Shortly after starting BOWLING HOOD, I wrote a review of what I thought of the redesigned http://www.bowl.com/ and new policies but reserved myself to write a part 2 followup.
Here it is: I don't get what it is that's supposed to make more people flock to http://www.bowl.com/.
What is it that's supposed to make more people flock to it? I don't see it.
There is none. It's on the front page of the site and unless you go there regularly, or have someone tell you about it like BOWLING HOOD is doing here, you'd miss it.
If anything concerns me more than that, it's the USBC policy about the website forum - moderating comments before posting.
What prompted my passion is the current firestorm in St. Louis where Kurt Greenbaum, St. Louis Post Dispatch Director of Social Media, chose to play Internet cop by calling a school about a post to one of their forums made from their location that eventually forced the person who wrote the item to quit.
This is about the decision makers and their decision makers on how to process the Internet to market people. It seems some enjoy the power of managing Internet communications. They like being in the position of what they think is right and wrong, what benefits their site and what doesn't.
However, when it comes down to cold hard research and data, some twist the 'Net's usage and makes it is unmanagable for users, especially in bowling.
The life or death of bowling growth will depend if USBC - and the PBA - uses the Internet correctly to do reach-out marketing. .
Right now, I see the PBA doing just many things correctly using the 'net, but not http://www.bowl.com/. BOWLING HOOD finds USBC decisions proprietary, arbitrary, inhibited and regressive and that's what prompted me to write a part 2 review.
For the record, I am not a dues paying PBA member. I am a dues paying member of the USBC and volunteer for the St. Louis USBC.
Last week, I attempted to post on the http://www.bowl.com/ forum the story of Andy Cline's PBA Experience 300 game. I posted the link, and it was rejected by the USBC, who no longer allows people to see outside sites. And BOWLING HOOD hears there are issues involving no reporting of the three 300 games shot in the same game by Dale Butler, Don Griffin and Joe Nolan.
Respected bowling writer and bowler Jeff Richgels recently wrote an excellent article about the exclusion of two prominent bowlers from the USBC Hall of Fame ballot. Yep, it was critical - and Richgels couldn't post a link to his must-read article and blog.
So I registered my complaint to Mark Miller of USBC Communications, the person who rejected my post.
Here's what I got. The USBC doesn't want people reading other web sites, even if they are bowling related. They want the attention on them.
The Internet's slang, the web connects people with information. That's what makes the 'net great. It is raw and open, generates emotion and it's emotion that gets people to act and do something.
http://www.bowl.com/ generates little positive emotion and breaks rather than creates links in that web, thus creating negative emotion.
Institutional style websites like http://www.bowl.com/ are throwbacks to newspapers. They're losing readers and going bankrupt. Sites that do well are that have out-of-the-box appearance, presentation and use. The PBA's site is attractive, presentation is middle-of-the-road, and is user-friendly.
Navigating bowl.com is like trying to configure all the components to operate a PC.
The USBC has a newcomer on its communications staff. Pete Tredwell comes in from ESPN as Vice President of Media.
BOWLING HOOD has learned he's ticked off some upper crust folks at the PBA. That's because Tredwell chose to use the PBA Forum to ask this question:
I'd like to hear what this group thinks. I want your opinions. Hoping people take this seriously, and don't use it as a platform to make jokes.
The joke is being perpetrated by the USBC on its members.
The question should have been raised on the bowl.com forum.
Why? Because USBC membership dues make bowl.com and the forum possible
Some at PBA headquarters are unhappy their forum is being used by USBC staff for USBC research. I can't blame them. Yes, the PBA and USBC has a partnership. But that partnership is contractual for things like PBA experience leagues, it's not open-season for resource or data sharing.
Well, that might be the right way to go. After all, those people on the PBA site - 175 posts in just a week - couldn't do that in forums at bowl.com. Because it's moderated. Moderated for negative people and negative thoughts according to Mills.
USBC staff thinks negative thoughts are bad. So, I think I've got this straight:
USBC Communications wants input from people
USBC won't do it at bowl.com because it doesn't want negative people
USBC uses a partner's (PBA) resource (their forum) for research
PBA staff not happy they're being used for that purpose
PBA however is gracious and keeps the thread up allowing real time posting
USBC gets hammered with negative comments in the PBA forum because of the above
However, there were several posts praising Tredwell for "sticking his neck" out on the PBA forum with his question. USBC members do appreciate transparency.
But I guess negative thoughts by negative people about the USBC should best go to an unmoderated PBA forum.
That's called having your head in the sand. If you're going to be on the web, you gotta take the bad with the good. It's 2009, not 1959. Enough with the Wally Cleaver - group hug attitude.
There is a big difference between criticism and negative thoughts.
1. Criticism is analysis supported by facts and alternative solutions
2. Criticism is an analysis that can result in positive reinforcement opinion
3. Negative comments are opinion and/or emotional based without alternative solutions or facts
Criticism is good. Negative is bad. And I don't think a lot of decision makers understand or get it.
So if BOWLING HOOD was Czar of All Things USBC Web Site Related, we would
1. Unmoderate the forum for real time posts
2. Moderate them for content
3. Remove negative posts with no constructive solution or fact
4. Ban and block offenders IP addresses 30 days for the first offense
5. Ban and block offenders IP addresses permanently after a 2nd incident
The Czar would take his chances reaching over 200 million people, from the normal to nuts, with a goal of landing one percent as members. That's two million people. Wouldn't that nearly double the existing membership number? Would that be a bad thing? Maybe - some might say they're not the right type of customer.
