Graham Jones

How not to relaunch your website

The Guardian Soulmates Relaunch did not please everyoneOne in three people online have used an online dating service at some stage in their life. Indeed, a study a couple of years back showed that online dating is much more successful in finding a partner than traditional forms of dating, such as meeting people in a bar. It has been estimated (probably by the dating site owners) that online dating is one of the most popular methods of finding a husband or wife these days. But whatever you believe from the statistics, there is no doubt that the online dating sector is alive, well and thriving economically. So why, oh why, if you ran a dating website would you change your offering and alienate a significant slice of your audience?

Well, that’s what happened last week when The Guardian newspaper relaunched its “Soulmates” online dating service. Within a couple of days there were hundreds of negative comments on the Guardian’s blog post about the changes and Twitter was awash with comments. Of course, that is to be expected – people do not like change that much. Loyal members of the Soulmates website would inevitably want things the way they always were, so no doubt The Guardian knew there would be some flack flying. However, their revamp of the site provides some useful lessons for anyone wanting to change their website. If you plan on redeveloping your business site now – or in the future – the Guardian Soulmates case history is one worth thinking about.

Looking at what The Guardian did, it all seems to make sense. Prior to making changes they gathered together some existing members, built a test site and made this available privately to their focus groups. Then they used the feedback to change things  and then prepared several design options for people to select from once the functionality had been tested thoroughly. In other words, they researched their potential changes before launching their new version of the site and were clearly happy that their results – otherwise why would they have launched the new site?

But looking at what The Guardian did, there appear to be some basic mistakes made. For a start, it seems they were so keen to research their audience they spent more time and effort on this than on the site’s actual development. For instance, when you look at the new site the front page only shows you pictures of men. That implies either it is for women only, looking for male partners, or it is a gay dating site. Every other heterosexual site includes both genders on its front page. Basic really. Also, when you click on the biggest picture on the front page, to access the profile, you are told the individual is “a drug dependent, alcoholic, gambler” – hardly the best individual to give your highest profile to on your front page perhaps?

Then there are practical issues – the “Find a Soulmate” box appears on the right side of the front page and then it jumps to the left side in subsequent pages. Consistency of placing elements on a page is a key reason for a website’s success. Just imagine if Amazon kept moving the search box on its pages…! Basic, schoolboy error again.

Of course these aren’t the issues that existing members worry about. Their feedback shows that there are even more basic coding errors – like searches for a female partner providing a list of blokes, or no longer being able to search by Post Code, meaning you can only search for a partner in places like “Manchester”, which is rather vague.

A clue to what is going on is provided in the Guardian Blog; the replies to the negative comments are all provided by one individual from The Guardian. She has now switched off comments on the blog so that she can concentrate on building the site to what its members want. Does this suggest she is “the team”? In other words, there is an implication that the Soulmates site is under-resourced.

So what can you learn from this high-profile relaunch so you do not upset your visitors? Firstly, if you do want to revamp your site you must consider the basics – site consistency, the immediate psychological messages you convey. The Guardian Soulmates site is now predominantly blue and blokey – will that retain or attract its women members? Will it appeal to its male membership?

Secondly, if you are going to use focus groups or visitor research it has to be part of the process not THE process. Reading the Guardian’s blog on the changes I get the impression that the user research was the dominant activity. Also, there appears to be a separation of looking at functionality and then looking at design – but function and design are an integrated whole and cannot be that easily separated. This is especially the case if your focus groups make you want to introduce a function which your design team then cannot implement easily.

A third element of this relaunch is the way you handle the inevitable negativity which will surround any change you make. Only having one person who can answer comments is inadequate as it doesn’t allow for a conversation to take place. In other words, you need to establish the process in advance as  to how you will deal with the impact of change. Simply switching off comments because you don’t have the time to deal with them smacks of lack of planning and lack of care for your audience.

The Guardian Soulmates relaunch appears to have annoyed many members as well -which means they will look elsewhere for their dates. And if the Guardian thinks it can replace the lost membership they may have trouble. Their dating site has the same name as another dating website called Soulmates which has 2m members and has been around for six years. Even a basic Google search will have told The Guardian they face online competition. Another lesson for you – your website revamp often doesn’t need complex research to work out what the problems might be. A simple online search may be all you need.

