As a followup to last week's 10 things to have on your home page, here are some (even more helpful, I think) tips on what *not* to have on your web page.
I can't even express how much I agree with #1. I had a marketing consultant a few years ago insist on having her clients put their pictures and a personal letter right on their home page (she drinks her own Kool-Aid, at least). I grasped the "folksy," one-on-one approach, but I thought the overriding effect was simply unprofessional. She actually was the catalyst for getting going with Managed Services, but once the business model and concepts were out there, the follow-on advice for marketing it seemed "overly guerilla" and annoying.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Sunday, April 22, 2007
10 Rules for Your Small Business Home Page
Here's some sage advice about keeping your business web page succinct and effective. I believe it was Winston Churchill who said, "Be brief, be concise, and be seated." And so it is with web pages, I believe.
It's always a struggle for me, since I do the content for our website, to be descriptive enough to pique interest and get people to understand how *differently* we do things, yet not get to be so technical and such a bulk of words that it all gets ignored. I find help in tools like bulletpoints and headlines.
It's always a struggle for me, since I do the content for our website, to be descriptive enough to pique interest and get people to understand how *differently* we do things, yet not get to be so technical and such a bulk of words that it all gets ignored. I find help in tools like bulletpoints and headlines.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Linux in the Enterprise, But Maybe Not Yet Small Biz
Linux is certainly graduating from its roots as a "enthusiast-only" technology. Foxtrot has delivered a few systems, and we keep a few "sandbox" PCs here in the shop loaded up with different distros, just for experimenting and what-not.
I know some small businesses who have embraced - and installed - Linux, but typically only on a server or two. I think the main updraft for Linux-on-the-desktop will be larger enterprise customers. HP's claims validate this, and we're even starting to see "bake-off" articles where distros are actually compared based specifically on their enterprise supportability and viability.
For the meantime, in the small business space I think Linux-on-the-desktop might actually best be reserved for "blank slate" users, where little technology infrastrucutre exists and users' knowledge of Windows is not quite so deep.
The biggest hurdle for Linux in small business, however, is probably the lack of well-developed vertical apps. Yes, I understand there are CRM apps, financials apps, and lots of solutions, but none of these solutions that I've seen are anywhere as easy-to-use, or as well-supported, as the Windows world likes of Quickbooks, Act! Goldmine, etc. Comments from the legion of Linux blog-crawlers are encouraged! I'm Always interested to hear about new solutions out there.
I know some small businesses who have embraced - and installed - Linux, but typically only on a server or two. I think the main updraft for Linux-on-the-desktop will be larger enterprise customers. HP's claims validate this, and we're even starting to see "bake-off" articles where distros are actually compared based specifically on their enterprise supportability and viability.
For the meantime, in the small business space I think Linux-on-the-desktop might actually best be reserved for "blank slate" users, where little technology infrastrucutre exists and users' knowledge of Windows is not quite so deep.
The biggest hurdle for Linux in small business, however, is probably the lack of well-developed vertical apps. Yes, I understand there are CRM apps, financials apps, and lots of solutions, but none of these solutions that I've seen are anywhere as easy-to-use, or as well-supported, as the Windows world likes of Quickbooks, Act! Goldmine, etc. Comments from the legion of Linux blog-crawlers are encouraged! I'm Always interested to hear about new solutions out there.
Monday, April 09, 2007
H1-B Hiring Under Fire
I understand that this bill is well-intentioned, with the idea of increasing the number of domestic workers filling technical jobs. However, it seems that - like most government interventions - the main end result is higher prices, more harassment and less efficiency.
It is axiomatic that government never makes *anything* more efficient, and the labor market is certainly a prime example of that.
There are already many barriers for H-1B visa-holders to overcome to get here and be successful: significant physical relocation, language and culture barriers, and of course the H-1B process itself. If after all that, they're still able to work for such a significant discount to the US-born applicants and they do as good a job, then perhaps the US workers need to accept a smaller number.
It's the force of the marketplace, and whether it's in the labor market or in the finished product market, placing inefficiencies on the markets always come around and result in a negative impact for the company doing the restricting.
Let's play this to the logical conclusion: the bill passes, and limitations are placed on hiring H-1B applicants. Fewer qualified H-1B workers are available here, so more are available off-shore. This glut of supply of talent in India and elsewhere probably creates a decrease in the cost to run off-shore operations in the native countries, which makes them that much more an option that hiring an internal staff or domestic outsourcing.
Also, if the US companies have to now pay more despite not getting any better talent (other than being born in the right place), the company's costs go up. Throw in the cost of complying to and documenting this "good faith" effort and we've got still higher costs at the corporation.
So, either their product prices go up, or the speed, quality and quantity of their products decreases. Any way you slice it, the product is a worse value and may lose in the global marketplace to 100% foreign-grown products and services . . . maybe even to the companies in India (or wherever) enjoying the cheaper labor they've got as a result of fewer of their citizens emmigrating to the US. Hey, guess what happens when the US company's product becomes less attractive and loses customers? People get let go . . . so the American workers are back in the unemployment line.
Plus, on top of all that, you have 200 more employees (at least!!) at the DOL, which is paid-for by the taxpayers. So, the end net-effect of all this will be less globally-competitive US companies, greater taxpayer expense, and a questionably-positive benefit to any US-born workers. Not looking that great, guys!
It is axiomatic that government never makes *anything* more efficient, and the labor market is certainly a prime example of that.
There are already many barriers for H-1B visa-holders to overcome to get here and be successful: significant physical relocation, language and culture barriers, and of course the H-1B process itself. If after all that, they're still able to work for such a significant discount to the US-born applicants and they do as good a job, then perhaps the US workers need to accept a smaller number.
It's the force of the marketplace, and whether it's in the labor market or in the finished product market, placing inefficiencies on the markets always come around and result in a negative impact for the company doing the restricting.
Let's play this to the logical conclusion: the bill passes, and limitations are placed on hiring H-1B applicants. Fewer qualified H-1B workers are available here, so more are available off-shore. This glut of supply of talent in India and elsewhere probably creates a decrease in the cost to run off-shore operations in the native countries, which makes them that much more an option that hiring an internal staff or domestic outsourcing.
Also, if the US companies have to now pay more despite not getting any better talent (other than being born in the right place), the company's costs go up. Throw in the cost of complying to and documenting this "good faith" effort and we've got still higher costs at the corporation.
So, either their product prices go up, or the speed, quality and quantity of their products decreases. Any way you slice it, the product is a worse value and may lose in the global marketplace to 100% foreign-grown products and services . . . maybe even to the companies in India (or wherever) enjoying the cheaper labor they've got as a result of fewer of their citizens emmigrating to the US. Hey, guess what happens when the US company's product becomes less attractive and loses customers? People get let go . . . so the American workers are back in the unemployment line.
Plus, on top of all that, you have 200 more employees (at least!!) at the DOL, which is paid-for by the taxpayers. So, the end net-effect of all this will be less globally-competitive US companies, greater taxpayer expense, and a questionably-positive benefit to any US-born workers. Not looking that great, guys!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
