Taylor's New Website Q&A

[Shannon McGlathery]

Just to clarify, we're fine with negative comments. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. We want to have an honest discussion.

But the ultimate goal of this thread is improve the website by getting feedback from you guys.

So please be specific and constructive with your feedback as much as possible.

[ataylor]

Shannon,

Here's some specific feedback. Something I noticed when looking through the site yesterday.

I wanted to find Taylor's section on different wood types, and it just seems like it's more of an ordeal to get somewhere like that than it used to be. I wonder if there's a way to eliminate a step in there by refining the menu? Also, once there, the woods can only be seen five at a time in the menu at the top, and the only way to see all the wood choices is to cycle through. Maybe adding an option to expand/drop the menu down or expand a text-only list would be helpful? Then, after clicking on a wood choice, the menu refreshes to its default position, which is especially frustrating when one is exploring options deeper in the body woods section or in the top woods section (it defaults to the first five choices of body woods no matter what section you're clicking in).

I also miss the "tone" section with the visual illustration of ranges and attributes -- something like that would be a nice feature to build into the "woods" section, perhaps allowing a user to compare several wood types and their attributes. I'd suggest the same for body shapes as well -- being able to compare body shapes with a feature that overlays the shapes and compares the tones and attributes would be really cool.

I think there's lots of potential for some really great interactive stuff -- which I'm sure is in the works -- but I think the basic usability of the site needs to be refined a little first. The old site certainly wasn't without fault, but the navigation felt a little more intuitive. Excited to see how things turn out -- thanks for putting up with our questions and opinions!

[Shannon McGlathery]

Secondly, if Taylor has stopped using the terms DN, GC, GA and GS, then why are those terms still used within the variously numbered acoustic lines? For example, the "Acoustic 7" line still contains GA7s and GS7s. It appears that Taylor has substituted one layer of product organization for another while eliminating what used to be a meaningful distinction.

Much more significantly, Taylor used to claim that there were structural differences between the acoustics and the acoustic/electrics even though some numbered series guitars (6xx, 7xx, 8x, for example) could be ordered without electronics and electronics could be added to straight acoustics. As consumers we were told that the wood thickness was different and at one point Taylor said that the bracing was different. Have the structural differences been eliminated and, if so, why has Taylor apparently retained different names for the essentially the same guitars? Is the only difference now the trim level?

....

Sorry to be blunt but these comments are meant to be helpful.

Product line changes are beyond the scope of this discussion. But they are announced in Wood&Steel and in our email newsletter.

As user ataylor noticed, there is an inconsistency between the last Wood&Steel and the website in the way the Non-cutaways are presented. In W&S they are organized by shape. So the DN-K, DN-Ke, DN8... are all listed under the "DN" series.

But after W&S went to press we decided that a "series" was really defined by guitars that have the same woods and appointments. This is consistent with how they are shown in the 2012 Price List specifications. The GA7, GS7, GS7e-12, DN7... are all listed under the "Acoustic 7" series.

So this is how they are presented on the website. It's a change from the past but it's actually more consistent organization.

If there is no longer any difference, then whynot just get rid of the numbering system and designate everything by shape and additional identifiers including perhaps a word to denote the lower straight acoustic trim level? A word such as "Traditional" might be us to designate the simpler trim level. Using this approach, an 814ce would be redesignated as a GA8ce while the straight acoustic would be a GA8 Traditional. If a customer wanted the acoustic with electronics and a cutaway, then the guitar would be a GA8ce Traditional. The more nicely appointed guitar with electronics but without a cutaway would be simply a GA8e.

The model naming system is another whole ball of wax. As an information architect I would love for it to be 100% logical and descriptive. But it's been around for a long time and everyone knows it, so it's a tough thing to alter.

[ataylor]

But after W&S went to press we decided that a "series" was really defined by guitars that have the same woods and appointments. This is consistent with how they are shown in the 2012 Price List specifications. The GA7, GS7, GS7e-12, DN7... are all listed under the "Acoustic 7" series.

So this is how they are presented on the website. It's a change from the past but it's actually more consistent organization.

Interesting -- I think the way the series lines were presented on the old site was much clearer and consistent. I think there's some merit to separating the acoustic lines from the acoustic/electric series lines, if only just so it's not totally messy and overwhelming to someone who's not intimately familiar with the Taylor naming structure.

