1. Create a Google Gadget.
   You can create Google Gadgets such as a countdown timer (to an event), a list (of ideas, suggestions, products, etc), a microblog (what you’re doing or working on) or a YouTube channel (videos about your company, service or product), then publish it on the Google network for other people to add to their customized iGoogle page. You can also email the Gadget link to a list of people.  
2. Post comments on related articles.
   Many news sites or ezines include an option to leave comments at the end of articles. Some like CNN even track backlinks from blogs that link to the article. Search for articles related to your company’s business, then post an intelligent response or comment on the article, including your company’s name, URL and/or email address, if possible. 
3. Write a press release.
   Your press release can be about anything, but should be tied to something timely such as a recent event or announcement. Many sites such as the ones cited here offer a free press release service. 
4. Create a Facebook app.
   Facebook makes it relatively easy to develop an application that Facebook users can add to their profiles and pages. Facebook still has some buzz in traditional media channels, so sometimes you might even get some earned media (an editorial article written about your company) because of the interest in your new Facebook app.
5. Piggyback on someone else’s email subscriber database.
   Wouldn’t it be great to get a plug for your company in someone else’s mailing list? If you know of a company or an individual (such as a blogger) with a sizeable mailing list, offer to barter some services or products in exchange for a mention in their next email newsletter or notification. If you do have your own mailing list, you can ask another list owner to include a link to your sign-up form, or offer to add their sign-up form to your page if it seems that subscribers on each site may be interested in the other site’s content as well.   

Got more freebs? Share the wealth…let us know about your tips by posting them here. 

Email: Garth@DigitalPractices.com

* Services cited in the list above were free at the time this list was published, and have been published here as a service to readers. Some of these sites may offer fee-based options as well.

If only we could rise on a weekday morning without having to put on our work clothes, start a cranky car, fight our way through smoggy traffic, pay for expensive parking stalls, then do it all over again at the end of the day. Think of how we could minimize our footprint on the environment, save ourselves money on clothes, gas, and parking, and save our companies the cost of expensive office space.   

That seems to be the common wisdom when people talk about telecommuting or telework – synonyms for the use of Internet and communications technologies to work outside the traditional office or workplace, usually at home. MSNBC.com calls it “the quiet revolution” and predicts that by 2009, 27.5% of U.S. workers won’t be driving to the office.

Governments in Canada and elsewhere are starting to take telework seriously. The Environmental Quality branch of BC’s Ministry of Environment makes this recommendation: “Consider a condensed work week or telecommuting as a way to work effectively and cut air pollution.” For many disabled employees it can also present a way to be an active member the workforce without having to undertake the challenges of commuting or office access and facilities.

According to the 2008-2009 WorldatWork Salary Budget Survey of total rewards programs used to attract and retain talent (www.worldatwork.org), telework has shown the most substantial 12-month increase in both Canada and the U.S.  Although telework in the U.S. had a significant increase – from 30% in 2007 to 42% this year – the increase in Canada was even more dramatic, rising from 25% in 2007 to 40% this year.  

“It’s been a perfect storm,” says Anne C. Ruddy, CCP, president of WorldatWork. “Rising gas prices, leading-edge technology, and the push for work-life flexibility have all come together in the past 12 months to create a pretty dramatic increase in telework across the U.S. and Canada.”

BC’s TELUS Corporation found that teleworking can increase employee productivity by about 20%. The company conducted a 2006 pilot project where the company allowed 170 employees to work at home, and not only did it increase productivity and morale, but it also saved 114 tonnes in greenhouse gases and almost 14,000 hours of time in traffic.

Yet even though more organizations in Canada and the U.S. are beginning to implement telework options or at least develop telework policies, and many employees and unions are embracing the opportunity, some employers — and even their employees – are still reluctant.

