My initial reservation was that Bing just wasn’t that good at, well, searching. It’s billed as a decision engine, and it definitely slices and dices information in new, sometimes helpful ways, but before it helps me decide something, it should give me the best possible choices from which to decide. Yet it didn’t find the results I needed for pretty simple searches. For example, I wanted to know more about an information architecture company called EightShapes. Last week, a search for “eightshapes” in Bing pulled up lots of results on mathematical principles, but no company website. This lack of results was repeated with several other simple searches—so I switched back to Google, which gave me the EightShapes site as the top search item. Just for fun, check out Bing vs. Google to compare search results in each engine.

Today, however, if you search for EightShapes (or any of the other search items I tested) on either engine, you get roughly the same results. So, perhaps Bing, like HAL, is learning… The bottom line is that Bing gives you the ability to search text, images, video, news, maps, and shopping. So does Google. Bing helps shortcut your search by linking directly to specific pages within companies. So does Google. Bing provides sponsored links. So does Google. One nice feature that Bing has that Google doesn’t, however, is the ability to save and share search histories on Facebook and email.

Where Bing really excels, however, is by leveraging the awesome marketing power of Microsoft. The Redmond giant’s ability to develop and coordinate a truly impressive array of marketing and promotional campaigns is awe inspiring.

It’s not just the standard deals to make Bing the default browser on HP and Dell PCs and Verizon smart phones. Here in San Francisco, not one week after Bing launched, DJs on every Viacom-owned radio station in the city suddenly stopped using “Google” as a verb and began using “Bing.” As in, “We should Bing that to see if it’s true.” Coincidence? Probably not. And then there’s the Bing Cashback program, which rewards shoppers for purchasing products on Bing by giving them a percentage of the purchase price as cash. Sweet.

Is Bing a better search engine? The jury’s still out for me. Is Microsoft better at marketing and promoting the product? There’s no contest.

He’s right.

The site is little more than a redirect to the Ford Drives U site, which is a program offering special deals, rates, financing, etc. for college students wanting to purchase Ford cars. It’s the prototypical example of how not to use Facebook.

BRAVO

The site features 500+ photos of all kinds of Fords in varying states of stock to fully modded. That’s it: Photos. Of cars. Most—but not all—of them Fords.

TRY AGAIN

The site hasn’t been updated since May 2008, when Ford posted a call for entries to the College 500: Driven by Ford. Billed as the “The road trip of a lifetime,” mtvU and Ford were looking for college students “to take part in a competitive journey across the country in the new reality show.”

There are no updates to the page, so I initially assumed that either the show got scrapped or they didn’t get enough entries. Not true. The show aired on mtvU last year. Hmmm.

There are 7,613 fans on the site as of this writing; yet there are no posts, no chatter, and no engagement between fans and Ford or among the fans themselves.

It’s a brilliant concept, with execution that lives up to the company’s lofty ideals.

BRAVO

The Footprint Chronicles essentially serves as a learning tool. Environmental awareness at a local level is a daunting topic as it pertains to a global company’s worldwide operations, but Patagonia has managed to raise a significant number of consideration-worthy topics in a straightforward and concise manner.

The menu is simple to read and navigate, consisting of 14 items from Patagonia’s lines of pants, shirts, jackets, and shoes. Each product links to a global map featuring points of interest in the item’s creation, with multimedia presentations explaining the process and sustainability of each link in the supply chain. From green practices at a Taiwanese manufacturing plant to lessons on organic cotton farming in Turkey to ozone-based wool treatment in Japan, the topics are varied and interesting—and arm conscientious consumers with questions to ask of any large producer of goods.

One excellent touch is the overview panel that accompanies each product, with headings “The Good” and “The Bad.” That the Talus jacket performs well and can be recycled through Patagonia’s innovative recycling program is good information. But listing the harmful chemical in the jacket’s water-repellant finish gives the site instant credibility. (It’s necessary to the jacket’s performance, says the company, adding that it’s researching acceptable alternatives.)

Even more beneficial to Patagonia is that the site establishes its credentials as a company at the vanguard of the environmental movement. It’s difficult to fake this level of commitment.

