Marketers and their Web development teams are very aware that the initial launch of a Web site will never go perfectly.  Flaws and inconsistencies, previously hidden, will suddenly become glaring problems.  As we’ve seen over many waves of the Manufacturer Web Site Evaluation Study (MWES), continuous improvement is the way that most sites improve their user experience; few are as lucky as Honda to debut a new site near the top of the MWES rankings.  In the 2010 MWES – Wave 2, which was released two weeks ago, we found that three of the four brands that redesigned this wave performed worse than the prior wave.  Let’s take a quick look at where these brands fell short, and then highlight how Hyundai’s redesign bucked the trend.

Land Rover – Awkward navigation; reduced emphasis on imagery

This wave, Land Rover dropped 36 points overall, 59 points in navigation and 43 points in appearance.  In the overall MWES ranking, Land Rover now ranks #28 out of 33, down from #12 last wave.  The primary problem with this redesign is that there is no dominant navigation scheme.  Shoppers can probably figure out where to start, but there is no clear path for methodically browsing the site’s content.  Examples of areas that may be creating headaches for shoppers:

• Many links do not look like links, creating the illusion of fewer navigation options
• Features and Specs page navigation is completely different from model page navigation, even though the same content links are offered
• Shoppers have to make a decision among 30 links on the homepage – an overwhelming task
• Gallery images are relatively small and the slideshow is excruciatingly slow

Volvo – Cluttered navigation and non-standard terminology are confusing shoppers

Volvo’s redesigned site fell by 19 points, with the vehicle configuration process falling by 32 points.  The site is now ranked #26 overall out of 33 sites, down from #21.  This is a good example of a site that may benefit noticeably from continuous tweaking.  Currently, however, navigation once again hampers the site experience.  Specific examples:

• Way too many navigation areas (links, menus) create a sense of clutter
• Shoppers may not immediately know where to find the information they are seeking.  For instance, the model level links contain non-standard terminology such as “5 Things to Know” and “The Details.”
• Duplicative-sounding links (e.g., “Style Your XC90” vs. “Build Your XC90”) create confusion
• The configurator actually contains too much information – the entire bar of information below the configurator navigation is redundant and adds clutter

Cadillac – User experience sacrificed in favor of branding

Cadillac fell almost 30 points overall this wave, with their biggest drops in Appearance (-68) and Navigation (-40), placing them last in the MWES overall ranking this wave.  The best way to describe the result of Cadillac’s redesign is to say that the new site is a microsite masquerading as an OEM brand site.  This is not a good thing.  Overall, the site’s poor usability makes it tough to get excited about the vehicles.  A few reasons why:

• The collage-style navigation on the home and model pages is unique, but difficult to use and does not emphasize the aesthetic beauty of the vehicles
• Menus and content move around as different items are selected – extremely confusing for shoppers
• The layout makes it difficult to distinguish primary content from secondary links and information, particularly in 1280×1024 resolution
• The site’s appearance was very dark this wave, making it difficult to read text, find links, and see the images

Non-intuitive navigation is the common factor contributing to the poor debuts of these three sites.  The new navigation schemes, regardless of the planning and testing behind them, need time to improve from a series of fine-tuning tweaks and revisions.  Compounding the issue is the fact that designers often seem compelled to start from scratch and/or try something completely new in an effort to stand out.  Unfortunately, this methodology can backfire, requiring years of tweaks to reach or exceed the level of usability of their predecessors.

Hyundai – Simplicity triumphs

Although reduced usability following redesigns is the norm, it’s not the rule.  Hyundai’s redesigned site showed substantial improvement across the board – particularly in navigation and speed – and finished at #7 overall, up from #28 last wave.  Hyundai’s success clearly stems from a focus on delivering a quick, simple, and informative site experience.  A few examples of this focus on usability:

• Rather than cluttering the site up with more links and content, Hyundai actually simplified the site – going from 19 links in the top navigation down to eight, focusing shoppers’ attention and establishing a clear navigation flow
• The site’s resolution changed to 1024×768 (from 800×600), giving designers room to add more content as well as the breathing room to avoid clutter and the need for small fonts
• The drop-down menu is easier to read – especially the links in the model-level flyouts
• The model-level navigation flow is straightforward

Usability, particularly through intuitive navigation, must be kept in mind as sites are redesigned.  That isn’t to say that all manufacturer websites have to look the same.  Websites can and should have a brand identity much like the vehicles they are showcasing.  The danger is that in striving to be different, it can be painful to stray too far from what shoppers expect from your sites – making it difficult for them to find the information they seek.

