《网站策划营销》

电子商务化妆品网络营销策划

V5.0

.目录1、网站建设的总体目标2、网站建设的利益分析3、网站的规模与别4.网站的主要目标客户群5、网站建设的主要工作流程6、估算项目所需的时间及人力资源7、估算项目所需的经费8、考虑网站建设中的其它可能问题.网站建设的总体目标让更多的客户了解并记住我们公司的美容中心和产品，记住我们公司的网站，不断完善网站，在化妆品市场拥有更多的客户，提高市场分额，增加销售量，建设良好的客户关系管理系统，为消费者提供更好的服务。与产品原料供应商合作；与宣传渠道合作；物流公司紧密合作；与支付宝业务管理方面进行合作。企业建设电子商务网站的目的网站建设所采用的实施模式预期收益销售量增加30%，销售收入增加30%，知名度增加3倍以上。.网站建设的利益分析1、有利于提高企业的市场竞争力：高性价比、高质量；节假日开展促销；优质的售后服务2、有利于提高企业的品牌知名度：利用明星的影响力，加大宣传；适当举办公益活动；在网站首页及其子页面设立广告区。3、有利于增加企业的业务销售量：提供一流的产品和服务，新颖的广告和创意，设立招聘专栏，广纳贤才。4、有利于提高产品服务的水平：网站客服全天在线，100%正品，开通电话咨询热线。5、有利于节约企业资源及成本：简洁的设计，无需高额的门面和装修成本。6、有利于简化业务联系：实现物流一体化、物流专业化。.本网站的规模及类别规模：1、在五个月内完成电子商务网站的初期建设，实现化妆品的网上欣赏功能，2、一年内完成电子商务网站建设的中期建设，实现化妆品的在线购买支付等功能3、在三年内完成电子商务网站的后期建设，实现化妆品的购买评论，用户与客服的在线交流，个性化功能推荐。类别：1、护肤品,彩妆,全身护理,香水,食品,套装礼盒,保健品,美妆工具。.六、项目所需时间及人力资源项目的时间周期分为3个阶段：前期准备，中期发展，后期体验。（大约共需一年的时间）我们将成立一个5个人左右的项目工作组来负责本项目的开发。项目经理（1人）高级程序员（1人）HTML制作（1人）创意设计总监（1人）美工设计人员（1人）另外还需一些客服和推广人员.七、估算项目所需的经费

一次性投入经费估算序号内容费用∕元1注册域名10002网站的设计50003网站的开发400004网站的测试和评价20005网站的宣传与推广30006硬件的购买100007软件的购买60000合计121000.日常维护所需经费估算示例AspirationSoftwareProprietar序号内容费用∕（元∕年）1域名年费7002主机托管年费50003网站的管理与维护32004网站的使用情况评估1000合计9900.

网站程序的完善和快递公司的合作八、网站建设中其他可能的问题网站产品的录入网上没有实体店的用户体验.ProposalDevelopment (Aspiration)ReviewfinalRFPFinalizecompliancematrixDraftquestionsforclarificationsStoryboardproductionWritedraftvolumesReviewsTacticalSampleComplianceMatrix.PostSubmittal (Aspiration)RespondtoClarificationRequests(CRs)RespondtoEvaluationNotices(ENs),OralsBAFOsDebriefLessonslearnedTactical.TypicalProposalVolumes

