will know that I'm a firm believer in branding guru Al Reis' dictum that the tighter a brand's focus, the more powerful it is. A Porsche that only makes sports cars is a stronger brand than a Porsche that makes sports cars and SUVs. TTAC's Best and Brightest will also recognize the blatant hypocrisy of this stance. This website does three things: news, reviews and editorials. The clumsy nature of our site design represents my ongoing– and largely unsuccessful– attempts to reconcile this triumvirate. An opportunity has recently arisen to right this wrong, and I want to get your feedback. How would you feel if we had three inter-linked car sites? The first would be a kick-ass news blog. TTAC would be the second: home of editorials, forums, social networking and all news-related comments. The third would be a car review site. TTAC writers would populate all three sites, which would maintain our high standards of editorial integrity. Your feedback would be most appreciated. Meanwhile, Justin and I discuss the day's news.
83 Comments on “Daily Podcast: Regular Readers of this Site…...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
Nah, three sites would be too aggravating to jump around from. Remember the acronym KISS.
Robert: Did you read your own first sentence? Why would you want to dilute the TTAC brand by spreading it over three sitelets? Keep it the way it is.
Plus, it would not be good from a natural search perspective.
I don't think I'm explaining myself properly…
The three sites would NOT all be branded TTAC.
TTAC would be the commentary, forum, networking site. The rest would be what they are.
Less is more? And if you get a chance, have a look at biking.com. NOT for design; for widgetology.
Hey, everybody likes a tight one (brand-wise, of course) but I say don’t do it!. The present site is current and easy to navigate, with the triple-stack at screen right providing almost-instant access to items of interest. What’s not to like?
Your daily number of reads, page requests, and loiter-time will diminish as a function of the new site’s complexity.
When your work speaks for itself, don’t interrupt!
JT
Methinks a split like you are suggesting would be an imitation of GM and it’s disparate brands. We all see how focused they are.
Just my $.02. KISS x2.
I agree with confused1096 that three sites could be cumbersome to navigate.
I live in northeast Ohio and have seen about a half dozen new Malibus on the road and a few that have moved through one of the Chevy dealerships on my way to work.
NetGenHoon:
Methinks a split like you are suggesting would be an imitation of GM and it’s disparate brands. We all see how focused they are.
See, there I was thinking that we’re too much like GM NOW: doing too much with one brand. Am I wrong?
What are you trying to fix?
Agreed – keep it simple, as is. The only big thing I’d like to see change is to consider a different type of advertising: the Vibrant roll-over-keyword-popups are incredibly annoying.
I know you gotta pay the bills somehow… but there’s a line between effective and obnoxious.
Do it without really doing it perception-wise. Make the sites stand alone (for the purpose driven reader) yet integrate tightly.
But all three sites should be unmistakably TTAC – not just one.
Keep it the same. I like how tight the existing main page is.
I don’t like the idea of separating TTAC into three different sites as it means there are two more sites I’ve got to visit each day. I like being able to find the news with occasional reviews and editorials all in one place. As it stands, TTAC is focused on its unique perspective of cars in the three categories, which ultimately is its brand.
mocktard:
What are you trying to fix?
Trying to take in more money than we spend.
TTAC’s site stats are healthy, but flat. Our editorial budget is… robust. The news blog (which already exists) would allow us to leverage our writing skills to greater economic effect.
Whenever a new medium is born (not that Arquette chick), it frees the other one to reinvent itself. In other words, by not doing so much, we can do more. Again, have a look at biking.com.
Robert:The three sites would NOT all be branded TTAC.
TTAC would be the commentary, forum, networking site. The rest would be what they are.
What are they? The reviews not called TTAC? That would be a big (risky) step.
If anything, like the biking.com site, TTAC should be the home portal for all the others. In the balance, I too like being to navigate from one page. The News blog could have more front page spaces, so the older ones don’t disappear so soon.
I don’t think that the three pillars of TTAC are really that different. We come to TTAC because we’re insane and like cars to an unhealthy obsession. We get frequent (I might argue actually a little to frequent) updates of news, thought provoking editorials, and snarky reviews, which all go together to give us a view of the auto industry. The tone of the site is actually very consistent and I think breaking it up would make three much weaker components.
Though I hate to use the likes of Car & Driver and Motor Trend as examples, and perhaps I’m wrong in doing so, they have always contained all types of automotive information including (advertiser-biased) reviews, (less than pertinent) news, and (diluted) commentary. The point I’m getting at is that your readers are car people and are attracted to all car information and the truth is found in all three areas you cover. Folks who are not car people like the readers here often find sites like Edumnds and Consumer Reports helpful. These two sites are heavily review focused and contain little commentary or news. I can see how you may be reaching to enlighten some of these folks with kick-ass unbiased reviews, and that is a noble effort, but I would be against breaking up TTAC as we know it now. Perhaps evolution would be a more logical step than disintegration.
