I have been taking a closer look at the latest Sustainability report from The Guardian News & Media Group yesterday. I must say that I really like the simplicity and directness but there are also some points I wanted to write about in todays post which I did not like that much and would change for the next report if I where in charge.
What I like about the Report:
- It seems that content, simplicity, accessibility and feedback options where key to the Guardian. Overall this has been achieved in a good way in my opinion. I like the layout of the Guardian website and this is no different. But there are some aspects on this topic as well addresses in the next section that i did not like so much.
- I also really liked the so called 15 minute digested read. A great idea simply realized.
Guardian 2010 Sustainability Report
- The related column on the right hand side of each page is a great way of providing cross references to other interesting content. This is exactly what would need to taken to the next level to improve the user-friendliness and navigation through the content.
What I would do differently:
- Make the structure of the content is more dynamic in order to break up the text into more readable chunks. There is so much text on some pages that it makes my head hurt after reading through only a few sections. I really like the entry page of the Sustainability section. This clearly recognisable layout or at least some kind of graphics/symbols should be there to help guide the user within the structure of the report more.
- I would recommend to use a open access commenting system such as Disqus or Intense Debate to gather the feedback. Some other newspapers use this in their online editions and I am personally not inclined to register with every website to post a comment. This is a barrier of entry for feedback that can be fixed so easily for free or very little resources.
In Summary:
So is this the Sustainability reporting trend for companies involved in the news and media business? I am not so sure. This is one of many approaches a media company can take. The Guardian example is a good one but I don’t think the report is at the stage yet where it really engages its audience and make them want to comment and get in involved. This is what a media company should aim for. It needs to be different because its DNA is information and content management in my opinion.
I also want to clarify that this does not mean that I would recommend a microsite and present the content in a fancy flashy way. The content and messages just need to be broken up more so that the important aspects of the individual pages are communicated to us the readers right away. This is what I would like to see in a report from a media and news company such as the Guardian.
Jo Confino|July 10, 2010
Fabian, thanks for taking the time to go through the report and apologies for the headaches. Send me the bill for the paracetomol :)You make some good points and I would like to take your comments and put them up as a blogpost next week so that it gets the air play it deserves, especially given the energy you have put into it. It's not often we get such comprehensive feedback. Are you OK with that?I will take a look at whether we can break it into easier sized chunks. The purpose of the 15-minute read was to link off from it to the other key content for those who wanted to learn more.Also, I would imagine that in reality, the majority of people will have a look at the 15-minute section and then dive into a particular area of interest, rather than read the whole report. So it feels appropriate to give enoiugh detail on each part of the audit rather than see it as one body of text, especially given it is online. That is a judgement call and I don't claim to be right. Will be interesting to see what others say.Just as a bit of background, we try to take most of our time doing the work on sustainability rather than writing about it. The report took just over seven weeks from creating the project plan to having it audited and online, rather than the 4-6 months that is often takes companies. It was also fitted in between other work rather than dominating the landscape.The lack of design components is partly because we had one sub-editor and myself editing the copy and getting it uploaded onto the website, with some support from our central production team. That is mainly the result of the Guardian's losses meaning we have to cut our cloth accordingly.I know the Guardian is developing a much more effective commenting system, which should be in place in the coming months, but we are a bit stuck at the moment. I will ask whether it is possible to use the systems you suggest.These are reasons rather than excuses for I am sure we can do better with a little more forethought.Thanks again for your timeJoJo ConfinoExecutive editor and chair of Guardian Sustainable Business
FabianPattberg|July 10, 2010
Hi Jo. Thanks for taking the time to comment and addressing my points. Much appreciated. And yes please feel free to put the comments I made. I am interested in a dialogue and it is very refreshing to see that you are too. :-)If you any further queries just let me know.Have a good weekend.Fabian
Jo Confino|July 12, 2010
Hi Fabian, I have posted your comments on our blog
FabianPattberg|July 12, 2010
Excellent. Thanks for this Jo. For everyone: This is the URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainability/blog/s…..