ExecutiveSummary-AnOverviewoftheteam&subcontractorarrangements.SummaryofhowSOWrequirementswillbemet.PreparedbyCaptureManagerandseniormanagementManagement-Descriptionofmanagementapproach,addressingperformance,management,cost/schedulecontrol,resources,subcontracting,andsecurity.ProgramManagementandproposalexperience.KnowledgeofprogramandunderstandingoftechnicalapproachTechnical-DiscussiononhowtheofferorplanstosatisfytherequirementsintheSOW.Appropriatetechnicalandproposalexperience.In-depthknowledgeofclientenvironmentandrequirements.Resume-Resumesofkeytechnicalandmanagementpersonnelexpectedtoprovidesignificantcontributionstotheeffort.Identifyingrelevanteducationandworkexperience,relatedtotheRFP.Experienceinthedevelopmentofresumesforproposals.AbilitytodevelopcomplianttemplatesfromRFPandcoordinationwithallproposedstaffPastPerformanceInformation-Todeterminetechnicalandmanagementacceptability,contractorprovidedevidenceofsimilarscopetotheRFPSOWExperiencewithpastperformancedevelopmentforproposals.Understandingoffirmcapabilitiesorwheretoacquireinfo.AbilitytodevelopcomplianttemplatesandcoordinatewithPMsofotherprograms.CreationofPastPerformancethatdirectlydemonstratesourabilitytoaddressSOWrequirementsCostVolume-EvaluatedCostandCostRealism/BasisofEstimate.Experienceinfirmaccountingpoliciesandprocedures.Experienceindevelopmentofcostvolumesforproposals.DetailedunderstandingofpricingmethodologiesandabilitytocoordinatetimelywithOSTsupportstaffSecurityVolume–

Pass/FailPreparedby/inconjunctionwithsecuritystaff(FSO)..ProposalDevelopment (Aspiration)Assesspositioning/GoldTeamProposalOutlineDraftexecutivesummaryIdentifysolutions/BlueteamsProposalmockup/storyboardsPinkteamDraftquestionsCompliancematrixExecutivesummaryPricingupdate/GreenTeamVisualsRedteamRevisionsSecondRed/’GoingGold’ProposalproductionOralsWin/LosedebriefSampleOutline.ColorTeams–QuickGlance (Aspiration)GOLDBusinesspotentialPositioninginmarketstrategyCapturestrategyCompetitiveAnalysisTeamingandSubcontractingMarketingPlanCost(PriceandBidStrategyResourcesProgramrisksDependenciesSchedules/milestones/reviewteamsBLUEAssesseswritingplanforcomplianceandresponsivenessCompliancematrixandproposaloutlineOutlines/StoryboardsThemedevelopmentandkeypointsEarlydevelopmentofgraphicsforincorporationintheproposalBlueTeamReviewPreparednessofproposalteamRED/PINKRedTeamReviewevaluatesusingthecriteriausedbytheclientScoringoftheproposal’scomplianceProposalPreparationInstructions(PPI)EvaluationCriteria,SpecificationStatementofWorkScoringoftheproposal’squalityOverallqualityandpersuasivenessClarityofsolutionSubstantiationofapproachOverallcoherenceandlogicalflowGREENCostProposalkickoffmeeting GreenTeamReviewOutlineandassignments -ComplianceCWBSstructure -CredibilityPreparationschedule -ImplementationofpricingstrategiesPricingstrategy -Consistencywiththerestoftheproposal -Soundnessandclarityoftheestimatingrationale.PinkTeam/1stDraftReview (Aspiration)TakesplacebetweenBlueandRedTeamReviewsandistypicallyareviewofthefirstwrittendraftPinkTeamfirstdraftreviewappliesprimarilytoallthetechnical,management,pastperformanceandexecutivesummaryportionsofaproposalCostVolumeisnottypicallyincludedaspartofthePink/1stDraftReviewbutincludedaspartofthe1stGreenTeamReviewPrimaryemphasisison:evolutionofthestorycompliancetoRFPProminenceofstrategiesandthemesoverallcoherencelogicalflow.Storyboard/Mockup/AnnotatedOutline(Aspiration)“Buildsup”fromrequirementsForcesustomirrorRFPOutline&ideas sentencesGraphicsideasIDwinthemesSelectsowhat/howso?Allowseasymgmtreview(Pinkteam)Makesthe“writing”easySampleStoryboard.Issues (Aspiration)Whatarethecustomer’sworryitems/hotbuttons?Whatarekeyprogramrequirements?Whataretheareasofhighrisk?Whatareareaswherewecan’tmeetrequirements?WhatissuesarenotdirectlylistedintheRFP?.SourceSelection (Government)FederalAcquisitionRegulationsSourceSelectionAuthority–SSA:Overallresponsibility;makesdecisionSourceSelectionAdvisoryCouncil–SSAC:Comparesproposals;recommendsSourceSelectionEvaluationBoard–SSEB:Evaluatesproposals;forbiddenbylawtocompareproposals;canonlyuseinformationintheproposalPerformanceRiskAnalysisGroup–PRAG:notalwaysused;evaluatespastperformance.Scoring (Government)Submittedproposalareusuallyevaluatedinsections,usuallybyteamsofevaluators