Not really anything broken here. Having everything mashed together would bury the well-written reviews, and splitting everything apart would just fragment your readership. The current layout is a happy medium.
If I were you guys, I would just focus on getting more reviews without sacrificing the present quality, with a comparison test every now and then.
You may be assuming that Reviews, News and Editorials do not belong under one brand umbrella: TTAC.
But it (they) do.
Continuing with Porsche as your brand metaphor (with some assistance from Sesame Street)…
911, Cayman and a Boxster: All of these things are much like the other, none of these things doesn’t belong.
Add Cayenne: Whoops! One of these things is NOT like the other. Under this brand, it doesn’t belong….
Similarly, News, Reviews and Editorials are much like each other, none of these doesn’t belong.
Now, if TTAC were to house some other function or section, something that had nothing to do with Cars or Truth…oh, I dunno: Supermodels with Supercar photography. No wait. I’d like that. Note to Robert: Add that.
Um.
Maybe a corporate PR outlet/blog. Or tediously long historical notes and obscure model minutia. Helpful, just that there are sites already dedicated to detailed collector/fan information.
One example obviously doesn’t fit, the other is just too bulky and not tidily tailored to your brand’s purpose.
Besides, there’s “color” and “analysis” in all TTAC’s functions. You must admit, the TTAC’s “News” section isn’t exactly J-School, AP Stylebook, now is it?
Everywhere one looks, one finds manufacturer BS andidote on this site.
So please do not dismember yourself, make too many divisions with too many models, and spread yourself too thin with too many sites to support at once.
Now, about that chicks n’ cars angle…
My only thought is that the news site will need to do something special to differentiate itself from AB. Many of us will likely have time for only one.
You can’t really break these things up as everything is very integrated as is. You guys put your opinion in everything that you write (although you make it obvious what is fact and what is your opinion, so that’s NOT a problem), so if you were to split your news blog into its own separate site it would still belong to TTAC and so it seem a bit weird, methinks.
One example of your integration: Most commentors in the X6 thread have talked all about how they do not like the X6 but Johnny keeps coming back saying it handles fantastically (so what? its an SUV, JL!), and then yesterday reminded us again in a totally unrelated post on the news blog, which I thought was kinda funny. Anyways, I think that that integrated aspect would be somewhat lost (or those readers who only read one of the new sites would be lost) if you split into three sites. I’m against it.
I say keep it all together. Breaking it up into seperate entities would make navigation more tedious, and would possibly alienate the readers who like everything in one place, which already seems to be the vast majority here (including me, obviously).
“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
I think the response here is predictable, and probably not what will help you. We are all here because we like it the way it is. You want to attract new/different/more usage/users. Probably have to go with your gut, or with some more savvy or experienced web folks. You need to figure out what we want before we know what it is. Having said that….
I like it the way it is. The site is turning out to be one of my main sources of industry news, it seems to strain the interesting bits out of the flood of information on the internet. There is value there. It’s easy to get what you want, and leave the rest.
No, no, please God no.
Keep them together, they feed and cross-pollinate each other. You surely have readers who read content that they wouldn’t otherwise look for, because it is kept together.
BUT something needs to be done with the layout. There is so much content now that it is hard to view it without getting lost in it. All of one day’s news needs to be kept on the same page, and it needs to be easier to jump to pages within each section. Nowadays, there’s too much news content to work with the present layout.
And at the end of each thread, it should indicate who posted the last response. Make it easier for readers to see that the discussion/debate/slugfest has continued, and encourage them to jump in.
Breaking the site apart is akin to going out of one’s way to turn a high-performing BMW into a sluggish trinity of Buick, Oldsmobile and Saturn. The sum would be less than the parts, and nobody wants that.
Splitting your site into three is the answer to a question that no one asked-except yourself to yourself.
Stet (leave as is) is best.
Besides, I have too damn many bookmarks already…
RF, do what is necessary to keep the operation going.
While the layout could be tweaked a bit, you described a trident, not 3 individual spears. Having the same people producing the same products for the same market strikes me as ideal for a single-site format. I think it would be GM-like if you pulled in a “person off the street” to do the podcasts, who didn’t know, much less talk to, the other folks who actually write for the site.