In an article in Ontario’s Business Edge magazine (www.businessedge.ca/), writer Sharon Adams says “Old-line thinking – better suited to the industrial revolution – is holding us back from the full benefits of telecommuting.”  She quotes Bob Fortier, president of the Canadian Telework Association (himself a virtual worker) who found that “There are a lot of managers who say, ‘Not on my watch.’ “

Technology such as Web-based applications, video conferencing, webcams, instant messaging, and VoIP/telephony can enable virtual workers to work from homebase much more efficiently and accountably. Organizations also have to consider other issues, though. In the Sept 3 issue of ITBusiness.ca, employers are advised to ask themselves these six questions before implementing a telework program:

1. Is full-time telecommuting a smart decision?
2. How will you define and measure performance?
3. Will creativity suffer?
4. How will telework affect collaboration?
5. What about employees “left behind” in the office?
6. Do you have an exit strategy? (i.e. if you decide to discontinue the telework option)

Here are some of the tangible benefits and potential pitfalls of telework programs — from the perspectives of employers and employees – along with recent research that has been done on this hot topic.

Telework is a great recruiting and engagement incentive.

As we noted earlier in this article from the WorldatWork survey, telework is on the rise as an incentive to attract and retain talent. Both young workers entering the workforce as well as workers closer to retirement also have an interest in the flexibility of at-home work options. And for younger workers, there is no clear line between their work-life and personal life, so it feels natural and comfortable for them to them to work from home. 

Telework offers meaningful lifestyle options so employees can have a better work/life balance. This can improve employee morale and reduce stress, with the end result of a more satisfied, stable and productive workforce. EKOS Research found that 33% of Canadians would choose telework over a salary raise, while 43% would actually quit their job to work somewhere that allows telework. 

On the other hand, older or more established workers, who haven’t experienced telecommuting and are used to being in the office, may have some reluctance, especially at mid-career. A recent U.S. survey of 700 white-collar workers reported that almost two-thirds of all the respondents expressed fear that working from home “will hinder their chances at a promotion due to the lack of contact with the employer.” About 71% said they believed their manager wants them around to prevent a decline in productivity, while another 62% said they think their employer needs them in the office to prevent communication issues.

Telework can net huge savings on the high cost of office space.

Not only can home-based employees help organizations reduce the costs of office overhead, include leases costs, taxes, energy costs, and equipment and supply costs, they can also help solve the ever-present urban issue of available office space (especially in places such as downtown Victoria). Through telework, AT & T reported saving $500 million in office costs since 1995, and IBM reduced the need for office space for a savings of $56 million per year.   

Telework can help improve the efficiency, performance and productivity of your employees.

As many organizations become more reliant on information technology for their operations and communications, teleworking can actually help companies get a better return on investment from their workplace technology. American Express reported that their teleworkers handled 26% more calls and produced 43% more business than their office-based counterparts. At IBM Canada, where 20% of the workforce teleworks, studies showed that teleworking employees were as much as 50% more productive.

However, trust – on the part of employers – remains the looming shadow behind the sunshine of telework. Production-focused workers whose output can be quantified electronically are less concern than workers whose productivity is often measured by their managers in terms of what they’re seen to be doing in the office. A series of Dilbert comic strips chronicled Dilbert’s brief telecommuting experience as he descends into comical non-productivity. It’s exactly what most employers fear, but employers who take the risk often find that the main change is the need to manage more diligently. 

“You’re trusting people to do the work,” said Steve Lundin of BigFrontier Communications group, quoted in the Sept 7 issue of the San Francisco Chronicle. . “There is some fluff time you’re paying for, but what you bill out for is far more than what you’re paying them.” Lundin added that one downside to telecommuting is the “additional management of people,” and said he has to spend more of his time speaking to his telecommuters over the phone.

Teleworking employees may also find that their collaboration and creativity in certain jobs or roles may be impacted because their physical isolation keeps them from the stimulating personal interaction they would normally have in informal or formal groups, pods and meetings. Employers can remedy this by ensuring teleworkers have opportunities to meet face-to-face regularly, and this may even reduce the number of unnecessary or unproductive meetings that are called just because workers are onsite.   

