Different sets of leadership biographies for investors and journalists are a waste of resources and give a poor first impression of how well the company is run.
Netflix has a microsite for investors and a microsite for media, both of which are signposted from the footer of the US-based streaming service’s website. Each of these sites has a set of leadership biographies, which differ from each other editorially and visually.
The investor biographies sit on an older template; the biography page for media is newer and more accessible. In terms of the words, some biographies are exactly the same, the CEO for example. Other differences are subtle – the chief content officer biography is longer on the investor site. Another difference – directors are listed for investors, but not for media.
Netflix’s fragmented web presence is typical of US companies’ approach to online communications, but most manage to present one view of the leadership even across multiple microsites. The Netflix example is an extreme case of where a lack of online governance can lead.
Our research into behaviour on corporate sites shows that audiences rarely stay in their silos. Journalists will almost certainly be visiting the Netflix investor site – it is signposted prominently from the media site. Some investor audiences, especially those new to the company will visit the media site.
Leadership biographies should be part of the unified ‘voice’ companies use to communicate to the outside world, as we note in our ‘Explain yourself’ Index, published this week.
At Netflix, neglecting the ‘About’ pages is unlikely to stop the company expanding its streaming service across the world, but why give such a poor first impression of the company governance to journalists and investors?