As far as getting more readership, what has driven the “spikes” in the past? Reviews? Car shows? Controversy?
Paul Niedermeyer: The News blog could have more front page spaces, so the older ones don’t disappear so soon.
Or maybe even a slight bit less news per day, with more focus on bits that are really interesting to your readers. Don’t try to be just a news outlet, but still bring in the short news bits that are worth discussing.
The brand tie in for all of these things is the discussion around the topic of the piece (be it news, editorial, or review). That’s what makes TTAC different than the other sites, what I see as the core brand. A well thought out, well written piece that then becomes the topic for a lively and (generally) civil debate. That’s a focus worth honing in on. A bit of site-design tightening could help that.
Whip up an example site (if you have the hosting) sort of like the Biking.com site…I could see that working where you have a portal to the three sites.
I think (correct me if I’m wrong) what Robert is getting at is one site, but three branches (or sub domains if you will). The site currently does all three somewhat if you look at the navigation pane on the right-hand side: you have Latest News, Latest Editorials, and Latest Reviews. By splitting if off of the front page to one of the three he could add more content to each, but not be so overwhelming to some as it is now.
BTW, I have seen a couple Malibus in the past month here in Tidewater Virginia, although not as many as I’d like to.
And I call the Mazda5 a mini-minivan. Remember the Eagle Summit? That’s another mini-minivan. It had only two rows, but the rear one was a bench and it did have a slider.
Oh, and I can’t wait to hear all the engines you guys thrash!
I see the widgets and no me gusta. I also don’t really appreciate the Biking.com (cool kids!) vs. Cycling.com (prudent rich adults) same site dichotomy. There’s awkwardly divergent branding for you. I’m sure you don’t need the hassle of managing the brand image and message of three different sites appealing to three slightly different customers/readers. Or maybe you do, what do I know?
Biking.com looks like an effing mess to me, I can’t really get around in it. Too damn many widgets. Start introducing little integrated features and tabbed fanciness and your pages take longer to load, you risk not loading properly in all browsers (safari, IE4-8, firefox, etc.), and disabled users have less access to content as site readers can’t pick up the flashy content as easily. KISS indeed.
It might help to make the News blog the main feature on the welcome page rather than the reviews, but maintain a big focus on the reviews – they’re fantastic and a strongly differentiating element. Latest News has the most frequently updated information that consistently generates conversation (and page hits) but it is tucked over on the side of the page, out of the passive reader’s notice. A little closer to the Autoblog/Jalopnik setup, but if you maintain very strong guidance points into your reviews and editorials I think it would be good.
My suggestions in summary:
One page, keep your colors (unique in automotive blogging) keep your attitude, keep your features (reviews, news, and editorials).
Stay the hell away from messy widgets and fancy features that don’t actually make it easier to find the content your users are looking for.
You can run a mini blog network if you want, but you’ll end up having to administer and manage 3 unique sites as they settle into their brands. These 3 sites will be very different and you will need to approach them with very different mindsets.
Bring the news to the forefront and keep people (not just committed TTACers that know where to look for new info) coming back looking for updates every hour or so.
Robert Farago
See, there I was thinking that we’re too much like GM NOW: doing too much with one brand. Am I wrong?
RF,
The way I see it, GM has too many brands to manage. This is the breakdown as I think GM sees it:
Chevy – everyman brand
GMC – “upper-end” work brand
Buick – entry level luxury brand
Pontiac – excitement (sporty) brand
Cadillac – luxury brand
Saab – cool European brand
Hummer – adventure brand
Saturn – import fighter (ironic, given Saab)
I think it would look better if GM were structured like this (I have listed the cars for each):
Chevy – everyman brand [Cobalt, Malibu, Silverado, Tahoe/Suburban, Colorado, Chevy equivalent of G8, Corvette]
Hummer – adventure brand [H3, H2-redesigned, H4/HX]
Cadillac – luxury brand
That’s it.
What I am getting at is that I like TTAC the way it is but, if you do change, don’t go overboard and keep the focus.
I’m with most everyone else. My vote is that it’s not broken.
No.
Don’t insult your readers intelligence. Don’t dumb down the content. Don’t try to fix a problem that don’t exist, because fixing it will not get it right. There’s absolutely no problem with the categorization as it is now.
Will the reviews site be of actual cars, or will it also have fantasy comparisons?
I only ask because I notice that Edmunds today has a comparison of Camaro vs. Challenger. You gotta credit Edmonds for being the first to compare these two, although, apparently, they don’t actually have the cars to do the comparison with.
Is that important?
“TTAC’s site stats are healthy, but flat.”
