My issue with the conference (and many many others like it....) is that it perpetuates everything that is wrong with the current higher education web mentality and it drives me bloody batty. Let's spend 3 days talking about glitz and flash and call it a web conference. The problem is that's not all the web. Talking about social networking and admissions cycles and admissions videos and case studies from colleges (aka "look at how cool we are! :::pat selves on back::::") and topic tables (aka sell me your product) and what teenagers want and that bloody ridiculous study the purports to rate the top 100 college websites but the only websites that are included are the ones from the schools with the most PHYSICAL WIRE in the ground IS NOT THE REAL WEB. IT'S MARKETING.
Now, there is nothing wrong with marketing. Heck, I'm presenting in November at the American Marketing Association Symposium just to make sure. Marketing is a vital aspect of this thing and I think that any web person worth their salt will have a familiarity with the subject and its basic principles. But the web is so much more than that and conferences like this do very little to go beyond it. I see a few presentations on the EduWeb schedule that I think will go beyond fluff - the ones on usability testing (though they look to be roughly the same presentation based on the description), the one on AJAX looks OK, the table topic on microformats is intriguing and I would definitely hit Dimitri Glazkov's presentation on information architecture. But that's it. So for a conference with "Web" in the title (and no mention of marketing), 90% of the presentations your getting are about marketing and not about the web. Maybe call it EduWebMarketing and I'd have less of an issue with it. Not as snazzy I realize, but much more authentic.
So what does this perpetuate in the minds of higher ups (and in the minds of budding practitioners too)? That marketing is the only thing that is really important. Not design. Not usability. Not compliance. Just marketing. So when hiring decisions are made, who do you think will get the job? Here's an example - I love the person who filled my former position to death but he has literally no web experience. None. A few HTML lessons with me. That's it. Yet based on his admissions (marketing) experience, and the fact that he knows how to use MySpace and Facebook, he was hired do to a job were success depends on a more technical skillset. But the people that hired him only ever focused on the marketing part so they ignored what he didn't have. And I worry for him - again, love him to death and I think he's extremely smart - but I had 8 or 9 years of web experience when I took that job and you just can't build that overnight. And I know this is not the only place where a hiring decision like that has been made. Ultimately, stuff like this is why higher ed websites will continue to be the bastard children of the web.
Plus at EduWeb, there are too many damn vendors. Vendors are fine too - I occasionally like giving my money to them. And I like talking to them at conferences on MY terms, because you'll occasionally find one that will be really helpful. I just don't like paying money to attend a conference were I should be learning and instead am being sold one product or another at every opportunity.
4 comments:
Gees, Why don't you tell us what you really think? In many ways I agree with you. From personal experience, I see web jobs going to manager-types who in turn are forced to hire-out technical web help for design/coding/structure. So in a sense they do nothing, merely serving as another administrative layer in the casserole of group-think; another person to shuffle email and prepare progress reports for people who have meetings about meetings. And in a sense, the "web" conferences that tend to focus more on marketing strategy will work to perpetuate the trend. But are you saying that you'd rather attend a web conference that focuses on nuts & bolts of our web craft vs one filled with panels that discuss strategy and ideas? If so, I'm there with you.
Hi Drew,
What I categorized it in "rants" didn't I? ;-)
Why can't I attend a conference that does both? I think it should be one or the other -or- a hybrid approach, where there are tracks and they are clearly marked - design/development and marketing. Each has an equal presence.
I do think that oftentimes, you take more practical advice away from a nuts & bolts conference than you do from an strategy/40,000 foot view conference. I also think that strategy conferences, if they are done well, can psych you up and motivate you for when you return to work....where you'll quickly be beaten down in the higher ed machine again lol.
I think you bring up a good point too, that I didn't address - web jobs going to manager types that will just outsource. Doesn't that defeat the point? I think that the best web work is usually done in house (assuming you have qualified people) because they know and understand the audience better than an outside agency. Also, I think that manager types can lose perspective on what its actually like to execute the strategies they are implementing, which can make for unrealistic expectations.
You go girl! Honestly, I think the same can be said of many conferences, but to me the point is well taken. My take on conferences is that they're great for networking, but with the exception of a few inspiring presentations, not as 'meaty' as they could - and should - be. They also tend to lack coherence, which is no surprise given that the presentations are from people all over who have no idea who or what else is being presented.
Yes, clearly a both/and situation and not either/or.
At my school, we run into problems because all we have are "tech" types and no one who is willing to explore metrics and marketing, so there is definitely room to improve on that for some schools.
Web people really do have it tough because to do our jobs and employers justice, we have to be able to do it all. So I think expecting conferences to recognize that is completely reasonable.
Post a Comment