|
Practical and functional Web sites rarely win prizes for design, but they do win sales and make profits....
Recently, I did a masterclass on Web sales with about 50 Danish Web managers. I gave them a list of issues and asked them to choose the most important ones for them. The top 5 issues for these managers were: increase sales, customer-focused, usability, completing the sale, serving customers better.
Then I asked them to look at the list again, and this time choose the issues that were of least importance to them. These were: credit card fraud, more use of Flash, award-winning site, Wow factor, more animation.
The Danes (and other Scandinavians) are probably the most sophisticated Web practitioners I have had the pleasure to deal with. When I deal with countries that are at the bottom of the curve when it comes to Web adoption and ecommerce expertise, award-winning sites driven by Flash and Wow factors tend to be top of the agenda.
"I no longer enter my agency's layouts in the contests by the art director's societies, for fear that one of them might be disgraced by an award," David Ogilvy wrote in his 1963 seminal book, Confessions of an Advertising Man. This legend of advertising stated that, "I wage war on art-directoritis, the disease which reduces advertising campaigns to impotence."
Inspired by David Ogilvy's wisdom, I decided to visit Ogilvy.com. There I was presented by another quote from the great man: "You aren't advertising to a standing army, you are
advertising to a moving parade."
And right underneath that quote, Ogilvy.com is boasting about how it has just won 13 awards.
In fact, rarely have I come across a more vain, conceited homepage. In about 110 words, the name Ogilvy (or Ogilvy & Mather) is used over 20 times. Other phrases include "our work" and "what we do."
Nathan Shedroff recently gave a talk at User Interface 11, where he asked the audience to name areas of life where good design has made a real impact. (Nathan is the co-author of a book on
experience design called Making Meaning.) Design innovations (uch as wireless, voting systems, nutrition fact sheets, starting a car) were mentioned.
Nathan mused that they could spend an hour mentioning really important design innovations and have a very long list. In his opinion, nothing on this list would have won a design award.
Nathan showed an image of the iPod, that he described as a white block with rounded corners. Absolutely functional design. Just like the Google homepage.
The Danes understand that a site needs to be designed for the customer, not for the organization, and certainly not for the Web team. The most dangerous thing that web professionals can do is assume that what they really care about is what their customers really care about.
The Web is a functional, practical place. A great Web site drives the customer to act. It uses clear, substantial language, rather than clever, meaningless words. To quote David Ogilvy again:
"When Aeschines spoke, they said, 'How well he speaks.' But when Demosthenes spoke, they said, 'Let us march against Philip.' I'm with Demosthenes."
The shiny surface wins awards. Real substance wins customers.
|
Comments
Gerry,
You are a wise man. "The Danes understand that a site needs to be designed for the customer, not for the organization, and certainly not for the Web team."
Right on! Marketing and communications should be about and for the customer, not about and for our business.
Lewis
Posted by: Lewis Green | 10.18.06
Great post. We do need to be reminded of (perhaps that's too soft a word... How about "pounded over the head with") this message constantly...
Good design and good usability are not mutually exclusive, but for some reason they are often competing for Web space.
Posted by: Cam Beck | 10.18.06
Gerry,
Really well put. I agree with Cam that usability and delight are not mutually exclusive, but Ad agencies are often the bigger culprits when it comes to chasing the award over all else.
These are the things I strive for on any Web design initiative.
Useful
Usable
Desirable
Sustainable
I try. I don't always win, but I try.
:)
Posted by: David Armano | 10.18.06
I suspect award-winning websites are awful for the same reasons award-winning campaigns are awful: they're created to serve the vanity of the designer/art director, not the needs of customers or clients.
If you're searching for an agency and the first thing its website touts is the number of awards that covers its walls -- run for the hills!
Posted by: Jonathan Kranz | 10.18.06
Good post - the winners of this year's 'Webby Awards' show just how much style is rewarded ahead of function.
Posted by: Ken Burgin | 10.18.06
This is a great post. I often wonder why a list like David Armono's isn't the criteria demanded for an award.
Useful
Usable
Desirable
Sustainable
If all those things are met then good design is already an integral part of the product.