That’s because there are just a fixed number of intelligent people out there on the internet. Going mainstream will always dilute the content, inviting readers and writers that don’t hold up to standard. TTAC will never be big. But it is enough to be the only place where the truth are told. Publish, or be damned…
I’ll keep it simple: keep it on one site, redesign the home page where first-time visitors aren’t (potentially) confused. Something like edmunds, but a helluva lot less busy. I might even bring in a 4th angle for the Consumer Reportist and hardcore left brainers: a simple version of Michael Karesh’s True Delta, or something like that in-house. Not that there’s anything wrong with his site at all, but sometimes the key is simplicity for getting people to look around. Those who want can dig deeper or even go to his site.
I really don’t have a clue what your employee structure/hierarchy is, but having one person spearhead each “division” is probably key.
If you know for sure it will bring in more money, while not losing the intent behind TTAC, go for it. Web dynamics isn’t my thing and I’m sure there might be something I’m missing. At the end of the day, it comes down to food on the plate and not having to work until your 80. Of course change makes regulars grumpy, but it’s up to them whether or not to burn the bridge when it moves or gets painted.
Just to follow up on what Drew Frink said above. The value here is in the comments section, that’s what keeps me coming back. With the rapid fire news posting, the comments per article get pretty thin. If you slow down the news posting to the most interesting stuff (I don’t know who gets to decide interesting), then the discussion in the commments section can get even better.
So, not a very popular idea, then. I guess keeping TTAC as a single snarky portal is the default option. If that’s the case, can you guys give me some feedback on biking.com? Again, in terms of social networking, forum, galleries, etc., not design.
Mr. Farago,
Mr. Reis has written favourably about the pure, undiluted brand and also about effective brand extensions. Which it sounds like you’re aiming for.
Perhaps cars are not a proper analogue for the site but another packaged good like Beer or Soft Drinks (Coke or Miller are probably good case studies for the dangers of trying to extend a brand too far while McDonald’s or Budweiser provide some good examples)
I would submit that the TTAC brand is a strong one and that it can effectively create brand extensions of itself provided that one site (TTAC) remain the main portal.
In some ways, you’ve already got a fairly distinctive trio of sub brands on one site and that dissecting them into three distinct sites should be doable.
The main issue is what net benefits are there to the readers for this? Will you expand content (ie. video reviews, news interviews, longer editorials). If the editorial budget is robust already, can you afford to do this?
Will the ad dollars come or will you just be splitting the same dollars three ways? I am not an expert on website economics so maybe those are not valid questions.
Think of what you have, instead of what you don’t have. Being idealistic will never be profitable, and idealistic work is mostly run pro bono. I thing you have to realize that TTAC perhaps never will be run with a profit. There’s not much money in telling the truth, but it is an important job nonetheless. And there’s nobody else out there that does your job better than you do it. The problem is that you stare yourself blind at the horizon, intstead of realizing what goldmine you are really sitting on.
TTAC readers are a highly vocal bunch, but I haven’t noticed many complaints about TTAC wasting ink on topics irrelevant to its core subject.
TTAC’s news, reviews and editorials are co-relevant and frequently cross-referenced; they add to each other instead of detracting from the coherence of the site. The subject is cars, but the TTAC “brand” depends just as much on the humor, wit and honesty of the content.
Splitting up TTAC would be like breaking BMW up into seperate marks based on engine configuration. (”I’m sorry, sir. If you want the *eight* cylinder, you’ll have to go next door.”)
Nope. All three in one is better.
Mr Farago
I wouldn’t separate this into 3 sites. It’s annoying to navigate through 3 sites to find the information you were able to concentrate in only one. It’s ok to have all the information in one site. The fact that we can give our opinions in real time is great, but I find difficult to add smileys, quote other readers, bold and other pretty simple stuff(although I just saw that this is now available)
I like the content of your site, but you should work on the design of it. Also, try to catch more news, sometimes I find news on motortrend site first (and also on the forums) than here.
Make easier for us readers to find a news, editorial or review. Give it some color…
Your branding is pretty clear in your site header:
“The Truth About Cars
Car Reviews, Auto News, Editorials and Podcasts”
You forgot to add: redneck and not cheering news (or something like that) news of the automotive industry… but it’s not necessary.
News Blog is a genre, not a brand. Editorial is a genre, not a brand. Car Review is a genre, not a brand. TTAC’s brand is its style of writing – the same way that Toyota’s brand is quality. TTAC is the intellectual freedom to say what you believe in a [hopefully] entertaining and informative way. TTAC is not the format. TTAC’s writing transcends the format the same way that Toyota’s reputation for quality transcends vehicle classifications. If TTAC published a magazine or book, the writing would still make it TTAC. Therefore, tight brand focus means focus on the writing. Not focus of format.