User ratings and reviews have been an online fixture for over a decade and a critical part of the operating models of many sites: Yelp and Epinions are built entirely on such content, while Amazon and eBay rely on ratings to support their primary business.  Third-party automotive sites have also buttressed their inventory, research data, and expert reviews with user-generated content.

Manufacturers, on the other hand, have largely resisted putting anything resembling user content on their sites (as described in a prior posting, Social Media on OEM Sites).  Some link to channels on other sites while others have incorporated content from sources such as YouTube and Flickr (still carefully controlled) into a separate section.  Baby steps, for sure.

Recently, Infiniti jumped in feet first by incorporating owner ratings into its model pages – prime screen real estate.  As shown below, the G37 Sedan receives 4.6 out of 5.0, and site visitors can even click to view the individual owner reviews.

The layout follows conventions and will make intuitive sense to anyone who has ever used online ratings.  Infiniti provides filters and sorting functionality, which is especially helpful given that the reviews encompass multiple model years and trim levels.

As with any kind of user-generated content, transparency is critical – it’s only valuable if visitors know there’s no manipulation.  Unfortunately, Infiniti.com gives no such assurances.  There’s no explanation of the source and no “submit review” functionality.   The end result feels like a set of hand-picked testimonials, which diminishes the implied authenticity.

However, I was surprised when I compared Infiniti’s ratings to those on Edmunds (which operates on a 10-point scale).  In only one case (the G37 Convertible) was the Infiniti.com score higher.

The content of the Infiniti.com reviews is generally, but not absolutely, positive.  For instance, some G37 Sedan reviews complain of road noise, the transmission, and/or interior build quality issues, which mirror the concerns of Edmunds.com G37 Sedan reviewers.

Even so, I can’t help but wonder about the source of all these reviews.  Among all third-party sites, Edmunds has the most extensive set of online reviews and doesn’t manage better than 24 reviews among these models.  But Infiniti.com has far more reviews for most of its models, including over 300 for the G37 Sedan!  The content is also uniformly well-written and clearly edited (e.g. proper capitalization, no misspellings, reasonably good grammar), which is not the norm for user reviews.

No, it’s not perfect.  But it’s still a brave first step.

In most cases, not much.

Many OEMs offer a password-protected section exclusively for owners.  The registration process itself is straightforward – name, address, email, and VIN (not required by everyone).  Hyundai’s velvet rope section (shown below) is typical, maintenance reminders, warranty information, owner manuals, service schedules, and links to a preferred dealer.  It’s useful content, but not compelling.

Many OEMs also offer to help you find your “next [insert brand here].”  Maybe I’m missing the point, but doesn’t the brand site already fulfill that function?  Unless there’s a relevant owner-only incentive, it just feels like another intrusive sales pitch.

Some OEMs give you more.  Mazda connects to local enthusiast clubs, which is an important part of the ownership experience for many of its buyers.  On the other hand, I’m not sure why this has to be hidden in the owner site.

My favorite functionality comes from the Toyota and Lexus sites, which provide historical service records that are automatically uploaded from dealership records.  For a used-vehicle owner, it’s an amazing way to get access to the vehicle’s complete service history (at least, those completed through dealerships).  In the screenshot below, the records go back five years and show, among other things, that the front windshield was replaced in late 2008.  That’s more detail than any seller would ever give to a buyer!  On the flipside, I don’t know if the OEM’s payoff is worth the expense of offering the functionality.

I also like Toyota’s iGuides, video demonstrations of features for older vehicles.  While I’m sure most of us can figure out how to use the rear defroster, it’s a great resource for some owners.  And more complex technologies (e.g. tire pressure monitoring systems) will not be familiar to everyone.

I would prefer to see this kind of content be made more widely available, especially as vehicles become more and more complex.  For instance, Audi, BMW, and Volkswagen have dozens of new-vehicle instructional videos right on the main site.

I’m not currently financing any vehicles and wasn’t able to explore financing/payment content, which is truly must-have functionality for many buyers.  As for the rest, I think that for most of us it’s not worth the effort of signing up in the first place.