Bowling must connect with everyone, no matter what. Bowling isn't in a position to be picky or choosy.
It's nice I get to choose to have my own blog. The length of this column would never be published in a newspaper unless I owned it.
So USBC, let membership choose what's best for them - not what you think it is.
What prompted my passion is the current firestorm in St. Louis where Kurt Greenbaum, St. Louis Post Dispatch Director of Social Media, chose to play Internet cop by calling a school about a post to one of their forums made from their location that eventually forced the person who wrote the item to quit.
This is about the decision makers and their decision makers on how to process the Internet to market people. It seems some enjoy the power of managing Internet communications. They like being in the position of what they think is right and wrong, what benefits their site and what doesn't.
However, when it comes down to cold hard research and data, some twist the 'Net's usage and makes it is unmanagable for users, especially in bowling.
The life or death of bowling growth will depend if USBC - and the PBA - uses the Internet correctly to do reach-out marketing. .
Right now, I see the PBA doing just many things correctly using the 'net, but not http://www.bowl.com/. BOWLING HOOD finds USBC decisions proprietary, arbitrary, inhibited and regressive and that's what prompted me to write a part 2 review.
For the record, I am not a dues paying PBA member. I am a dues paying member of the USBC and volunteer for the St. Louis USBC.
Last week, I attempted to post on the http://www.bowl.com/ forum the story of Andy Cline's PBA Experience 300 game. I posted the link, and it was rejected by the USBC, who no longer allows people to see outside sites. And BOWLING HOOD hears there are issues involving no reporting of the three 300 games shot in the same game by Dale Butler, Don Griffin and Joe Nolan.
Respected bowling writer and bowler Jeff Richgels recently wrote an excellent article about the exclusion of two prominent bowlers from the USBC Hall of Fame ballot. Yep, it was critical - and Richgels couldn't post a link to his must-read article and blog.
So I registered my complaint to Mark Miller of USBC Communications, the person who rejected my post.
Here's what I got. The USBC doesn't want people reading other web sites, even if they are bowling related. They want the attention on them.
The Internet's slang, the web connects people with information. That's what makes the 'net great. It is raw and open, generates emotion and it's emotion that gets people to act and do something.
http://www.bowl.com/ generates little positive emotion and breaks rather than creates links in that web, thus creating negative emotion.
Institutional style websites like http://www.bowl.com/ are throwbacks to newspapers. They're losing readers and going bankrupt. Sites that do well are that have out-of-the-box appearance, presentation and use. The PBA's site is attractive, presentation is middle-of-the-road, and is user-friendly.
Navigating bowl.com is like trying to configure all the components to operate a PC.
BOWLING HOOD has learned he's ticked off some upper crust folks at the PBA. That's because Tredwell chose to use the PBA Forum to ask this question:
I'd like to hear what this group thinks. I want your opinions. Hoping people take this seriously, and don't use it as a platform to make jokes.
The joke is being perpetrated by the USBC on its members.
The question should have been raised on the bowl.com forum.
Why? Because USBC membership dues make bowl.com and the forum possible
Some at PBA headquarters are unhappy their forum is being used by USBC staff for USBC research. I can't blame them. Yes, the PBA and USBC has a partnership. But that partnership is contractual for things like PBA experience leagues, it's not open-season for resource or data sharing.
Well, that might be the right way to go. After all, those people on the PBA site - 175 posts in just a week - couldn't do that in forums at bowl.com. Because it's moderated. Moderated for negative people and negative thoughts according to Mills.
USBC staff thinks negative thoughts are bad. So, I think I've got this straight:
USBC Communications wants input from people
USBC won't do it at bowl.com because it doesn't want negative people
USBC uses a partner's (PBA) resource (their forum) for research
PBA staff not happy they're being used for that purpose
PBA however is gracious and keeps the thread up allowing real time posting
USBC gets hammered with negative comments in the PBA forum because of the above
However, there were several posts praising Tredwell for "sticking his neck" out on the PBA forum with his question. USBC members do appreciate transparency.
But I guess negative thoughts by negative people about the USBC should best go to an unmoderated PBA forum.
That's called having your head in the sand. If you're going to be on the web, you gotta take the bad with the good. It's 2009, not 1959. Enough with the Wally Cleaver - group hug attitude.
There is a big difference between criticism and negative thoughts.
1. Criticism is analysis supported by facts and alternative solutions
2. Criticism is an analysis that can result in positive reinforcement opinion
3. Negative comments are opinion and/or emotional based without alternative solutions or facts
Criticism is good. Negative is bad. And I don't think a lot of decision makers understand or get it.
So if BOWLING HOOD was Czar of All Things USBC Web Site Related, we would
1. Unmoderate the forum for real time posts
2. Moderate them for content
3. Remove negative posts with no constructive solution or fact
4. Ban and block offenders IP addresses 30 days for the first offense
5. Ban and block offenders IP addresses permanently after a 2nd incident
The Czar would take his chances reaching over 200 million people, from the normal to nuts, with a goal of landing one percent as members. That's two million people. Wouldn't that nearly double the existing membership number? Would that be a bad thing? Maybe - some might say they're not the right type of customer.
Bowling must connect with everyone, no matter what. Bowling isn't in a position to be picky or choosy.
It's nice I get to choose to have my own blog. The length of this column would never be published in a newspaper unless I owned it.
So USBC, let membership choose what's best for them - not what you think it is.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment