HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-03-12 Bozeman Climate Partners Communications and Outreach Working Group Minutes Bozeman Climate Partners
Communications & Outreach Working Group
qF BOg�
.•.1883..
9r4''ca.'eM1�?
Meeting Minutes
July 3rd 2012, g:ooam
Bozeman City Hall, City Commission Room
Members Attending:
Jeff Moore, Hattie Baker, Paula Beswick, Jay Sinnott, Nick Bentley,
Kathy Powell, Kristen Walser, Emily Baker(Energy Corps Member)
Staff Present:
Natalie Meyer(Staff Liaison)
1) Call to Order
2) Changes to the Agenda
a. None
3) Approval of Minutes
a. Approved
4) Public Comment
a. None
5) Logo Selection
a. Discussion of color options given by Bunkers.
b. Logos look different when printed on different printers, levels of toner. Look
different on different computer screens. Tricky to choose.
c. Went over the voting pre-meeting: quite a mixed bag.
d. Lots of good options. Axed mono-chromatic options to give us variety in palate.
Axed orange and blue for sporty (broncos) look.
e. Selected la, lb, 2a for final choice, once we get saturation adjusted on lb.
6) Website RFP
a. Received proposals from 6 parties.
i. Group members were able to see proposals before meeting.
b. Distributed summary table of components on which the group will be scoring
proposals to facilitate comparison.
c. Began with Endless Range proposal. We liked a few of the sites, but they seemed to
be travel-blog types of things, not a large educational site. A few members did not
think they were visually appealing. With the substantially higher price tag, the group
thought we could probably rule out Endless Range, mostly for being out of our
budget range.
d. Moved to proposal by John Wallace. A good budget option; we liked many of the
sites he had constructed. However, the proposal did not address accessibility issues
(for those with disabilities), and the group was not excited by the suggestion of
using pre-made themes, which may not have a unique feel.
e. Clark Corey Designs was a nice proposal, with visually appealing websites. Many
large images on the sites, and the group liked the look. However, the many
grammatical errors in the proposal were hard to overlook.
f. Group discussed importance of grammar in proposal: many had substantial errors.
Bad grammar is not necessarily an indication of bad programming, but perhaps is
an indication of professionalism. Additionally, another set of eyes copy-editing
could be quite useful!
g. Develobling was a favorite of H. Baker. She liked their sites a lot. E. Baker disagreed;
she thought they weren't too appealing, and were a bit '90s, especially the 5280
dubstep site.
h. Discussion of the various pricing schemes; we didn't like the ongoing $50/ month
charge for analytics assessed by Develobling.
i. Meyer adjusted the bulk prices listed for the set of requirements we set forth in the
RF P.
j. Hosting: though designers suggested hosting, no need to go with any of the
specific services they suggested. We can choose (no need to put negative towards
someone who may have suggested hosting on their own server).
k. SEO very important; we liked designers who suggested incorporating the design of
SEO into our content development, instead of implementing it on the back end.
I. Inquiry by N. Bentley into whether we can incorporate our knowledge of working
with Bunkers into the decision. Baker thought this would be very unfair, and that we
should not take this into account, as much as possible. Proposal by Bunkers stands
very well on its own, independent of any experience with the firm.
m. Walser loved the Sweetpea website designed by Engine 8. Baker thought the
proposal was the most professional, visually beautiful, and elegantly written. Others
liked websites designed by Engine 8 as well.
n. MediaWorks has many nice websites. Odd that the logo is pixilated in the RFP PDF.
Discussion on wireframes vs. other types of design.
o. Considered differences in all workflow proposals, as they are quite different, but
easy for a layperson to decipher benefits and problems with each.
p. Proposals were evaluated as stated in the RFP:
Executive Summary: 5
Technical Volume: 20
Management Volume: 25
Budget Volume: 15
Attachments (examples of work): 25
q. Voting by each individual group member. Tally collected by N. Meyer, giving each
designer total points voted by group members.
Clark Corey: 298
Develobling: 379
John Wallace: 277
Media Works: 589
Endless Range: 304
Engine 8: 695
r. Engine 8 emerged as clear winner with this system. H. Baker said all her top 3 picks
made it into the top 3, so it seemed reasonable.
s. Group asked if all were comfortable with our choice of Engine 8. All were in favor,
none were opposed.
t. NEXT STEPS: in RFP, Engine 8 asked the BCP to be ready to show some of our
favorite websites as inspiration at the first meeting, so he can get an idea of what
the group is seeking.
7) Adjournment- 10:30am