The Green Commute - telework options can show your corporate commitment to the environment.  

Your organization can improve its “green” image and show its commitment to the community by helping reduce vehicle emissions as well as saving energy and energy costs by reducing gas consumption. This can be demonstrated in hard numbers on an annual report, too. A U.S. article in the Sept 5 issue of the Hartford Courant reports that an employee with a 45-minute commute could cut his or her monthly gas expenses by 40%, or about $80, if allowed to telecommute two days a week.

Organizations that operate across several time zones or want to expand to global markets can hire and deploy teleworkers in other countries with ease.

There’s also the issue of the costs and logistics of relocating staff to other regions or even other countries. Statistics Canada reports that it costs companies an average of $42,000 to relocate workers to another city. With telework, some workers can be allowed to remain in their own hometown while conducting work for a branch in another location. 

Telework can be a selective program offered to specific categories of workers without impacting the availability of employees that are needed on-site.

ITBusiness.ca points out that telework works best for task-oriented jobs (such as IT positions) that don’t require a lot of face-to-face interaction with others. In fact, this can even help improve productivity for these types of employees who can work in a private environment without any non-work-related distractions. Call centres are increasingly using telework as a way to save costs and allow employees to handle calls routed to their homes where they can use online databases and tools to help customers resolve issues. In fact, this can even help organizations increase the number of number of customer service hours available to the public as teleworkers can work longer, later, or staggered hours at home and not have to worry about transportation or even personal safety issues. This can, however, lead to a problem with a “digital divide” separating those left behind in the office and those who are teleworking.

Telework can help reduce overtime for office staff and may even help reduce absenteeism.

When it comes to minor illnesses or health issues that might normally keep workers absent and unproductive, telework offers some employees (in some cases) the option to work from the comfort of their own home when they have minor health problems without the physical stress of having to be in the office. Less travel time also may mean less overtime costs. Absenteeism averages about 8 days a year (6.9 days for men, and 9.2 days for women) says a study Statistics Canada, and Health Canada has reported that the cost of balancing work and family is about $2.7 billion.

Canadian organizations that telework.
Source: Canadian Telework Association 

This article was originally published in Douglas Magazine. Garth A. Buchholz is the President and Chief Usability Analyst at DigitalPractices Media Inc.

For every rule of thumb about the Internet, there’s one “on the other hand.” In this case, creating a new site using a new domain name may be a good strategy for attracting new users to your parent site and for giving your stodgy corporate page a bit of edginess by way of association.

For example, Burger King’s highly effective viral marketing campaign had its own spinoff site at http://www.subservientchicken.com — a hilarious, interactive gimmick that was silly, but also linked to the Burger King corporate site. After seeing their Subservient Chicken site, it’s hard not to think of Burger King a little differently than you did before.

And of course, the campaign not only reached many users who might have never bothered to visit the BK.com corporate site, but it also gave them a way to tell their friends, family and colleagues about Burger King’s funny new promotion.

A spinoff site is not only a good marketing tool, but it can have a limited lifespan, too, after which you can just redirect users to your parent site. Think of these spinoff sites as W3 “special agents” that can be given a special mission and sent off into unknown Web territory to scout for new site visitors, bring back former site visitors, carry out specific assignments, convey information or other content, and then be recalled after their mission is completed successfully.

Home base is always your homepage, but these “special agent” spinoff sites can help you attain your Web objectives. They help you leverage the power of the Internet by using a new metaphor for your Web activities. Instead of being a virtual real-estate owner in a worldwide neighborhood where you wait for people to visit you, you can start deploying a virtual salesforce that visits other neighborhoods and knocks on new doors.

