I will not rest until every last splash page is put out to pasture. Got that Nutter! I’ll cut you a little break as you celebrate 125 years. A few sections carry the content load—banking, financial litigation, labor law. The site is not bad. It is just that Boston is yet another city that has seen the web site quotient rise up in recent years. This is still the least expensive and widest audience range tool. Use it.
You can’t say all the things they say in every state. However, I’m not the ethics police and I do not have a warrant to search the database. (Yet, I do teach “marketing ethics”; catch me at the ABA Annual Meeting this summer, and again for the Pennsylvania Bar Institute later this year. Both volunteer, not-for-profit, so this is not really a plug. Like the IMAs, the pay is pure pro bono). Anyway, these trail lawyers clearly win a lot, according to the site. Which is what you would probably be looking for here. What I do not want to see is “in the news” that is over a year old, with “news” from the 90s (this is not VH-1). I still like the design look. Yet, some things are still missing. And how about their “trial lawyer of the month” award? I could only imagine the politics in this one at many firms.
I watched the “see what makes us different” flash show highlighted on the home page, and determined that the only thing different is that similar firms with similar themes do not have a flash show on the home page. I did, however, like the “client highlight” top left on the home page. That is a little different. The “staying informed” headlines were all very recent. That is different. The up-to-the-minute industry news was a nice touch. A little different as well. Still having a “guest book” is different, but in a negative way. Okay, I’ll maybe you are a tiny bit different.
It is good to see the “health care” lawyers are contributing to “alerts and updates”. What are the rest of you up to? This is another site that I did not like as much in 04 than in 03. A lot is just that other sites (especially in Boston and in D.C.) have revved it up and flown by. It needs to be better organized, and the components easier to follow. I know I commended the “quick guide” last year. Changed my mind. Flush out the bio and practice pages.
When I can not remember what a site used to look like, I get back into my time machine (aka archive.org) and drift back. I did not love the new home page until I looked at the old one. Okay, okay…it is better. Not big on the “take a picture of the building from the ground level” that is way overused. But, IMA is about progress. And the FW site is improved. There are many areas that might have been better integrated with one another. But, baby steps…baby steps.
On this review date, “This Just In” on the home page was last updated more than two months ago. That does not send a good sign. The info you seek is on the site, but it is not always the most user-friendly. For the most part, this is that family car that you know you need to replace, but if you could just get 10,000 more miles out of it…next time the engine blows, trade it in.
Redesign and reorganization are long overdue. What once was a site loved by IMA, it is now an aggravating surfing experience, going from ahead of the curve to behind it. As has always been the case, the content is there, just not easy to grab a hold of. The research portal is still a nice touch, but even that site has lost some luster. Another scoring drop from 30 to 21.
Sometimes your eyes focus on little things that are helpful, but probably missed by many. This site shows me the last few pages I’ve surfed as I scroll along, making it easy to go back to a recent page. I found the “industry experience matrix” interesting as well. The overall navigation was difficult, though. And the “publications” was one article. The look and design are much more polished than the site’s predecessor. It is improved, but still has a ways to go, to reach that award-level. Think usability.
Anything was going to be an improvement, for sure. The new site is better, but still lacks depth. Throw away the home page and tailor it to the internal site strengths (mostly the items in “news”). Too many areas lack detail—the practice area pages, the attorney bios. It is a professional presence, though, but it could be doing more for you. Still too far to the “brochure” side of life.
I thought it was funny that all three seminars listed on the home page were by Barry M. Benjamin. None of the three hyperlinked his name to a bio or practice. Since the attorney listings are broken down into partner, associate, etc., I had to start with partner alphabetically. He is an associate in the Financial Services group. Why do you make it so difficult to find this data? The beauty of the web is in being able to connect the dots with simplicity. And the seminar site should have opened up a second browser rather than have me leave the firm site. The new site is slicker but actually lost some of the videos and power points that were strengths in the old one. Kudos for adding associates to the attorneys section, though!
Well, the 100th Anniversary is over (’02), so I’d put that logo away for awhile. The home page is current and improved, as are sections like “seminars.” I’m still not a huge fan of the attorney bio search listings, but since I whined about not having associates listed two years ago, and you added them, I’ll shut up for the time being. The site is okay, but as is the case in every one, it could be sharper and more user-friendly.