TRY AGAIN

This is a simple site with a singular purpose, and it’s pulled off very well. A few of the videos run on a bit and one is shockingly out of focus, and some of the slideshows are slow loading.

But that’s nitpicking about what is ultimately a valuable and satisfying user experience.

BRAVO

The microsite is the online equivalent of the car itself—small, thoughtfully organized, well designed, and fun.

Visitors can view the site accompanied by a John Cleese-esque narrator and/or with letterbox subtitles, making it suitable for both home and office viewing. It opens in a garage with the arrival of a pair of Smart Fortwos. The user can continue in a linear manner through the various chapters—comfort, safety, space, fuel economy, and features—or experience it chapter by chapter through tabs at the top of the page. Regardless of which method one chooses, the scene transitions are especially slick as the site flows from one chapter to the next with lateral screen wipes from scene to scene.

The quiz elements and visuals are surprising at times, and captivating enough to inspire multiple viewings. In addition, the entire experience runs just a few minutes, even if viewed through to its entirety from start to finish.

Extra credit goes to the production team for the voiceover interruptions in which the narrator takes a call and orders tea or lunch when the screen is left idle.

TRY AGAIN

The major shortcomings of the site, to the extent that these can be characterized as such, are its regionality—the call to action to arrange a test drive or request a brochure only apply to U.K. residents—and the fact that it lacks the requisite social media tags to give it additional viral impact. Ideally, the site would have been set up to reconfigure the final call to action and sub links based on the IP address of its viewer, so that North American buyers, for example, could also request a brochure or set up a test drive. With no additional tweaks, the site would work as is for English-speaking countries, and it would have been relatively easy, given the voice over/letter box format, to translate the experience into additional languages.

Further, while the site has made the rounds on various automotive message boards and blogs, it could have had wider reach if it was set up for easy social tags like Digg, Delicious, and Facebook.

Overall, the site hits a bull’s-eye for its target demographic, leaves a striking impression of how far off base some of these misconceptions are about the Smart Fortwo, and reinforces the brand voice for Smart.

BRAVO

The website follows the same sense of visual simplicity as the company’s products. The home page ensures that the featured product takes center stage with lots of white space, limited copy, and large images. Apple displays restraint by focusing most of the home page’s attention on one product at a time, usually its latest release.

The site places a heavy emphasis on visual design, blending colorful imagery with bold headlines and copy to create balanced compositions on each page. It’s a pleasant departure from the usual column format with pictures in boxes.

The copy is short, decisive, and punchy (if a tad smug at times) and does a good job of tapping that emotional response to Apple’s products that makes its fan base so loyal. And just like all of Apple’s branding, it’s carried out consistently across the site, from the copy to the look and feel.

Because Apple has fewer products to sell (as compared to Dell or HP, which sell hundreds of products to a variety of market segments), the site is easily divided into six segments: the store, three product categories (Mac, iPod/iTunes, and iPhone), downloads, and support.

TRY AGAIN

While the site offers seemingly rich and varied product info, including video and galleries of dramatic product photography, most of it offers more style than substance. Many links on the site, such as the “iPod Your Life” link, lead to pages that are little more than additional branding experiences, yet provide no additional value.

Top-level navigation, such as locating your desired product or service segment, is easy. But cross navigation, i.e. moving from one segment to another without using the top navigation, is unclear, if it exists at all. Beware the hapless user looking for clear links to iPod support in the iPod product segment.

Apple offers a ton of self-help product support on its site, but finding the specific info you need can be extremely difficult. Basic problems are easy enough to locate and solve with the support content, but it ends there. Need to find information on problems that are more complicated? The answers are usually buried deep within the discussion forums.

We have to throw some props to Apple for supporting and maintaining such a robust online community of users, but navigating the vast discussion boards is like entering a labyrinth. Cross–navigation to other discussion boards isn’t possible, and if you do find some useful information, you’d better copy and paste it into another document because you may never find it again. While the moderators do a decent job of responding to posts (and providing links to other posts or other areas of the site that may answer questions), the discussion boards mainly work because of the persistence and helpful nature of other Apple users who have encountered—then solved—a multitude of problems.