When Web customers click on a link, that’s an interaction, but when they submit a contact request, that’s a transaction of information – they’re send you their personal “content” and expecting the site to respond accordingly. They’re sharing their personal information and inquiries, and the Web site administrator is providing customer service in return.

Back in the day when the Web was young, most commercial Web sites had very little content, yet never failed to include someone’s name and email address on the homepage. Google forward 10 years later and the “Contact” or “Contact Us” content is most often tucked into the header nav or footer nav. Click on it and you might get a mailform, a simple “Contact our Webmaster” link or, with some serendipity, you may find an actual phone number and mailing address.

A December 2005 Jupiter Research report found that since 2000, the number of sites that responded to email inquiries within 24 hours continued to decrease. Only 45% of sites surveyed responded to email inquiries within 24 hours, and 39% of sites took three days or longer to reply, or did not respond at all.

Last year when I was on the judging panel for the WebAward it struck me that of all the dozens of Web sites I was reviewing – and many of which were award winners in one category or another – it was rare to find a site that had extensive contact and customer service information. Most commercial Web sites, including public sector and NGOs, simply do not provide excellence in “customer service experience” when it comes to their customer contact transactions:

1. CONTACT INFORMATION IS HARD TO FIND.

Contact info is hidden, obscured or limited to a simple “Contact the Webmaster” email link. To improve your site’s usability, make sure visitors can easily find contact information by displaying prominently on the homepage and in all headers/footers. Contact-related content should be transparent, comprehensive and responsive.

2. NOT ENOUGH CONTACT INFORMATION.

If an organization wants to hide, why is it on the Internet? All Web sites should provide at least the names of the key people responsible for the organization and the site, as well as their contact phone numbers and email links. For larger organizations with publicly accessible offices, mailing addresses and street addresses should be provided as well.

3. WEB SITES DON’T RESPOND OR TAKE TOO LONG TO RESPOND.

When a visitor contacts a Web site, the assumption is that a person responsible for the site within the organization will respond to their email at least by the next business day. Getting swamped with emails through your Web site? That’s your problem, not the customer’s. Don’t make your Web customers stand in a virtual lineup all the time just to get a simple email response.

4. WEB CONTACT IS TOO IMPERSONAL AND INTANGIBLE.

After a customer clicks to submit their email, what evidence do they have of their transaction? The Jupiter Research report found that, of 92% of Web sites offering email as a customer support option, only 41% acknowledged receipt of customers’ messages with automated email responses. Also, in autoresponse emails and tracking emails, more sites should include a unique customer service number for tracking as well as an email address and/or telephone number as well as a customer service manager’s name that they can contact if they are not satisfied with the service they are receiving.

5. CUSTOMER SERVICE EXPERIENCE IS POOR WHEN SITES RESPOND TO WEB CONTACT TRANSACTIONS.

Make sure the follow-up to Web site contact transactions is friendly, personal (include a service agent’s first name and contact information) and effective. If it seems a request cannot be resolved by email, provide the customer with a way to elevate the request so that the issue/request can be resolved.

Garth A. Buchholz, BA, CUA, is an author, educator and Web strategist at DigitalPractices. Contact Garth at [250] 589.5898 or email Garth@DigitalPractices.com.

If Web development isn’t driven by an alignment of sustainable technology, user-driven content and business-driven goals, the corporate Web presence will either fail to meet your business goals, be troubled by expensive technology challenges or simply alienate your core users.

The strategic objectives of a solid Corporate Web Strategy are found at the confluence of:

1. Business and strategic goals: Does the Web site support and/or advance your core business objectives or the objectives of one of your strategic initiatives?

2. Targeted core users: Does your Web site attract, engage and retain the kind of users you want to attract? (e.g. for client support, conversion, marketing, etc). Is it providing the level of customer service they expect?  Do your Web analytics support these assumptions?

3. Enabling technology that is integrated, sustainable and scalable:  Are your technology infrastructure and IT support staff capable of delivering what you want to deliver online? Can the costs of IT development and maintenance be justified by what you’re achieving in objectives #1 and #2 above?

