Inside Marketing: Weighing in on web design

first_imgThe ultimate test of a website is how well it meets users’ expectations, but it’s not easy to find out what members like and don’t like about your online portal. Two credit unions gathered member input via a simple pop-up feedback system to help guide their website redesign.$135 million Duke University Federal Credit Union used HappyOrNot Web Smileys panel to encourage members to rate selected web pages and content by clicking on a smiling, neutral or sad face and supplying additional comments if they’d like.“With our current website, our goal was to provide as much information as possible,” says CUES member Daniel Berry, CCE, CEO of the Durham, N.C., credit union. “What we’re learning is if it takes more than two or three clicks, members prefer to gather information in a phone call. As a result of feedback from members, our new website design will be simpler and more intuitive, with less information.” continue reading » 29SHARESShareShareSharePrintMailGooglePinterestDiggRedditStumbleuponDeliciousBufferTumblrlast_img read more

Read more

LoGiurato: Finally, some tangible evidence to ‘believe in’ teary Marrone

first_img Facebook Twitter Google+ Comments Published on October 10, 2010 at 12:00 pmcenter_img TAMPA, Fla. — There was a scene of vindication in the Syracuse locker room. The moment was six seasons in the making. Chants, song and raucous celebration carried over from the field into the tunnel. But most telling about this win was the reaction of the man who had waited almost two long years for this to occur. For that time, Doug Marrone has talked about his plan with the same stoic rhetoric. He rarely breaks from character. He is the same Doug Marrone through and through, in the aftermath of an impressive 35-point win over Colgate at home or a 21-point shelling at the hands of Washington. But on Saturday, when discussing SU’s 13-9 victory over South Florida, he broke from character. For the second time in his SU head coaching career, Doug Marrone wiped a tear from his face. ‘I’m happy for the players,’ Marrone said while discussing the victory, his voice starting to noticeably shift as he began to choke up. ‘I’m happy for the people when we go back to Syracuse. I’m happy for the student body — and I know I get teary-eyed… ‘Because there is something to believe.’AdvertisementThis is placeholder text Something to believe. It’s the most candid statement Marrone has given in his 22 months on the job. The last time Marrone formed tears at a press conference, it was in defending Greg Paulus, a quarterback who, in November, was on the way out and already a lost cause to the SU fan base. Saturday proved, finally, that the Marrone era is far from a lost cause. But until Saturday, all that rhetoric was just that — rhetoric. And judging from his teary statements this time around, Marrone knows that. Because no matter how much you harp on the overall improvement of your team — and Marrone would do so at every single opportunity — eventually, there has to be tangible results. Saturday was a tangible result: Syracuse 13, South Florida 9. The Orange went on the road to face a team it had never beaten in program history. It was a 3-1 team still with all the odds stacked against it, with plenty of people content to believe a less-than-stellar schedule was the primary culprit for the quick start. And though it was ugly at parts, SU came out victorious. This is the first concrete evidence of the plan coming along. ‘We haven’t been here in this position in a long time,’ SU senior linebacker Doug Hogue said. ‘I’ve never felt anything like this before. It’s great. … That’s how we want to feel. In the past, losing, we don’t want to have that feeling anymore.’ Words, rhetoric, have so far become reality. Thus far, Marrone has backed up the bowl-or-bust talk he and his players so vigorously cemented in preseason camp. Syracuse sits more than halfway to the first big step in the plan. And in one of the biggest signals of the shift in the tide, it came against a team the Orange had failed to even compete with the past five seasons, never coming closer than 14 points in the final score. ‘In the past, we came down here and we lost,’ linebacker Derrell Smith said. ‘They came up (to Syracuse) and they beat us. They may have felt we were underdogs. Hopefully, we’re not taken lightly the rest of the year.’ At the end of this year, and perhaps years from now, we might look at this win as the start of something big in the Marrone era. And the next step is the follow-up. In front of what’s sure to be a bigger crowd than usual next week at the Carrier Dome, when the preseason Big East favorites, Pittsburgh, come into town. For this to be a turning point, the Orange must challenge the next two weeks on the road at West Virginia and Cincinnati. Marrone knows it. For that, he returned to his stoic nature. ‘I think it’s one of those games you look at after the season and say, ‘Hey, that was really big to do,” Marrone said. ‘It all depends on how we do from here on out, as to how we will look at this game.’ For now, though, it’s the necessary tangible first step. Toward Big East title contention. Toward a bowl. Toward something to believe in. Brett LoGiurato is an assistant sports editor at The Daily Orange, where his column appears occasionally. He can be reached at [email protected] last_img read more

Read more

Techiman City review application dismissed

first_imgTechiman City Football Club’s review application against the GFA Appeals Committee ruling delivered on Friday 27th November, 2015 has been dismissed.Below is the full ruling on the review application by Techiman City Football Club:PANELISTS1.    EMMANUEL ANNAN – CHAIRMAN 2.    ALHAJI FAROUCK SEIDU – VICE CHAIRMAN 3.    OWUSU ANSAH AWERE – MEMBER 4.    CLAUDE OPPON – MEMBER5.    DIVINE SUNU – MEMBER6.    KWAME TAKYI – MEMBER7.    BAFFOUR AKOTO – MEMBER8.    DANIEL ODURO – SECRETARYThis is an application by Techiman City Football Club invoking the review jurisdiction of the Appeals Committee of the GFA to review its decision dated 27/11/15.The grounds for the review were stated as follows:•    Errors of law and lack of jurisdiction•    Failure to refer to and apply GFA Regulations and Statutes;•    Procedural flaws and abuse of GFA Regulations and Statutes; and •    Bad precedenceOf all the grounds, the one that affects the panel of the Committee and its lack of jurisdiction shall be addressed first because if indeed the panel was improperly constituted then a fortiori it would not have the required jurisdiction to make the decision complained of and in that case there will be no need to go into the other grounds of the review. According to the applicant, the matter referred to the Committee by the Ethics Committee was in a form of a review application and therefore the review panel of seven (7) members rather than the appeal panel of five (5) members should have sat on the matter. It is the applicant’s case that the said appeal panel made up of 5 members including the Chairman or Vice-Chairman lacked the requisite jurisdiction and therefore its decision must be quashed by this committee.Article 42.1 of the GFA Statutes states “The Appeals Committee shall be constituted by ten (10) members, five (5) of whom shall be empanelled to hear a given case. Seven (7) members shall be empanelled from the ten (10) to hear all applications for review.”The article is self-explanatory to the effect that 5 members form a quorum to hear any given case whilst 7 members are empanelled to hear applications for review. How then can applicant invoke the review jurisdiction of the Appeals Committee?Article 42.7 of the GFA Statutes is the answer. It says “The decision of the Appeals Committee in any matter shall be final provided that the Appeals Committee shall have power to review its own decision either suo motu or on an application by an aggrieved party”. It is therefore only under these two circumstances that the review jurisdiction of the Appeals Committee can be properly invoked (1) by an aggrieved applicant and (2) by the committee itself suo motu.In the instant case the matter was referred to the Appeals Committee by the Ethics Committee to have a second look at it. In our view, that referral (rightly or wrongly)did not invoke the review jurisdiction of the Appeals Committee as envisaged by article 42.7 of the GFA Statutes. The ordinary panel of 5 members that heard the matter was right and the said panel could not be said to lack the requsite jurisdiction. We have looked at the other grounds of the application for review and there is no exceptional circumstance why the said decision of the Appeals Committee dates 27/11/15 should be reviewed. The application is therefore dismissed.DATED IN ACCRA THIS 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015last_img read more

Read more