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.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
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
Don’t do it. It’s a bad idea. 3 different sections perhaps. Clearly defined with headers, and color coded to let the user know what section they are in. But you would still have to keep the homepage pretty much the same with links to branch off to the different sections. Splitting into 3 sites would just lose viewers. People are a lot easier to confuse than you could possibly realize. A good percentage of your visitors probably come here for just one or two of your 3 sections. If they see that what they’re looking for isn’t exactly where it was before, instead of searching for it, you’ll find that they will just leave and never come back again. People are just lazy that way. Note that I do web design for a living and have been involved with extensive user testing. That’s just how it is. What I’ve learned is that no matter how dumb you think a user could be, you cannot underestimate them. They will be dumber.
Why not add microsites? Have these other places be buttons alongside “home” “news” and “pricing”.
Also, the best way to get more site traffic is still television ads. Second to that is advertising on the web and partnerships. Paying for google adwords and such. Have a review for a new car (like the x6) coming up? Be the top bidder on google for the search phrase “x6 review” or “bmw x6” and you will get a ton of hits. You might want to consult with an agency that specializes in increasing site traffic. Stuff like that is way more effective in building an audience than any site redesign could possibly be. As it stands your site design is excellent. A redesign would probably just be a downgrade and drive more people away than attract.
I don’t want to change the subject, but I believe the focus of the conversation should be generating (ad) revenue. And reading between the lines, I think that’s ultimately the gist. I know the subject has been brought up before by Robert, and appreciate his asking for input before he made changes. Increased traffic will come, I have no doubt about that. Robert, TTAC “sells” a good “product”.
My forte is not web dynamics, so I can’t comment on how to generate more traffic, or the most effective ads, ect. I think if someone has a non-vague, killer idea for increasing traffic/ad revenue/latest trend, they should let Robert know, perhaps privately.
Hmm…. Badge engineering?
TTAC Death Watch #1? LOL
Mr. Farago,
Not that I am expert on all things Riesian but I thought Brand Extension analysis was in “Postioning” (I will beetle off to my library to confirm).
So what you are advocating is new brands that owe their spirit to TTAC but perform their own function under their own banner?
Sounds good, hopefully this will triple your site visits (how will it grow unique visitors?) and should increase your page visits big time.
I just finished the Death of Advertising and the Rise of PR (I’m a few years behind). Al’s got an axe to grind there it seems. A good reminder on what’s important in corporate communciation though, no matter which side it comes from.
That bike site sure is a busy looking place- due to the color choices they made.
A cleaner version (less in-your-face coloration), with the tabs at the top would work.
To me, this site is (also) well done:
The CWA site has navi links down one side, which are easy to use, and could lead to a window with specific ads for that sub-item (Editorials, News, etc.) What’s nice about this site is that you never feel you’ve strayed far from the mothership, (and most commenters seem to be saying “Don’t drop me off a cliff when I click on a TTAC link”). At the CWA site, each tab opens a new page, but you can phone home without hastle.
But you’re saying three seperate sites:
1) A news blog.
2) TTAC, the home of editorials, forums, social networking and all news-related comments.
3) A car review site.
And TTAC writers would populate all three sites.
CSJohnston: So what you are advocating is new brands that owe their spirit to TTAC but perform their own function under their own banner?
Yes?
As mentioned already, maybe unveil a beta site so we can take a peek.
Sounds good, hopefully this will triple your site visits (how will it grow unique visitors?) and should increase your page visits big time.
Agreed.
If you buy William C Montgomery’s notion of the TTAC brand being the writing (to which I add the quality of the comments section) then the social networking and forum bits don’t fit. The format of a well written topic (review, editorial, news item) with discussion on that topic keeps the quality high.
The advantage of the current system is that the editors of TTAC choose the discussion topics — yes, that’s limiting, but in a positive way. Most internet discussion that are totally free form degenerate quickly into nastiness and irrelevancy. In a busy world I want someone I can trust to filter the stream of information to a manageable level.
don’t do it; it’s excellent now. as others have said, if it ain’t broken…
I’m a little worried about the addition of forums, as it is, my company’s firewall lets me see TTAC. But the firewall does block any forums or social networking sites. So whatever changes you make, please make sure that firewalls will see the “classic” TTAC pages separately from the forums. Please, I can’t go without my daily TTAC fix!