Five years ago, it seemed as though every other OEM was using hot spots.  Hot spots allow site designers to graft detailed information onto a high quality vehicle image, often right on the model landing page.  The example below is from Chevrolet, circa late 2007.  Each plus sign reveals its content when moused over – clicking links to a full feature description with text and an image.

I’ve never liked hot spots, mostly because they force the user to hunt for information.  In this Chevy example, that means mousing over twelve distinct hot spots!  It’s also impossible to quickly scan.  The interface may be appropriate for a microsite or experience section, but the primary vehicle research page should not require so much effort to use.  In the past, hot spots have contributed to problems with site navigation (for Chevy and others) as measured by our Manufacturer Website Evaluation Study (MWES).

Although hot spots have faded in popularity, they haven’t disappeared completely – for instance, Mercedes-Benz delivers its vehicle feature descriptions via hot spots.  I do like the way the site includes the category name for each hot spot rather than the uninformative plus signs.  But despite Mercedes-Benz’s improvement in its navigation score during the most recent wave of MWES, I believe it could do even better with a more intuitive interface for model-level information.

Mitsubishi recently redesigned its entire brand website and actually brought the hot spots back!  The overall navigation performed well in MWES (ranked 11 for navigation) but I would still prefer to access vehicle detail without all the clicking!

The top sites for navigation present feature information in a straightforward manner – text and links.  It’s not flashy, but it is effective.

I’ll probably have to suffer through hot spots for years to come, but at least I have other options.

Websites that maintain a focus on usability along with branding and design features successfully satisfy shoppers, according to the J.D. Power and Associates 2010 Manufacturer Website Evaluation Study (MWES)—Wave 2 released today. However, the semi-annual study, now in its 11th year, finds websites that focus primarily on brand image and interesting design features can actually hinder shoppers in their search for information when usability takes a back seat.

The Cadillac and Scion websites are designed with an edgy, branding feel; however, both sites score lowest in the study’s appearance measure, in addition to ranking significantly below the industry average in every other measure: information/content, speed, and navigation. In the left-hand navigation of Scion’s home page, links to things such as a boom box and options for choosing the website background distract shoppers from vehicle shopping. Rather than a traditional pull-down menu, Cadillac’s menus appear inside an outline of the Cadillac badge that flips around forcing shoppers to learn an entirely new navigation scheme.

“Sites can miss the mark when traditional navigation is ignored in place of interesting design features.  Shoppers expect sites to function a certain way based on their experiences with other websites,” said Arianne Walker, director of marketing and media research at J.D. Power and Associates. “Failing to follow navigation conventions often makes it difficult for website shoppers to find the information they seek.”

Two of the highest scoring sites, Honda and Kia, each successfully focus on usability—allowing shoppers to access the information they seek in the shopping process quickly and easily. Due to their focused usability efforts, both Honda and Kia score significantly above the industry average in each of the four MWES measures.

“The Honda and Kia websites are great examples of incredibly straightforward sites that focus on getting appropriate information to shoppers easily and quickly, which has been a great recipe for their high MWES rankings in the recent past,” said Walker.

MINI, like Cadillac and Scion, also includes branding-oriented and untraditional navigation menus, design elements, and images on their website. However, MINI ranks significantly above the industry average by balancing their non-traditional elements with more traditional navigation menus throughout the site.

“The desire to provide a sense of the brand and a personality for the vehicles on the website can and should be considered,” said Walker. “But success in this area is also highly dependent upon balancing that branding feel with good usability, which MINI has achieved this wave of MWES.”

Understanding the critical importance of navigation is possible through this semi-annual study, which measures the usefulness of automotive manufacturer websites during the new-vehicle shopping process by examining four key areas: speed, appearance, navigation and information/content.

Honda ranks highest among automotive manufacturer websites for usefulness in new-vehicle shopping with an index score of 871 on a 1,000-point scale. This wave of MWES marks Honda’s 3rd time in the last 4 waves that they have delivered the most useful OEM website in the industry.  Following Honda in the rankings are Kia (868), Mazda (866), Acura (860), and Infiniti (860).

The 2010 Manufacturer Website Evaluation Study—Wave 2 is based on evaluations from more than 10,621 new-vehicle shoppers who indicated they will be in the market for a new vehicle within the next 24 months. The study was fielded in May 2010.