(soeachsectionmuststandaloneincompliance)ScoringmethodologiesNumerical(1-5,1-100,etc.)Color(Blue=Exceptional,Green=Acceptable,Yellow=Marginal,Red=Unacceptable)Adjectival(Pass/Fail=usuallyforsecurity;Outstanding,Excellent,Good…)EvaluatingCostdataCostrealismCostreasonablenessCostcompletenessCostcontrol/schedule.Evaluation (Government)Structureourresponsetomakeiteasytocheckoffourproposalascompliant-everythingisdonewiththeevaluatorinmindMakeiteasytoevaluateUselists,tablesandfiguresUseproposalheadingsandstructurethatmirrortheRFPlanguageUsesimple,straightforwardlanguageDon’tomitinformationbecauseyouthinkevaluatorsalreadyknowitMakesectionsstandaloneSellideasusingfeatures/benefits;don’toversellAnswertheRFP–don’trewritetherequirementsevenifyouknowthere’saproblemWritebackwards(conclusionfirst,supportingfactssecond).Technical&MgmtApproach (Aspiration)Oursolutionandapproachmustbe:CrediblePerceivedashavingloworacceptableriskUnderstandableCompetitivelypricedClaimsaresubstantiatedWrittenfortheEvaluators.Discriminators (Aspiration)SeparatesAspirationSoftwarefromcompetitionWhatmakesusunique“Shadow”or“Ghost”differencesfromleadingcompetitorIfcompetitionhaslimitedexperience(butmightbelowcost)showourunderstandingoftheproblem:“Missionrequirementsdemandacadreofexperienced,well-trainedanalysts.”FindwhichonesareimportanttotheclientPositiveorNegative–DealwithissuesdirectlyPositive:Weavethroughouttech&costNegative:Handledasmanaged,mitigatedrisk(showmitigationprocessandreducedriskasaresult).Pastperformance (Aspiration)

Describessameorsimilarworkwe’vedoneProvidesreportcardfeedbackNotalwaysobjectiveTypicalRequirements:QuestionnaireWeightedNames,numbers,duration,problemsSecurityincidentsSitevisits(Gov’t)Recentincreasedemphasisonpastperformanceasamoresignificantfactor(go/nogo).RiskManagement (Aspiration)IdentifytherisksAssess(low,moderate,high)Categorize-technical,schedule,costDeterminecausesDevelopmitigationapproachImplementstrategicmanagementapproachWeaveprocessthroughouttheproposal(“OurdeploymentscheduleisreviewedandmanagedbytheRiskMitigationBoard…”).Features&Benefits (Aspiration)Foreveryfeatureask:“Sowhat?”No:“Wewilltrainourtechnicians”Yes:“Wehaveacontinuoustechniciantrainingandcertificationplanthatensuresup-to-dateskillcompetency”Foreverybenefitask:“Howso?”No:“Eachtechnicianwillgototraining.”Yes:“Weuseastructured,2-weekcrosstrainingprogram,amonthlyskillstrackingassessmentand40hoursofCBTtesting.”.ActionCaptions (Aspir