If all your Web objectives fall within the overlap of the three objectives above, your Corporate Web Strategy is sound because it’s meeting your technology requirements, satisfying your online clients, and above all, working in sync with your short-term and long-term business goals. 

Copyright 2007-2009 Garth A. Buchholz All Rights Reserved
For free reprint permission contact Garth@DigitalPractices.com

When Web customers click on a link, that’s an interaction, but when they submit a contact request, that’s a transaction of information – they’re send you their personal “content” and expecting the site to respond accordingly. They’re sharing their personal information and inquiries, and the Web site administrator is providing customer service in return. 

Back in the day when the Web was young, most commercial Web sites had very little content, yet never failed to include someone’s name and email address on the homepage. Google forward 10 years later and the “Contact” or “Contact Us” content is most often tucked into the header nav or footer nav. Click on it and you might get a mailform, a simple “Contact our Webmaster” link or, with some serendipity, you may find an actual phone number and mailing address. 

A December 2005 Jupiter Research report found that since 2000, the number of sites that responded to email inquiries within 24 hours continued to decrease. Only 45% of sites surveyed responded to email inquiries within 24 hours, and 39% of sites took three days or longer to reply, or did not respond at all. 

Last year when I was on the judging panel for the 2005 WebAward it struck me that of all the dozens of Web sites I was reviewing – and many of which were award winners in one category or another – it was rare to find a site that had extensive contact and customer service information. Most commercial Web sites, including public sector and NGOs, simply do not provide excellence in “customer service experience” when it comes to their customer contact transactions: 

1. CONTACT INFORMATION IS HARD TO FIND.

Contact info is hidden, obscured or limited to a simple “Contact the Webmaster” email link. To improve your site’s usability, make sure visitors can easily find contact information by displaying prominently on the homepage and in all headers/footers. Contact-related content should be transparent, comprehensive and responsive. 

2. NOT ENOUGH CONTACT INFORMATION.

If an organization wants to hide, why is it on the Internet? All Web sites should provide at least the names of the key people responsible for the organization and the site, as well as their contact phone numbers and email links. For larger organizations with publicly accessible offices, mailing addresses and street addresses should be provided as well. 

3. WEB SITES DON’T RESPOND OR TAKE TOO LONG TO RESPOND.

When a visitor contacts a Web site, the assumption is that a person responsible for the site within the organization will respond to their email at least by the next business day. Getting swamped with emails through your Web site? That’s your problem, not the customer’s. Don’t make your Web customers stand in a virtual lineup all the time just to get a simple email response. 

4. WEB CONTACT IS TOO IMPERSONAL AND INTANGIBLE.

After a customer clicks to submit their email, what evidence do they have of their transaction? The Jupiter Research report found that, of 92% of Web sites offering email as a customer support option, only 41% acknowledged receipt of customers’ messages with automated email responses. Also, in autoresponse emails and tracking emails, more sites should include a unique customer service number for tracking as well as an email address and/or telephone number as well as a customer service manager’s name that they can contact if they are not satisfied with the service they are receiving. 

5. CUSTOMER SERVICE EXPERIENCE IS POOR WHEN SITES RESPOND TO WEB CONTACT TRANSACTIONS.

Make sure the follow-up to Web site contact transactions is friendly, personal (include a service agent’s first name and contact information) and effective. If it seems a request cannot be resolved by email, provide the customer with a way to elevate the request so that the issue/request can be resolved.

What if you could share your own private network with the people and organizations you trust, exclude all other Internet connections (Web, email, etc) unless it passed your own criteria for inclusion, and could police your network by blocking any sites or emails that violated your rules in any way? What we think of as “the Internet” could fast become “the Intranet (capital ‘I’)”.

While everyone’s still garnering an understanding of what Web 2.0 means, a Web 3.0 could creep up and overtake it because of bandwidth, security and proprietary content drivers.