Again, when exploring the series page, it's the same five-at-a-time menu, which takes four clicks to get through to the end. There's no way to see all the series options, even just by name (seems like something like this should at least be on a drop-down menu somewhere). Navigation like that just isn't intuitive and seems like a big step back from the old site.

[greg947]

Hi Shannon,

I was looking through the website, and I think I found a mix up.  With so much material, I am sure some things get missed in a "proof read".

I followed this path:  Acoustic guitars > By Woods > Body Woods > Tropical Mahogany. The description I got for tropical mahogany as a body wood was the same as the description for mahogany as a TOP wood.  When I compared descriptions for koa as a top wood or body wood, I got different descriptions (as expected). 

So something else to check on, as if you didn't have enough already.

Greg

[Tammany Tiger]

I must confess to significant confusion over what Taylor is trying to accomplish with the site re-design.

If Taylor's concern is presenting accurate and understandable information regarding its product line, it seems to me that there is no meaningful difference between "product line changes" and "information architecture."

There are a couple of essential points as far as I am concerned.

First, focus and discipline are core values at Taylor. In fact, a one sentence description of the company's full size guitars might well be "Five shapes in an endless variety of woods and options." That essential character of Taylor guitars remains consistent but the new web site makes the product line seem confusing and arbitrary. Instead of communicating focus and commitment to five basic shapes, the site makes the line seem haphazard, particularly to customers who are new to the brand. All of the back and forth in this thread confirms that confusion exists.

I think that a significant source of confusion is the linear presentation of information that requires users to click through page after page of information to find what they are looking for. The other night, for example, I was trying to find information about GS5s. It took two or three searches involving non-intuitive site architecture and about ten clicks to find what I was looking for. On the old site I could have retrieved the information in about three clicks with no confusion caused by the site structure. 

A cascading presentation of information fixes these problems. The fixed opening page for acoustics ought to be something like five banners, each representing a Taylor shape. Each banner in turn should open onto the two series (acoustic/electric and straight acoustic), and then each of those should cascade into the wood options, and from there to the cutaway and electronic options available within each combination.

The current architecture has no intuitive structure and it serves to obliterate the focus and discipline inherent in the Taylor line. Its sole virtue is that it allows products to be sorted by wood, shape, popularity, series (a term with no intrinsic meaning), and something called "category" (another term which is difficult to understand). I guess that the sort feature is nice but who really cares, especially when the sort options lead only to more piles of largely unsorted pages? What user comes to the site wanting to know which guitar is most popular? Or which shapes are available in rosewood or mahogany? I think that the answer to the last question is "all of them" so where is the need to sort?

This lack of structure is contributing significantly to user confusion.

The second big point is that another core Taylor value is outstanding aesthetics. This site does not reflect that defining characteristic. Instead, it resembles the Dr. Martin's site that someone remarked about on another forum:http://www.drmartens.com/

Sorry, Taylor, but you are not selling "subculture" clothing which is Dr. Martin's own description of its niche (http://www.dmusastore.com/t-history.aspx). Taylor is selling products with a minimum entry price of around $500 and price points that quickly escalate to luxury levels. I cannot imagine a Lexis or BMW site looking like this.

Again, these comments are only intended to get at what is so disconcerting about the site apparently to a large percentage of users.
No offense or criticism for the sake of criticism is intended. Just one person's opinion. Other people may disagree. Your mileage may vary, etc., etc., etc.

[ataylor]

The two points brought up in the post above are right on.

Let me add another observation I came across today.

While my initial reaction to the website was mixed, one thing that I remarked was that the new site seemed to have been designed with other platforms in mind and would probably translate over to tablet/mobile fairly well. I realized today that I hadn't really tested that theory.

The first thing I noticed was that the website doesn't fit in the iPad's browser. I rotated it to landscape and still had the issue. Pulled out my iPhone and had the same problem. I use a 27" monitor at home, so the dimensions of the site haven't been an issue for me, but I wonder what it looks like for folks on 13" laptops. I suspect they're getting content clipped as well.

