Good story on WoMag with a very fair assessment as to the quality of the airport website:
http://www.worcestermag.com/archives/2006/04-27-06/city_desk.html
YOU NEED TO SCROLL HALF WAY DOWN THE PAGE!
WRRB/Telegram District City Council Forum 10/18
-
This forum is for all district council candidates; all candidates are here
today. Format: 14 total questions, 4 questions across districts (for all
candida...
6 months ago
6 comments:
This article is correct about the city airport website. I have looked at the airport websites on allegiants route map and Worcester has one of the worst for getting information.
The administration was approached and encouraged to rectify this MANY months ago. It simply is not a priority for them. They DO NOT UNDERSTAND marketing. We can point out their deficiencies all day long, but if we do not have advocates in the administration that understand the importance of good marketing, to include appeasing a rabidly negative media, correcting outdated public perceptions, and improving relations with citizen activists, we might as well wrap up the show now.
Tom:
I would be a little more specific --the airport administration.
Bill
I also wish Scott ZObach had mentioned the web sites of the other secondary airport like Rockford and McAllen.
In 2004 I called and e-mailed the Airport Liaison, folks of the city's IT department and reps from Massport asking them to up-date the ORH web site, since it then claimed there were commercial flights offered. While their response was painfully slow, it was finally cut free from the Massport web-site, but there was still an obstacle of funding, a question of autonomy, and responsibility of maintenance. They have made some progress since then, although as the web designer in WoMag articulates, it pales in comparison to others.
yngairport.com sucks, we gave $7k to a guy to make a new one, nothing is done.
I thought YNG'S Was bad, your's is even worse, maybe 5 pages total on the airport.
Post a Comment