 

 

Graham Jones
Graham Jones is an Internet Psychologist who studies the way people use the online world, in particular how people engage with businesses. He uses this knowledge to help companies improve their online connections to their customers and potential customers and offers consultancy, workshops, masterclasses and webinars. He also speaks regularly at conferences and business events. Graham is an award-winning writer and the author of 32 books, several of which are about various aspects of the Internet. For more information connect with me on Google+
Graham Jones

@grahamjones

Graham Jones is an Internet Psychologist, professional speaker and author of 32 books who helps businesses understand the online behaviour of their customers
6 Things Successful Content Marketers Do Every Morning https://t.co/mOYxbR3PF4 - 5 hours ago
Graham Jones

5 thoughts on “How not to relaunch your website

  1. Hi,

    Having not seen the blog, I was relieved to find someone, somewhere talking about how they ruined what was a great website.

    They have completely ruined it and that is no exaggeration. I know people hate it when sites change, I remember the outrage when facebook changed…but at least it improved slightly. This is a hige step backwars. I sent two emails complaining and havent heard a thing back.

    Appauling.

    • Thanks for your comment Hannah – you are not the only person to say they have ruined the site. So perhaps the extent of the feelings against the change are even more severe than I have mentioned here. Perhaps other people will let me know what they think too.

  2. Ironically, having been a member of Soulmates a couple of years ago – and had a very positive experience – your post prompted me to go and take a look. I had balked a couple of months ago at what seemed a rather pricey subscription, but needs must and all that, so I thought I would have a second go. My goodness! What an absolute shambles. Having been unable to set up even the first stage of my username (it just sent me back to the beginning each time, with no explanation of why), I sent a complaint. I then received two patently automated emails that pretended to come from a real person. Here is the second response:

    Hi Nick,

    Thanks for getting back to us.

    The information you've provided will certainly aid our efforts to remedy the fault you've experienced.

    We hope to have a solution in place as soon as we can.

    Kind regards,

    David,

    Soulmates Support Team

    You can tell that it is not a personalised email and yet is attempting to seem as such. Having also had an issue with unsubscribing from the Guardian emails on their various politics or voluntary professional networks, I am REALLY reconsidering my previous belief that the Guardian is a good and worthwhile website. They used to be seen as one of the best, but they are doing their best to ruin it right now, I think.

    If only one of them bothered to read your blog and these comments, but I guess they are all about the advertising and corporate angle now, which means they have lost their raison d'etre and in time, I imagine, will lose their visitor traffic too.

    • Nick, thanks for your comment. Sorry to hear you also had a negative experience with Guardian Soulmates.Perhaps you ought to send them a link to this blog post…!

  3. I can say categorically that it's not just that people don't like change. Tons of basic functionality has just…gone. For starters:

    – you can't delete people you absolutely know you'll never be interested in from appearing in searches. This just clogs up my pages.

    – the keyword search brings up people of both sexes. Not much use unless you play for both teams. Another waste of time.

    – they've lost the top 10s, which were fun.

    – if you're shown 20 pages of matches, you can't randomly go to say page 18. Have to go one by one which is annoying.

    – there's some really weird stuff going on when you pick out criteria. For instance, i'm an atheist but happy to be matched to eg a fellow atheist, an agnostic, a spiritual type, maybe a buddhist. But i'm only allowed to pick one option. This is daft.

    – i can't see who's online. .

    – i can't see what my matches are looking for. I don't want to waste my time trying to attract the attention of a man who loves petite blondes when i'm a 5'10 brunette.

    – 'he's a really great match for you' is not enough. I want percentages back – he's an 87% match for you.

    – the matches brought up on my homepage are from all round the UK. Mostly i want to see people where I live (london). Also, the height thing. I am tall. I like tall men. The matches on my homepage are any height. Call me fussy but 5 '5 is no good for me – and unless they've got a tall girl fetish, i'd be no good for them either. There doesn't seem to be a way to fix this.

    I could go on. All the above was easy on the old site – it was all there. Now it's not. It's an absolute disaster. They say they tested it. I absolutely don't believe that's true – or certainly not on anyone who currently used the site. The weird thing is the Guardian have always been so pioneering online – the newspaper site is brilliant. How they can have screwed this up so badly i just don't know.

Comments are closed.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

Close