they’re too over-the-top. (The CEO of [client company], probably your most important endorser, sounds almost breathless.)

Recognizing the fact that your customers don’t want to have their details revealed for all to see, these still need to be case studies, objective and believable.

There is some cognitive dissonance around this in two regards, since if you’re so great . . .

• Why are these companies so willing to endorse you publicly?
• Why is [client company] the only well-known company?

Also, why bury the fact that do you do business with [large number of] companies?

(4) Analysts may be interested in the creation of a new category and the intellectual pursuit of the distinctions [between established categories]. However, this distinction is really a distraction that is not meaningful for your customers. Their language (and that of their bosses and the owners of their companies) is revenue, profit, ROI, and the like. Win them over by talking to them in the language that matters to them. Save the rest for a white paper and an analyst presentation.

“If the company becomes very successful, then you’ll look smart at a conference in six months to a year by describing the theoretical underpinnings of the firm. Until then, get the company, including the sales and marketing effort, focused on what it takes to be successful: Making a difference in the lives of your customers by helping them increase the ROI of their sites.

“There’s a long list of specific items that should be changed, including simplifying the offering and creating useful category-specific examples and case studies, but they all flow from the basic points above, which should remain the focus of discussion until they’re resolved.”

Good luck–

Lee