Overall, Apple’s site is a branding powerhouse that is presented beautifully and consistently. It stands apart from other consumer electronics e-commerce sites. But also true to Apple’s tendency, a little more polishing beneath the surface would make for a user experience that matches its sleek design.

BRAVO

We are used to seeing plenty of sales and marketing “oomph” packaged into official product sites, and Microsoft’s Internet presence for Xbox is no exception. Gamers can salivate over the comprehensive information sections awarded to each of the console’s many accessories. The devices all receive their own separate profile page that lists specifications, shows alternate colorations, and links back to articles detailing how each accessory can be used.

The console’s bevy of games receives similar treatment. They’re split up into a number of classifications, from downloadable Arcade games, to upcoming titles, to games themed for a family living room. Each title’s “home page” receives a different level of artistic treatment depending on the game’s notability. An accompanying specification box lists each game’s tangible features and requirements in a style that’s identical across the entire Xbox domain. This gives readers a chance to quickly scan the page and identify the important elements no matter what game they’re looking at on the site.

TRY AGAIN

Microsoft’s official Xbox site suffers from a confusing lack of information when you need it and an overabundance of information that hurts the organization of the site. We’ll start with the former. The front page completely overlooks the site’s most compelling feature: it’s frequency of updates. Flash-based feature content is more an advertisement for the Xbox’s core features than showcases for new content. And the paltry “top stories” navigational element is woefully underutilized given just how many new elements appear on the site on a weekly basis. How about a comprehensive news ticker that details the site’s newest offerings, the console’s latest games, and the community’s most recent updates? A little Web 2.0 interactivity wouldn’t hurt either.

Beyond that, there are simply too many options for a user to choose for the actual sections of content on the site. For example, the site’s Accessories section is broken into seven different subsections: Accessories Front Page, Wireless, Xbox Live, Catalog, Entertainment, Cables, and Family Fun. What makes an accessory “family fun?” Why does Entertainment not relate to Accessories, but to the Xbox’s media streaming capabilities? Why does Cables receive a distinguishing section of its own? It’s a confusing mess.

The site’s Community section suffers from a similar amount of information overload. For example, each Xbox game has a separate message board for users to chat on. Instead of organizing these in any coherent fashion—by year of release, by genre, alphabetically—Microsoft merely slaps each new title into an all-encompassing “Games” section. It’s an ever-expanding list that grows more unwieldy as new games join the Xbox family. Why scroll for an eternity just to check out all the latest commentary about Rock Band 2?

As a whole, Microsoft would do well to exhibit restraint across its site. Organize. Combine. Simplify. There’s a wealth of information available, but the critical details get lost amidst the clutter. There’s gold in what Xbox has as an online presence. Don’t make users have to hack their way through a jungle of words to get to it. Save that for the games.

BRAVO

Williams-Sonoma slices and dices its content every which way to appeal to the searching methods of any user: by brand, by season, by popular gift items, by sale items—you get the idea. This approach makes the site highly intuitive, and shows that the company is focused on its audience.

The navigation is dense (and the site map is massive), but it’s well-organized and fairly easy to find what you need, if you come to the site looking for something specific. If you come to browse, watch out. The timely content does a great job appealing to summertime impulse buys—think grilling tools, margarita glasses, and ice cream makers. There are a lot of things to catch your eye, and the first-rate photography can make loaf pans seem exciting.

From a content perspective, the site is packed with information: countless recipes; descriptions of seasonal fruits and veggies (where they come from, how to select them, how to prepare them); information about cooking techniques; and seasonal cooking tips, like how to cut kernels from the cob. Much of this content is adapted from various Williams-Sonoma cookbooks, which means that the company is (unknowingly) following Tendo’s advice to “write once, use many.”

TRY AGAIN

While the site has a lot of information, the home page is busy and looks cluttered, with six promotional areas plus a seasonal navigation box. Choice is great, but too much choice can be daunting.

In addition, the site lacks interactivity. On Epicurious.com users can add tips and comments to the recipes—tips add value and also help build community, but Williams-Sonoma offers no such feature. The site is also ripe for a blog (topics could include cooking tips, cookware tips, design tips, or cooking trends), an “ask the expert” feature, or some other interactive element. The site has all the basics and much more, but it could encourage more repeat visits with a bit more personality and community.