SpacemanSpiff: How about using the RSS feeds?
And speaking of RSS – I will admit, I visit the actual site pretty infrequently. I’ve subscribed to the main RSS feed, and yes, for editorials and reviews, I click through Google Reader to reach the relevant TTAC page – otherwise, the news blurbs and podcasts are consumed entirely off-site.
* * * * * *
As far as splitting TTAC into three sites – I can see the argument that the “brand” is still strong. Of course it is, the strength comes from the (honest) writing and the (honest) comments. As long as we have that, yes, in essence, the TTAC brand is strong. However, in terms of having three disparate sites… won’t that just create three sub-markets, or sub-groups, really, of readers?
I’m confused, a little, as to what the real driver behind the desire to change is. If the design feels clumsy, I think it’s a sign to change it (the design) not the site. Yes, these are three different and wildly divergent topics, and trying to rope them in is a challenge. Yes, for the first-time reader, it’s horrible. And maybe that’s just it.
The example given, biking.com, I think displays what’s wrong with widgetry. It’s ADD, OCD, and well, maybe alphabet soup.
Perhaps what’s needed is a change in design only. Structurally, TTAC is strong. Any reader will testify to that. But maybe what you need is a logo, a new home page, or a new navigation system. Bring the content to the front and let the writing – what’s always made the site stand high above everyone else – shine.
I don’t think that there are enough reviews to justify a whole site. Generally, breaking up the comments from the articles is a bad idea. People want their comments to be prominent, not hidden off in another site! There is a lot of news, maybe there could be a place for a news blog? The main focus should be usability for the end users, because we are on the internet after all. Anything that clutters or complicates the user experience, or that fractures your most important resource (viewers) would be detrimental.
The biking.com site is way too busy. It shouldn’t have three menu bars (the top one, “mtb reviews”, and “expert advice’). I would remove the daily poll, site statistics, put a current article or two on the left, and consolidate everything else to the right column and menu-bar on the top (which should expand to be more useful).
I really appreciate the uncomplicated TTAC interface, and feel that it is an integral part of your “brand”.
I would not be surprised if splitting the site into three pieces would drive up traffic and revenue.
Personally, as a regular reader, I find it easier to get everything in one place.
The problem with your question, Robert, is that you’re asking people who already visit the site. While of course you don’t want to alienate your existing reader base, we’re not the ones the proposed changes are intended to appeal to – it’s the people who don’t already come here. The incremental traffic, if you will.
How about keeping this site as is (all three together) and making a separate reviews site and a separate editorials site – with the latter sites simply automatically populated with content from the main site (or vice versa)?
Robert:
I think what you propose (a “discuss this article” link on the bottom of every editorial, article, and review) is a workable solution. The current Responses section is no substitute for threaded discussion, which is desperately needed.
Go out and find a cheapie hosted threaded discussion package (CommunityServer, Pringo, ONEsite, et.al.) and be done with it. Just make sure it is well integrated.
A great idea would be to put the website into 3 distinct visual sections on the homepage. Then when I go to TTAC it instantly reminds me of the 3 roles of this site for me: Car reviews, Podcasts / editorials and News
Keep up the good work with your hard hitting and funny approach to the auto industry news.
Convert the template to a 3-column layout and keep everything important on the homepage. Think of it as the daily dashboard of car truths. See http://www.popurls.com for an example of how you can efficiently convey a lot of info on one page.
1. Heck no.
2. How about a more newsy type of look? Newspapers mix editorial, news and “reviews” quite well online. It’s not revolutionary.
3. Does the navel-gazing ever end?
I’m not unhappy with the current site design. It’s kind of strange, with the “menu” over on the right, far from where Western-raised folks expect it to be. But, listing stuff “down the page” works quite well.
Not that things couldn’t be better, though. For instance, didja ever walk into a Best Buy or similar shop and see boatloads of wonderful new wide-screen monitors? Boy, this thing sure wastes all of that width I bought with my 21-inch widescreen.
Also, I’d say your reviews are your weak point — I’m not sure they would stand alone very well. They tend to be wildly inconsistent, leaving no sense whatsoever that this enterprise speaks with some shared, specific viewpoint.
I sure thought it hit a low point with Justin Berkowitz’s review of the 2009 Toyota Matrix, which was essentially 100% snarky opinion, with absolutely no information within the review to let the readers know what those opinions were based upon. Eventually, Justin followed up with pertinent information in a comment — information that SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE REVIEW ITSELF.
To me, his review was nothing less than some smart-butt “shooting his mouth off,” and sure didn’t qualify as anything approaching “journalism.” And it was a good example of what happens in a number of reviews — it’s like the reviewer can’t do anything but bad-mouth something like a Yaris or an Aveo because it doesn’t match up well with a BMW 3-series.
Come on, you need to have some PERSPECTIVE BASED UPON REALITY in these things. But wait — yes, you DO have some excellent examples of that. William C Montgomery’s recent series of big SUV reviews was EXCELLENT. He didn’t rip these vehicles new butt cracks because they didn’t handle or accelerate like sports cars — no, he weighed them against each other, within the reality of where these rigs fit into the marketplace.
So, I think the TTAC reviews need to “grow up” — if they were more standardized around the kind of quality Mr. Montgomery has produced, I wouldn’t be writing this.
I’m happy with the news bits, but I sure don’t see them as making up a “whole web site.” And, I’m happy with the editorials, but it’s the same boat — I’m not sure they make up a whole web site. So, I’m kind of happier with things the way there are now.
But, you know? I think I just gained a bit of perspective on that beef I’ve got with your “reviews.” Yeah, the “editorials” are fine — they can be all over the map. But, “reviews” need to have some basis in facts and in comparison with vehicles in their respective market segments — they can’t be “just editorials.”
In the end, I’d like to see some improvement in that aspect of TTAC, rather than breaking things up into different web sites. I call it “a good start,” with some areas ripe for a bit of improvement, but it fits well in the size of the single web site it now occupies. I vote “stay whole and grow.”
As a native Buffalonian I can tell no *that* many people work at the Chevy plant. In fact, the state university employees the most people now in that area. So, I don’t think loyalty is a huge factor in the car sales there.
The Truth about cars is the Truth about cars – whether its Reviews, News or Editorials….
You dont want to change that…I read all articels in all 3 sections and dont want to be pissing about trying to find what I want ot read on different websites…
The current layout is pretty easy to navigate and find what you want…
There might be some room for cleaning up the layout/interface but its essentially fine – its nice and simple – and its light – ie. there isnt too much graphic/flash nonsense that just prevents you getting to what you want…
One of the worst things a site can do is get overly graphical or complex in layout…if its hard to find what you are looking for you dont bother and go somewhere else…
I don’t like to be contrary, but here I go again. RF, I think it’s a great idea you’re pondering here.
TTAC used to be clean; now it’s a bit cluttered. People only spend a few seconds searching for what they need and the site in its present state is not as easy to navigate or understand as it might be. At least, that is my impression when I show the site to TTAC-newbies. Some experimentation might be in order: how much time does a newbie need to find a car review? How long would they need if the site was split up? In the end, page views and advertising income count.
I think the comparison to GM is not so valid. Rather, I would compare TTAC to Virgin as it has a similar brand kernel: a renegade, noncorporate, no n-BS, unique, quality brand, personified through its founder. Who is willing to experiment with new products and willing to dump them if they are not successful.
The only lesson I would take from the GM book is that one needs to concentrate on matters of importance (or at least be amusing when not). Lately, I think TTAC has been publishing news that is not always terrifically newsworthy. Who cares whether a German statelet has introduced a speed limit? This stuff from Bremen has exactly zero importance in the CO2 / driver’s freedom / traffic management discussion.
Lastly, an idea. It might be useful to increase interactivity. Why not let readers decide whether the 800-word limit is law? How about letting readers vote on each car review: Click on “Would you like the author to write an expanded review of this car?”, or click on “Satified with the information provided”.
Sorry if this has already been said, but I don’t have time to read all the posts this morning.
I agree that a tightly focused brand is a good brand. However if we use a Porsche analogy, Then TTAC is like the 911, Cayman, and Boxster. You’re not far into Cayenne territory yet, so don’t worry. Leave it alone. It’s good.
thalter:
I think what you propose (a “discuss this article” link on the bottom of every editorial, article, and review) is a workable solution. The current Responses section is no substitute for threaded discussion, which is desperately needed.
I agree, the comments section could use some improvement, but the solution is not to separate the articles from the comments. That’s a bad way to go.
My solution to the comments section: model it after digg.com’s, but don’t copy it exactly. digg.com gives the user too many options on how to view the comments. It should be sorted by date with most recent one last, but people should be able to reply directly to the comment they are replying to, like how it is on digg. And, of course, there need be no ranking here on TTAC like onn digg. I think we’re all way above that here. I know digg’s comments section is sometimes clunky and takes too long to load, but what do you guys (especially Mr. Farago) think about that as a model for a new comment section?
You could reduce the number of vehicle reviews (as opposed to car reviews). Maybe I’m alone out here, but four of the last six reviews I could have done without and not lost sleep at night.
My vote: Keep it the same please!
I don’t feel TTAC dilutes it’s brand by posting editorials, reviews, and a new blog. All three aspects are linked by one common theme; cutting through the BS and getting right to the point! That is what the TTAC ‘brand’ really is, the truth. That is what makes the entire site a cohesive unit.
I vote against this plan. TTAC is a tightly focused brand. The truth about cars can encompass car news, reviews, and editorials. In my view TTAC hits these points from a unique perspective, one that delves more deeply into the business decisions behind them than can be found on other car sites.
Thanks for all your comments, which I read and considered carefully. After the royal flaming at Jalopnik last month, it was good to see your passion for the TTAC brand and insight into the biz.
It seems clear where The Best and Brightest stand on this issue.
I now see that our “core” or base are happy enough with the synergy between TTAC’s three elements– a thought that, frankly, hadn’t resided uppermost in my mind.
One thing is for sure: we will be adding widgets that are LONG overdue: photo galleries, videos, forums, user groups, etc. But I promise to keep the site clean and uncluttered as possible, so that the widgets complement the current functionality, rather than destroy it.
I’ll keep you posted as the strategic and development process develops. Thanks again for all you help.
I personally like the way things are now, but I am not against changes that would provide long term sustainability of the site.
On another note and anectdotaly, I see quite a few of the new Malibus (Rochester, NY). Definately more than the new Accord but not as many as the Camry. Only one that I have seen had an Enterprise sticker on it.
Its far more optimal, for users and quite frankly for your site revenue, to have a single brand, one site.
TTAC has tons of content — that seems to fly off the page. I take my time looking at editorials and reviews (which I enjoy lots) — to be sure and catch the news stuff — which if I don’t get to the site often enough, I never see again.
I think you need a creative redesign — where the home page has the latest stuff from all major content areas, and then 4 – 6 subpages (maximum) for each of the major content areas. Then on each page – current stuff at the top, and then organized either by chronology, by topic (e.g., deathwatch, truck reviews, news about chrysler, news that is funny, etc) the older content.
The other challenge is improving interactivity. The conversations and discussions are attached to an article. Not bad — but, it limits the discussion of, GM for instance, or the latest things from BMW. Also, with the current design — those things are quickly “lost” so discussion stops.
TTAC can excel, vs other car sites say, because the site content is pretty tightly focussed, and the “slant” is very appealing to many of us. So how to integrate that with the community? You’re not going to find this kind of discourse on Edmunds, say, or a brand site (saabnet, for instance). But how best to leverage the users?
You have a GOOD challenge here — good stuff & good users —
All the best! Pete
Please don’t change anything. I love the site the way it is :D
I think you should start off with three sites doing three different things …
and then you can start having each site do some of the same content as the others …
and then you can eventually have three sites that are all the same but under three different brand names….
And then you can release a 4th site that’s almost independent….
And then you can take away its independence and make it like all the rest…
And then you can shut one of the sites down.
…Nah, that would be crazy.
Have a look at what the
Anandtech and
Dailytech websites do. The two are family members, but they’re distinct. Editorials and news on one side, reviews and a forum on the other.
The comments themselves on Dailytech often leave something to be desired, but the format may offer something to TTAC. It’s easy to identify individual conversations and common threads among the hundreds of comments.
The comments and conversations are the strongest features of TTAC. Keep that across all (two, in my opinion) of your sites.
I think you should start off with three sites doing three different things …
and then you can start having each site do some of the same content as the others …
and then you can eventually have three sites that are all the same but under three different brand names….
And then you can release a 4th site that’s almost independent….
And then you can take away its independence and make it like all the rest…
And then you can shut one of the sites down.
Not to mention having yet another site with an incredibly high bandwidth requirement….