I just received an email which was about a tool I could potentially use for one of my clients. So I went to their website to find out more about this tool.
As it turns out, I couldn’t find anything about the tool on their site – and I didn’t really like the site much to be honest, but that’s a different story!
Whilst on one page, a comment about them moving caught my eye. It was actually a heading to a news item, showing as a news feed under the title of ‘Latest News’.
Next to the heading was the date of the news item – March 2012. Not exactly a recent move then!
All the other news items in the rotation were older, dating from late 2011 to early 2012.
News that is over two years old isn’t fresh or current.
I get that keeping a website/blog/social media platform up to date can be hard work and takes a lot of dedication (hey, I know I haven’t blogged very often this year myself!)
However, it doesn’t look good to prospective clients if the supposedly fresh part of the site is very old. In fact, being years old can look worse than not having a blog or such at all.
The lack of freshness can be minimised though by a careful choice of title.
‘Latest news’ leads people to expect current stories – two year old stories looks unprofessional and made me wonder if the business could deliver promised digital solutions.
Some better titles may have been:
Although the news and updates titles still give some expectation of fairly current stories.
My next blog post will give other suggestions for improving such a situation, but in the meantime, what other titles can you think of for an old news feed?
How would you react to such old news when assessing a potential supplier’s website?