With my recent mobile fixation, I’ve quickly realized that some automotive mobile sites are nearly impossible to find.  It’s hard enough to remember URLs such as http://suzukiauto.com, but good luck with http://mobile.volvocars.com/us/mobile/Pages/default.aspx or http://mobile.usablenet.com/mt/www.vehix.com.

Most people use search to find sites, but since the iPhone’s built-in Google search returns the main sites, finding the mobile site requires a redirect from the full URL.  In most cases, this works nearly seamlessly: when I go to http://www.chevrolet.com I get sent to http://m.chevrolet.com automatically.  Getting to the few sites (Acura, Jeep, Suzuki, Vehix, Volvo) that don’t redirect requires a substantial effort that few, if any, people would undertake (well, unless it’s their job.  Lucky me).  At least I’ve seen mobile ads for some, but that’s far from sufficient to drive traffic.

Cars.com has a unique approach on the iPhone.  It presents the main page with additional links to the mobile site and its iPhone application, which allows users to choose the experience they want.

Edmunds offers iPhone visitors an upfront choice.  It’s a nice method, but Fandango’s is slicker and simply looks better.

This doesn’t mean you should always redirect.  Many smartphone users may want to view the full site and should be given that choice, even if it’s a suboptimal experience.  Consequently, many mobile sites also offer links back to the main site.  In a few cases, however, the experience is so poor (especially because of Flash-reliant navigation) that they would be better off NOT giving that option.  Kia’s main site doesn’t even load on my iPhone while the Infiniti and Nissan sites basically tell you it’s not worth the effort.  But they’re the ones that linked me there!

My testing was limited to my iPhone and it may be easier to find mobile sites on other devices.  Still, it’s clear that our industry is still trying to figure out how to manage that interplay between multiple sites and multiple ways of accessing them.

We’re in the midst of fielding a pilot study on the usability of automotive mobile websites, which means that I’m spending a whole lot of time surfing on my iPhone. One thing that stands out is the sheer number of these sites: 24 from OEMs and eight from third-party sites.

In the coming weeks, I’ll provide in-depth analysis on the suddenly-rich arena of mobile automotive Internet. In the meantime here’s a complete list of the 32 sites along with screenshots of their homepages.

Manufacturer Web Sites

Acura

BMW

Buick

Cadillac

Chevrolet

Ford

GMC

Honda

Hyundai

Infiniti

Jeep

Kia

Land Rover

Lexus

Lincoln

Mazda

Mercury

Nissan

Porsche

Scion

Suzuki

Toyota

Volkswagen

Volvo

Third-Party Automotive Web Sites

AutoNation

AutoTrader

Car and Driver

Cars.com

CarsDirect

Edmunds

kbb

Vehix

Earlier this week I looked at the relative SEO performance of OEM sites and this time I’m setting my sights on the third-party automotives.  I used the same keywords as my 2009 SEO test, which allows me to make direct comparisons with how frequently third-party automotive sites appear in the default first page for both Google (10 search results) and Bing (10 to 20 search results, depending on the type of term).

The best performers across both search engines were Edmunds, Yahoo! Autos, and Automotive.com (a lead aggregation site).  The first two have tremendous relevant content and lots of linked content, both of which are critical.  But these leaders have clearly made SEO a priority.

The worst performers were Autotrader, kbb, MSN Autos, and NADA Guides.  All four also feature great content and are among the most highly visited automotive websites, neither of which is apparent in their SEO performance.  MSN Autos is almost invisible even on Microsoft’s own search engine, which points to the fairness of Bing’s search process even while it highlights the relative SEO weakness of MSN Autos.

Claiming a premium spot in search results is a zero-sum game – in order for one site to go up, another must go down.  Compared with the 2009 results, this test saw Automotive, Edmunds, and MotorTrend appear less frequently while cars.com, usedcars.com, and Yahoo! Autos claimed more top spots.

One notable riser was U.S. News Ranking and Reviews, which consolidates model reviews and ratings from a variety of major online sources.  It appears to be a relatively new entrant (at least, I haven’t noticed it before) and may be better engineered from the ground up to support SEO.

The full results are shown below.