Another issue that I found was in the main navigation on touch devices. When touching a category at the top (or, at the bottom/middle if on the home screen -- a design problem we already covered) it brings the drop-down menu up but touching the category has already started loading the link for that particular category's main page, which means adding yet another step/click to a website that has proven to have a few too many of those already. For example, if I click on "Guitars" with the intent of searching by series, I'm whisked away to the main "Guitars" page before I can click on the series link.

The menu/link issue is probably a fairly easy fix. Not sure about the resolution/sizing issue. I'm sure there was incredible pressure to get this site launched for the NAMM show and the new year, but I just can't help but wonder if it was rushed a little -- hopefully you won't be under the gun as much on version 2.0 so these things can get ironed out! Good luck.

[Greenheart]

I think some of you are being overly critical. I just used the Taylor site to look up specs on an 814ce and it took me only three clicks to get to a large picture and all the info I needed. Tried it on my iPhone with the same results and the site looks great both on my phone and my 13" laptop. Sure it doesn't offer as much technical info about the guitars as the Martin website, but I'm guessing kids today don't look for that anyway, and from the looks of it Taylor is going after a younger demographic.

Shannon, with all due respect, what kind of feedback are you expecting on a forum with only a dozen or so members logged in at any given time? Wouldn't it be more productive to solicit feedback from a few hundred of your employees or even on your Facebook page?

[BigSkyTaylorPlayer]

I used the website yesterday to find an authorized repair center in my area.  Worked out great I saw a new BTO Koa I'm now in love with....thanks alot Taylor.......oh yeah they are going to make a few minor adjustments to my 516 so I found a great music store I will definitely be frequenting when my GAS flares.

One thought on the dealer feature would be to present a map of the dealers so one could get an idea of the locations of said dealers......

For instance, I am going to be visiting the Martin Guitar Factory in PA (am I allowed to say that?  ) and I saw that Taylor has alot of dealers in PA.  In order for me to figure out where these dealers are I have to pull up google maps (or whatever one uses for mapping) and put in the cities and see where they are on a map as I don't know much about PA geography and this was a bit time consuming.

A feature where one could select a state and have a map of that state pop up to show all the dealers/repair centers would be very convenient.

[ataylor]

I think some of you are being overly critical. I just used the Taylor site to look up specs on an 814ce and it took me only three clicks to get to a large picture and all the info I needed. Tried it on my iPhone with the same results and the site looks great both on my phone and my 13" laptop. Sure it doesn't offer as much technical info about the guitars as the Martin website, but I'm guessing kids today don't look for that anyway, and from the looks of it Taylor is going after a younger demographic.

Call it whatever you want. But in any case, it's feedback that is meant to help improve an important aspect of a brand and experience some of us have invested in and want to continue investing in. And let's not forget -- the feedback was solicited and pinned to the top of the forum. Otherwise, the "look, there's a new website" thread would have been buried a few weeks ago along with our first impressions.

You unintentionally bring up a great point -- if the Taylor website has fallen behind what Martin is offering, there's a problem.

There's nothing wrong with marketing to a young demographic, unless it's not representative of the product being offered. Last I checked, Taylor's bread and butter isn't $400 electric guitars made in Mexico. But in any case, "kids today" are extremely tech-savvy and as demanding as ever in terms of user experience -- there are issues to be ironed out no matter what the age of the person using the site.

I think everyone has tried to be positive. If you're going to fault someone like me for being picky, fault me for caring too much about the brand. And I think it's great for people like Shannon and Brian to get feedback -- it falls in line with the rest of Taylor's great customer service and experience, which is an even more important brand value than the website.

[Tammany Tiger]

I think some of you are being overly critical. I just used the Taylor site to look up specs on an 814ce and it took me only three clicks to get to a large picture and all the info I needed. Tried it on my iPhone with the same results and the site looks great both on my phone and my 13" laptop. Sure it doesn't offer as much technical info about the guitars as the Martin website, but I'm guessing kids today don't look for that anyway, and from the looks of it Taylor is going after a younger demographic.

Call it whatever you want. But in any case, it's feedback that is meant to help improve an important aspect of a brand and experience some of us have invested in and want to continue investing in. And let's not forget -- the feedback was solicited and pinned to the top of the forum. Otherwise, the "look, there's a new website" thread would have been buried a few weeks ago along with our first impressions.

You unintentionally bring up a great point -- if the Taylor website has fallen behind what Martin is offering, there's a problem.