CSJohnston :
Mr. Reis has written favourably about the pure, undiluted brand and also about effective brand extensions. Which it sounds like you’re aiming for.
I don’t recall Mr. Reis ever recommending any brand extensions. I’m not actually proposing brand extensions per se. I’m suggesting that NEW brands hive off of the news and reviews functions of this site.
IF this were to be done, I agree: it would have to be done seamlessly. So the headline links would remain (taking readers onto another site). The review links would remain (taking readers onto another site).
There would be a link at the bottom of every news blog post on the other site: comment on this story at TTAC. And a link at the bottom of every review on the other site: discuss this review at TTAC. The posts on the other sites would automatically create forum threads on TTAC.
TTAC’s main column, the site’s main function, would be analysis: editorials, forums, groups, live chat, etc.
Does that sound any better?
Mr. Farago,
I just can’t see the benefit in separating comments and posts. I think TTAC having a forum would be pretty cool, but blog posts and their associated comments belong together, IMO.
Robert,
I think you have it right already.
This website does three things: news, reviews and editorials. The clumsy nature of our site design represents my ongoing– and largely unsuccessful– attempts to reconcile this triumvirate.
Robert, please do not try to reconcile what you have already admitted is not reconcilable. Just let it be, it is working so well as it is.
Don’t bite that apple (at least just yet). I come here because it is unique, TTAC is the un-Edmonds, and the answer to site like Autoweek.
For whatever reason this site manages to attract a mature, adult crowd. The kids seem to stay away and I like that. At TTAC we dont see endless silly arguments about how one car beat another to 60 by .03 seconds.
Im getting sad now coming to the realization of how success will eventually change this site.
I witnessed the Combustion Chamber at Autoweek turn from a informative place to go for info and fun into a silly little flame fest before it was shut down.
Right now TTAC is perfect, it seems that all of the right folks know about this site yet the fools are keeping their distance.
Although somtimes the 800 word limit for reviews lack some key details it is OK because it is a given that the people that come here know how to get all the info they need about a vehicle from many different sources.
What I like is that the reviews have a feel to them that they are being written by REAL guys that actually buy and own such vehicles in the real world.
I also dig the fact that all of you that write and submit here appear to have OTHER LIVES and professions and are NOT just jounalists.
Yeah, real car people!
RF: TTAC’s main column, the site’s main function, would be analysis: editorials, forums, groups, live chat, etc.
I see a big flaw in adding forums and groups to TTAC – there’s a gazillion and one car forums/groups on the internet, all overflowing with mindless, useless, immature dribble that are exponentially more difficult to police, much less keep on topic. TTAC confines the conversation to a select group of [editorial/review/news] topics to keep from spinning out of control. This in turn makes it managable to keep at bay the feces-hurling post whores that clutter other rival sites and ultimately dilute the intellectual integrity that TTAC has founded as its core philosophy.
Live Chat may be interesting to add to the likes of the Podcast.
I’d say keep working on improving the flow and fluid feel of the site (so much as Wordpress will allow you to) and add a few useful features.
But if it’s revenue your after from a broader audience, you’ll have to expect that your common denominator will decrease, which effectively diminishes the brand. If Farago Truth Conglomeration Inc. wants to venture down that path, by all means – but don’t take the TTAC brand downmarket with it.
To take an analogy from the bike industry: most major bicycle manufacturers are strewn with underpaid, mouth-foaming fanatics who do their work for love of the sport and the product, not the money. Those looking for paychecks go mainstream, but they forfeit the niche that drew them to the job in the first place.
Re: biking.com: the page totally loses itself to the ADD crowd south of the navigation bar. Don’t walk that path.
can you guys give me some feedback on biking.com? Again, in terms of social networking, forum, galleries, etc., not design.
Since the TTAC brand is the writing (including reader feedback to published work), I have a hard time making the logical leap to TTAC being a social networking site where the content would be completely open (other than imposing TTAC’s posting policy). If you want to expand into community forums and galleries, I’d recommend doing so under a separate affiliate brand – sort of like the relationship between Inside Line and Edmunds.
My dad taught me a valuable lesson.
Fix what is broken… Leave that which is not, alone.
This is the premier automotive site on the web and you want to what!?!?!?!
Take two asprin, go lie down and call me in the morning.
KISS #4,000,000,001