Every so often I like to compare the relative SEO performance of major automotive sites.  In the past, I’ve found that OEM sites do well on a few obvious keywords, but relatively poorly on more detailed searches that should lead to internal pages.

For this test I used a variety of search terms, including:

• Brand name
• [brand] + “dealer”
• [model name]
• [model name] + “colors”, “specs”, etc.

I ran these keywords through Google and looked for hits in the first ten results.  The targeted outcome for each search is a relevant OEM page with that specific information.  For instance, [brand] + “dealer” should link to the OEM’s dealer locator, while [model name] + “specs” would ideally return a page with the vehicle specifications.  Returning the home page or the model page is relevant, but not specific, and is therefore noted accordingly.

The worst performers in my test were Land Rover, Mitsubishi, Scion, Mercedes-Benz, and MINI.  The first three barely appeared in the top results while the latter two usually returned only the homepage, which forces the user to search within the site.  While all five sites are built entirely in Flash, we know that this doesn’t preclude effective SEO performance.  After all, top-performing sites such as Hyundai, Infiniti, and Volkswagen are also Flash-heavy.  Site developers need to put the work into making the content searchable (or at least associated with appropriate keywords) and perhaps provide a means for other sites to link directly to these pages.

Even with the laggards, I was encouraged to see that many searches returned links to internal pages.  This represents a marked improvement over my 2009 SEO field test.  For instance, in my latest test all but one Acura-based search returned a directly relevant page, whereas last year none of the specific searches did so.  Lincoln, MINI, Nissan, and Volkswagen also did substantially better.

The full field test results are shown below.

One consequence of the increasingly globalized automotive industry is the planned U.S. launch of many foreign brands.  The most recent new entrant was Smart, although that was an existing manufacturer (Daimler-Benz) selling via an existing dealer organization (Penske Automotive Group).   Smart is also a niche product with modest sales – 24,622 in 2008 and 14,595 in 2009 (Source: J.D. Power and Associates Sales Report).

Mahindra looks like it will be the next new U.S. entrant, with a goal of 50,000 annual sales (up from zero).  This would be tough in any market, but domestically Mahindra is further handicapped as a (1) new foreign manufacturer selling (2) diesel trucks via a (3) new dealer network.

So far, the only marketing support I’ve seen for this massive undertaking is a basic Web site that makes a stab at addressing these issues.

1. New foreign manufacturer. The Our Story section touts Mahindra’s automotive history, but buries the fact that the company has been selling tractors domestically since 1994.  I think learning about the company’s fifteen-year U.S. presence would help ease consumer fears.
2. Diesel. There’s one paragraph about why diesel is so great, which falls well short of supporting Mahindra’s competitive advantage of superb fuel economy (30 mpg).
3. New dealer network. A dealer map shows domestic locations by zip code, which is good enough for now.

The site also contains basic vehicle information, test drive sign up form, and a dealer sign up form.  Not bad for a teaser site, but if Mahindra is serious about selling vehicles domestically in 2010, they need to upgrade quickly.  A well-executed marketing program should drive online shoppers to the brand Web site to truly sell consumers on the new vehicles.

The near future will also bring Fiat and Alfa-Romeo back to the U.S. – it’s a matter of getting the vehicles ready for market and into the existing Chrysler dealership channel.  Both brands will need to overcome past perceptions of poor quality, but the larger issue is just getting consideration from entire generations of consumers with no knowledge of either brand.  So far, there’s no online presence to support the effort.

Other brands have also announced intentions to enter the U.S. market.

• Tata is already a U.S. player with its mid-2008 acquisition of Jaguar and Land Rover.  The corporate parent remains nearly invisible to consumers, with no mention of Tata anywhere on the Jaguar or Land Rover brand sites.  Any new brand launch will be distinct from its corporate siblings, so Tata may face the same path that Mahindra is now on.
• Geely is soon to be an official U.S. player with its acquisition of Volvo, although the company plans to keep its automotive operations separate.  Frank Zhao, the company’s VP for technology, has recently said that “selling to developed markets is at least a few years down the road.”
• BYD.  The Chinese battery and car maker plans to enter the U.S. market in late 2010 with plug-in electric hybrid cars.  Los Angeles is its anticipated beachhead.
• Brilliance.  The Chinese company recently halted its European exports due to low sales, so a U.S. entry in the near future is unlikely.