There's nothing wrong with marketing to a young demographic, unless it's not representative of the product being offered. Last I checked, Taylor's bread and butter isn't $400 electric guitars made in Mexico. But in any case, "kids today" are extremely tech-savvy and as demanding as ever in terms of user experience -- there are issues to be ironed out no matter what the age of the person using the site.

I think everyone has tried to be positive. If you're going to fault someone like me for being picky, fault me for caring too much about the brand. And I think it's great for people like Shannon and Brian to get feedback -- it falls in line with the rest of Taylor's great customer service and experience, which is an even more important brand value than the website.

I agree.

I was thinking about the whole demographic issue today. Why not add a page or series of pages that is an online "Find Your Fit Event"?  It could be some sort of wall or slide show with images representing the target market and by clicking on the image users would open up a page geared specifically to that demographic.

As for being critical, see the earlier disclaimer:

"These comments are only intended to get at what is so disconcerting about the site apparently to a large percentage of users.
No offense or criticism for the sake of criticism is intended. Just one person's opinion. Other people may disagree. Your mileage may vary, etc., etc., etc."

[Greenheart]

You unintentionally bring up a great point -- if the Taylor website has fallen behind what Martin is offering, there's a problem.

As far as I'm concerned the Taylor website was never ahead of the Martin site. Sure the Martin site is not as flashy but it has always offered more information than the Taylor site and that is all I am looking for from a manufactures website.

There's nothing wrong with marketing to a young demographic, unless it's not representative of the product being offered. Last I checked, Taylor's bread and butter isn't $400 electric guitars made in Mexico. But in any case, "kids today" are extremely tech-savvy and as demanding as ever in terms of user experience -- there are issues to be ironed out no matter what the age of the person using the site.

None of us really know what Taylors bread and butter is now do we?

[ataylor]

As far as I'm concerned the Taylor website was never ahead of the Martin site. Sure the Martin site is not as flashy but it has always offered more information than the Taylor site and that is all I am looking for from a manufactures website.

Great point. And I think that's really the core of what we're trying to get at.

None of us really know what Taylors bread and butter is now do we?

Not entirely. But I stand by my claim that it's not imported electric guitars in the $500-and-under range.

I guess I just wonder if Taylor is trying to sell Audis with a Ford Mustang website. Nothing wrong with either, but they don't necessarily match up. There's a time and a place for using that kind of style. For example, I think the current look of the website would be perfect for a campaign or mini-site dedicated to the solidbody electric guitars. Look at the main page, and you'll see that the styling goes absolutely perfect with the double-cutaway electric to the right underneath the navigation bar. But when you pull up a 914ce on the site, it (the guitar) feels a little out of place in its surroundings.

In any case, I'm done posting in this thread. I hope my feedback ends up being helpful in some way or another and I'm truly hopeful and excited for version 2.0 of the website. I know the kind of effort and hours that go into this kind of project and how frustrating it is to be under the gun of a looming deadline. Taylor has a great track record and I'm confident things will eventually come together nicely. Many thanks to Shannon and Brian for interacting with us here and soliciting feedback. I'm sure (I hope, anyway) they realize that we're a passionate bunch and that even our sharpest criticisms are well-meant. There's a certain amount of salt that should be taken with our comments, but I do think it's important to get this kind of feedback in the long run.

Thanks for the thread and good luck ironing out the wrinkles.

[michaelw]

once the LTD section has been added, perhaps when a specific model is clicked on
a link that will direct one to a list of dealers that have ordered that particular guitar

it would up to the person to contact the dealer to verify the guitar is still available &
the dealers would have to contact the web-maintenance team to help keep it current ...

hmm
possibly a good idea in theory, but in reality an e-mail or
a call to customer service might work out better overall

just a thought -
figured i'd toss it out there & let it get 'kicked around'

[Tammany Tiger]

once the LTD section has been added, perhaps when a specific model is clicked on
a link that will direct one to a list of dealers that have ordered that particular guitar

Martin does something like this on their really high end "limited editions." I think that it is a great idea.

Also, some of the smaller builders who have some variety in even their standard builds--Santa Cruz and Huss & Dalton come to mind--have pages that show guitars that have recently been shipped with the name of the dealer.