EXAMPLE 1: BANDWIDTH AND ACCESSIBILITY

SavetheInternet.com is a coalition that has “banded together to save the First Amendment of the Internet: network neutrality.” Their site defines Net Neutrality thusly:

Net Neutrality is the reason why the Internet has driven economic innovation, democratic participation, and free speech online. It’s why the Internet has become an unrivaled environment for open communications, civic involvement and free speech. The nation’s largest telephone and cable companies – including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner – want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won’t load at all. They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data. They want to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services, and streaming video – while slowing down or blocking their competitors.

Their concern is that the open playing field of the current Internet, where everyone gets equal; bandwidth consideration, will be lost in favor of a Web 3.0 where private enterprise offers a faster, but more exclusive Net for those who can afford it.

EXAMPLE 2: SECURITY AND USABILITY

Personal InfoCloud, by Thomas Vander Wal of InfoCloud Solutions, talks about about how users have a kind of preferred way of accessing information online, what he calls the “Local InfoCloud”:

As the my understanding began to lean toward familiarity as a core component of the definition of Local InfoCloud, the term began to embrace the social and community aspects (I am working on shying away from the term community as it is a broadly used term and I am trying to be a little more precise). Interactions with people, services, networks, applications, etc. that are familiar are means of bringing information closer to us as people with data, information, and media needs. The Local InfoCloud eases access. It eases the ability to find and refind information. It is information that is closer to us, not necessarily in physical proximity, but in the ability to access, in which familiarity is bread. I spent much time considering changing the label from local to community or social, but there were elements that did not perfectly fit that either.

Location-based services may be created by a service, but understanding the mindset, terminology, dialect, and cognitive frameworks that are germane to that physical location the information can be structured to resemble or mirror the social elements of understanding in that place. I will get to a better understanding of this when I talk about the Location aspect of the Local InfoCloud. As well, thinking in the Model of Attraction framework the Local InfoCloud is that which is attracted closer to us than the Global InfoCloud.

What I extrapolated from Vander Wal’s blog is that the Internet, or the “Global InfoCloud”, could become much less appealing for users than their own private network where they could control how they find and refind information, and how they interact with more familiar people, services, networks, applications.

EXAMPLE 3: PROPRIETARY CONTENT AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Back in the late ’90s when I wrote a weekly Internet column for our local newspaper, one of the things I predicted was that the Internet would become more proprietary, just like how online subscription services such as AOL, Compuserve and so on used to operate a few years earlier. That’s not to say that you won’t be able to access any content on the Net, but any content worth accessing would be fee-based.

In a recent New York Times book review, the issue of digital publishing is given another spin. When all books are digital, it makes it easier to combine and recombine information like never before:

Liberating books from their physical contexts could make it easier for them to blend into one another, a concept heralded by Kevin Kelly in an article in The New York Times Magazine last month. “Once text is digital, books seep out of their bindings and weave themselves together,” wrote Mr. Kelly in an article that was derided by Mr. Updike in his BookExpo polemic. “The collective intelligence of a library allows us to see things we can’t see in a single, isolated book.”

Of course, that should alarm the entire publishing industry, especially authors. Up till now, a book with its two sacred covers was a complete work, a product, a publishing unit of sale, a reference and an ISBN number. But if your book simply becomes a part of the swirling maelstrom of data on the Web, integrated into other databases and chopped into fine bits like the old K-Tel food processor infomercials we used to see on TV, who makes money on it? And who gets the credit if your content is simply hashed up into other dynamically generated pages of material?

Again, that’s where a network of private intranets would appeal to those who want to preserve the integrity of their intellectual properties. You control who can access it, who can buy it, and what they can do with it. I can think of many other reasons why Web 3.0 may happen sooner than we think, but I’d really like to hear from others on this subject. Post your responses here, or email me  and I’ll share your thoughts in this blog.