Archive for October 2009

To RFP or to not RFP?

Oct
30
2009

4
Comments

Over the last year, Small Box has been asked to respond to dozens of  RFPs for all kinds of businesses, corporations, and non-profits. Here’s some advice for groups that are looking to solicit work from a company like Small Box via an RFP process… Don’t. Just kidding, sorta.

I suggest instead of sending out RFPs to every company you come across examine the capabilities of the companies you are considering and start conversations with them.

If you like how the conversation is going and the work they have done for others then engage with them on a limited or trial basis. This might mean research and site architecture or just general consulting to help organize the project. If they are the right fit you will know after that limited engagement. If not then walk away with the work they did and keep looking.

This gives you a real chance to find out how they work, and in the long run saves you the time and money associated with an extended RFP process and subsequent “marriage” to the chosen vendor. What if that vendor is really only great at 2 of the 5 things you need? Now you have a vendor that is stretching to do work that it shouldn’t be doing.

Instead find one team to lead and manage the project and work with them to bring in secondary vendors as needed. Rely on the lead team’s knowledge and experience to help pick these secondary vendors.

An RFP can be a useful document and a good starting point for a conversation but most of the time the scope of a Web project will change, often dramatically, once the planning and design phase begins. The Web is both a wonderful and frustrating thing. It is ridiculously flexible as a platform which creates endless possibilities.

A smart company will engage with an agency that is willing to explore the possibilities, make informed choices, put together the right team to get it done and then circle back around to evaluate those choices after they have been implemented. Too often companies, and agencies, get pulled by the “idea of the day” creating endless scope creep and headaches for all involved. The resulting site is usually a messy melting pot of half baked ideas. Explore, make decisions and stay focused. You will have a much more successful project in the end.

- PJ with contributions from Jeb


What Happened to Ning?

Oct
2
2009

10
Comments

A year or so ago Ning.com was the belle of the ball. Gina Bianchini, the company’s CEO was featured on the cover of Fast Company. The article “Ning’s Infinite Ambition” detailed their viral loop strategy to getting 4 million Ning communities online by 2010.

Ok, well here we are entering the 4th quarter of 2009 and there are “only” 1.5 million Ning Networks and only a fifth of those are active. Only 3% of the communities are paying to run their own ads. I would argue that is an even better indication of how many truly active. Finally many feel, myself included, that the platform has not evolved fast enough to keep up with Facebook and Twitter.  In October 2008 Ning stopped supporting any API activity telling developers to work within the Open Social platform. Not a bad choice for some but certainly not the preferred method for most developers who want to customize their Ning Network and push content out to third party apps ala Tweetdeck, etc.

It’s no secret that Ning’s RSS feeds suck.
Their event feed doesn’t even include a field for the event’s date! If ou pull in the date field it’s the date the event was posted which is near worthless. Basically Ning has done as little as possible to make their platform a broadcast platform. It wants everyone to come to their party but they won’t return the favor. Ning just doesn’t play nice.

Also, some feel that Ning is actually a scam. Setting up this cool, white label social networking platform and then co-opting the users that their site admins have gathered. Read an interesting post on this and other Ning theories at Charting Stocks.

It appears that Ning has lots of money, having raised $60 million last April on a $500 million evaluation, also it has yearly revenues around $10 million. Not too shabby. So why aren’t they investing in the platform? Is Ning looking to be bought out? I would argue making improvements would increase that likelihood. Everyday that passes leaves Ning further and further behind. Their unwillingness to let their site administrators easily integrate third party apps and sites has opened the door for new Social Network services like SocialGo.com to get their foot in.

I’m frustrated by Ning.
At Small Box we run, consult and develop around several Ning communities, including the Indiana Music site Musicalfamilytree.com and the Indiana business site SmallerIndiana.com, but we consistently run into issues with the platform. Whether it’s bad RSS feeds or little control over the design and functionality we have to be very creative and make numerous compromises on a regular basis. With Musical Family Tree we have actually developed an entirely separate platform that appears to integrate seamlessly but I can assure it was anything but easy to do.

So what’s up Ning?
Why won’t you open up the API and let our Social Networks play nice with third party apps? Why won’t you develop the platform to realize it’s true potential?

What do you think? Is Ning on the right track or losing momentum?