State Economic Development Web

SitesDana CalcaterraOctober 2002

Results of Web Sites Comparison

FY 2002

State Web Sites Reviewed

Alabama http://www.ado.state.al.us/ Alaska http://www.dced.state.ak.us/cbd/ Arizona http://www.az.gov/webapp/portal/ Arkansas http://www.aedc.state.ar.us/ California http://wwwedd.cahwnet.gov/ Colorado http://www.state.co.us/oed/index.cfm Connecticut http://www.state.ct.us/ecd/ Delaware http://www.delaware.gov/yahoo/Business Florida http://www.eflorida.com/ Georgia http://www.state.ga.us/index/topic_pages.cgi?topic_id=1 Hawaii http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt Idaho http://www.idoc.state.id.us/ Illinois http://www.commerce.state.il.us/ Indiana http://www.state.in.us/doc/ Iowa http://www.state.ia.us/ided/index.html Kansas http://www.accesskansas.org/ Kentucky http://www.thinkkentucky.com Louisiana http://www.lded.state.la.us/ Maine http://www.econdevmaine.com/ Maryland http://www.mdbusiness.state.md.us/ Massachusetts http://www.state.ma.us/econ/ Michigan http://medc.michigan.org Minnesota http://www.dted.state.mn.us/ Mississippi http://www.decd.state.ms.us Missouri http://www.ded.state.mo.us/ Montana http://commerce.state.mt.us/ Nebraska http://www.neded.org/ Nevada http://www.expand2nevada.com/newsite/index.html New Hampshirehttp://www.nheconomy.com/ New Jersey http://www.state.nj.us/commerce/index.htm New Mexico http://www.edd.state.nm.us/

State Web Sites Reviewed (continued)

New York http://www.empire.state.ny.us/ OR http://www.nysedc.org North Carolina http://www.commerce.state.nc.us/categories/business.htm North Dakota http://www.growingnd.com/ Ohio http://www.odod.state.oh.us/EconomicDevelopment.htm Oklahoma http://www.odoc.state.ok.us/index.html Oregon http://www.econ.state.or.us/ Pennsylvania http://www.inventpa.com/ Rhode Island http://www.riedc.com/ South Carolina http://www.callsouthcarolina.com/ South Dakota http://www.sdgreatprofits.com/ Tennessee http://www.state.tn.us/ecd/ Texas http://www.tded.state.tx.us/ Utah http://dced.utah.gov/DBED/welcome.htm Vermont http://www.thinkvermont.com/ Virginia http://www.commerce.state.va.us/bizServices/econDev.cfm Washington http://www.oted.wa.gov/index.htm West Virginia http://www.wvdo.org/ Wisconsin http://www.commerce.state.wi.us/ Wyoming http://www.state.wy.us/business.asp

2002 Result HighlightsTop 5 Rated Web Sites Overall

Mississippi

Alabama

North Carolina

Kentucky

Maryland1

2

3

4

5

Results were determined based on overall performance using the criteria listed in this report.

Web Site Review Criteria

Navigation Design Property Search Engine Site Information Building Information Community Information

The criteria below was reviewed withequal importance and given a grade ofone of the following:

E = Excellent G = GoodA = Average P = Poorand/orY = Yes N = No

The following pages provide a graphical representation of the State Web Sites Review findings

Navigation

17%10%

33%

40%

ExcellentGoodAveragePoor

Navigation rating was determined by the ease of locating informationincluding the “3-click” rule. Design was rated upon the appeal of theweb site “look and feel”.

Design

35%7%

27%

36%

Below is a graphical representation of the reviewed State Web Sites

YesNo

ExcellentGoodAveragePoor

Findings were determined by whether a site had a property search engine as wellas how useful the search engine/s were. Decisions were made based upon thelisted search criteria; if visitor information was required prior to searching, if animage map was used, if both Sites and Buildings had searching capability, and inwhat form the results were provided.

Of the Web Sites with Property Search Engines, 27% used some type of image map to aid in searching capabilities.

Sites having a Property Search Engine

50% 50%

17%42% 8%

33%

Sites with Property Search Engine - Rating

Below is a graphical representation of the reviewed State Web Sites

YesNo

46% 54%

Yes

No

Web Sites Providing Building Information

Findings were determined by how useful the Site and/or Building Information was; if detailed information was given along with contact information as well as maps or images. Also critiqued was whether the information given was printable and looked pleasing to the eye.

Of those who provided Site Information the ratings are as follows:Excellent = 12%Good = 30%Average = 31%Poor = 27%

Of those who provided Building Information the ratings are as follows:Excellent = 13%Good = 33%Average = 29%Poor = 25%

43% 57%

Web Sites Providing Site Information

The following pages provide a graphical representation of the State Web Sites Review findings

36% 64%

Web Site Providing Community Information

NoYes

Of those who provided Community Information the ratings are as follows:Excellent = 51%Good = 19%Average = 6%Poor = 24%

The following were also taken into consideration when rating the state Economic Development web sites:

•Building/Site Submission Ability

•Multi-Language Site

•“Printer Friendly” web pages

•Screen scrolling

Summary

According to a recent study given by Development Counselors International (DCI), more and more executives indicate a strong likelihood that they would use an economic development organization’s web site in their next site location search. When asked what features of Economic Development Web Sites were the most valuable, the top three responses were as follows:

Information on IncentivesDemographic InformationDirectory of available sites & buildings

It is important to design a web site with informative content, effective structure and navigation (3-Click rule), visual design which is aesthetically pleasing, functionality and interactivity which will give the user a good overall experience and give you repeat visits. Mark James, CED of ED Solutions, Inc. includes this criteria in the four critical elements he looks for in an economic development web site which include: design, functionality, performance, and marketing.

Our goal for EDIS (Economic Development Information System) is this. We strive to have the most current and up-to-date information for our prospective clients to navigate with ease. We not only make this information available for our clients but to also assist our community development organizations to utilize on their individual web sites.

Web Site Examples

Positive Aspects www.gradd.com www.awnc.org www.swidc.org www.ucky.com www.hendersonedc.com www.northernkentuckyusa.com http://www.tvida.com/ http://www.lgeenergy.com/ http://www.kuenergy.com/

Negative Aspects www.amarillo-tx.com www.copperascove-edu.com www.garlandtx.com www.shelbycountyindustrialfoundation.com www.carrollcountyky.com

Feature 2002Information on available incentives 78%

Demographic information 75%

Directory of available buildings & sites 61%

Current comparisons to competitor locations 45%

List of leading local employers 44%

Information on the community’s target industries 30%

Information on quality of life 28%

Information on local schools 25%

Photos/maps of the community 21%

News sections that describes current developments 17%

Testimonials from local companies 16%

Website sitemap 9%

These questions were not asked in previous surveys, therefore comparative data is notavailable.

MOST USEFUL FEATURES OF AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTORGANIZATION’S WEBSITE

(% of respondents who selected each feature)(2002 Survey)

Schmeiser, David A. (1988). The Native Offender and the Law. Ottawa: Law Reform Commission of Canada.

Turk, A.T. (1996) "Law, Conflict and Order: From Theorizing Toward Theories". Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 23(3) 282-294.

Citing Internet Sources:

Development Counselors International (DCI), ”A View from Corporate America: Winning Strategies in the Economic Development Marketing Game 2002, <http://aboutdci.com/WinningStrategies.cfm.>

Mark J. James, CEDEd Solutions, Inc.<http://www.solutionsed.com/index.htm>

References

The criteria set for this report was obtained from the listed references above.