Business intelligence is interesting stuff. It helps people do their jobs more efficiently, saves companies money and resources, and facilitates creative solutions. And the Business Objects site does a decent job of communicating that. Mostly.

BRAVO

It’s clear that someone at Business Objects really tried to think about how users would access and use information on the site. The perfect example is the “Starting Points” section on the home page. It asks users to self-select by size/role: enterprise, small & midsize, partners, and developers. When users choose a role, the site provides tailored information for them. Yes, we know it’s not unique, and though we would like to see it highlighted a little better visually, something about the idea of a “starting point” seems, well, smart.

There are also plenty of other smart features to be found throughout the site. One of our favorites is Search the Knowledge Base. It aggregates resources in one place and allows users to search for and download them in a variety of formats: forums, FAQs, documents, etc.

Finally, the standout feature of the site is the Diamond technical community. Not only does it feature community basics such as subcommunities on specific applications/platforms, technical resources, blogs, e-books, and sample code, there is also a helpful Getting Started page and clear guidelines for submissions and contributions. And, unlike the main Business Objects site, Diamond community pages feature a clean, easy-to-read layout.

TRY AGAIN

Overall the site is visually attractive, with clear navigation and good UI. But we can’t emphasize it enough: Light blue type is difficult to read on both black and white backgrounds. It doesn’t matter how good you think it looks, or how it conforms to your brand identity; if users can’t read it, they won’t come back to your site.

Also, one navigational quirk stuck out like a sore thumb: A page labeled “Overview” can be found below each site section. Clicking on “Overview,” however, and clicking on the section name serve up the exact same page.

Overall, the language is too stilted and jargony. I call this kind of content “chicken feed copy” because it feels like someone had a good idea and the marketing department picked it apart (like a flock of chickens) in order to include boilerplate features and benefits messaging. Stop picking and give the site a personality.

Which is a nice segue to the newsletters. Business Objects has two: Spotlight on CIO and Spotlight on CFO. Both newsletters have strong contributions from—and may be created wholesale by—Gartner Research. It always strikes us as odd that companies want to establish personality and independent thought leadership and then rely on analyst firms to provide that viewpoint.

BRAVO

Hallmark.com is primarily geared toward consumers, specifically the Oprah-watching crowd, and they appeal to this group with holiday-themed gifts, reasonable prices, and lifestyle content courtesy of Hallmark Magazine. But they talk to their business customers, too—they have a small section devoted to business sales and potential franchise owners. And in true Hallmark fashion, they cover all their bases with the holidays, even promoting non-Hallmark holidays like St. Patrick’s Day (hey, Mother’s Day had to start somewhere).

The general organization of Hallmark.com is good, with a clean design and a number of useful tools on the site, including a birthday calendar to help you remember important dates, and even the opportunity to have someone else personalize, address, and mail your cards for you. The frazzled moms who frequent the site can use Hallmark as their personal assistant and PDA rolled into one.

Finally, the company wears its “good corporate citizen” banner in the form of a heavily promoted microsite that explores their partnership with (Product) Red, which helps people with AIDS in Africa.

TRY AGAIN

While the top navigation of the site is logical—divided by broad categories like shopping online, searching for a Hallmark store, and the Hallmark Magazine—the left nav seems like a jumble of topics without much order. Holidays and occasions are mixed in with sections like “need it today” and “memory making.” The subcategories, which let users shop by occasion, recipient, and so on, offer a more intuitive shopping experience and a better organizational structure.

I support a company that knows its audience and goes after it, and clearly this site is targeting middle-aged women, but it almost goes too niche. The Hallmark Magazine, for example, gets a lot of real estate, but with departments like “renew,” “nest,” “connect,” and “nourish,” it has no hope of broadening its appeal to younger women or urban women. The Hallmark channel is worse—when we last checked, it featured star bios on Shirley Jones and Patty Duke, to name a few. Is Angela Lansbury next?

Any company that allows its brand to get this staid—are you in the market for a pastel-colored children’s croquet set?—is taking a big risk.