Design for design sake is just visual masterbation if there's no valuable content.
T.
Posted by: Tammy Strnatka | 10.18.06
Excellent post! I have fought this battle from many angles my self, several times. Oh, if only content were stronger than the sexy skin.
David- I have to agree with Tammy that your list should be THE list that all designers are required to live by.
Posted by: Tim Jackson | 10.18.06
Can you provide a few examples of real sites that get it right?
Google is a great example but most businesses might have a hard time keeping it that spare.
Thanks.
Posted by: William Cavalier | 10.19.06
Excellent post. I'm a writer who frequently tussles with designers who want to "sex up" their web design. I think Albert Einstein said it best: "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."
Posted by: Nancy Friedman | 10.19.06
Stop sharing all this great information with everybody... I'm losing my advantages ;)
Posted by: John Guilonard | 10.19.06
Sorry, I have to disagree with you a little bit here. To say that “award-winning websites are awful” is a very broad statement. It’s not that black or white. The measurement of a ‘good’ or “awful’ website comes down to the objective of the website and if it meets that objective. Some are to win customers, some are used for branding, some are used for make a point/communicate a message. Some are to accomplish all of these. To meet the website’s objective is a balancing act of all the elements – some weighing more than others depending on the case. In addition, the criteria for winning a Webby Award are not just about the creative, but also the functionality and overall experience. The Webby Award website states, "The Academy evaluates Web sites based on six criteria: content, structure and navigation, visual design, functionality, interactivity, and overall experience." BTW, I do not have an award-winning site, and I am not affiliated with the Webby’s. I’m just playing Devil’s Advocate.
Posted by: Jennifer Mayerle | 10.19.06
One more thing...the headline for "Ads by Google" ad that comes up next to your article reads: "Award Winning Web Sites". I bet that advertiser is bumming. Just thought you might get a chuckle out of it! :)
Posted by: Jennifer Mayerle | 10.19.06
Yes!
Posted by: Joy Stauber | 10.19.06
The creatives I’ve known at Ogilvy would agree with your thesis, as do I. But like Jennifer, I cringe at sweeping generalizations that equate “Award Winning” to “Awful”.
Posted by: Steve McNamra | 10.19.06
Maybe there should be an "our web site effectively doubled revenue and kept visitors engaged three times longer last quarter, what did yours do?" award, or an OWSEDOSAKVETTLLQWDYD? award for short :)
I think an award should be given for results, not merely the thing (campaign, site, etc.) itself. If an ad campaign increases calls and site visits, then award the campaign, but award it for the results, not because it's snazzy. Same for a web site. Then again, some sites use Flash and cool wizardry for a purpose. So sure, "award-winning means awful" is a sort of stereotype, but it's a stereotype for a reason.
In sum, the Danes know what they're doing.
Posted by: Daniel Monday | 10.19.06
"Proud winner of the OWSEDOSAKVETTLLQWDYD Award!"
Yeah, that's catchy....I kinda like it.
Posted by: Ann Handley | 10.19.06
Thanks. Perhaps I should go into Various Award Name Development and Acronym Creation? I could call the company VANDAC :)
There's a market for that right?
Posted by: Daniel Monday | 10.19.06
There shouldn’t be a conflict between a good visual design and a website that delivers maximum profit and value. However, when I visit a site like Ryanair.com, I see a very ugly design and a hugely profitable website and company. So, does ugly sell better on the Web than pretty?
“Useful, Usable, Desirable, Sustainable” sound like pretty good criteria to me, as well, David. And I think Daniel’s point is perfect. A website should be measured on the results it delivers, not on how fancy it looks.
We read on the Web, and there seems to be a real conflict between a webpage that is easy to read and one that is visually pleasing. Black text on a white background is very readable but not visually pleasing. White text on a black background is very cool and art school-like, but it’s not that easy to read.
Posted by: Gerry McGovern | 10.20.06
I agree -- it should be measured by results. However, some results -- even with websites -- can't be measured. It all depends on the audience and objectives of the site. Some audience may not care if it is an ugly site -- they're just there for the product or message. Highly designed sites may appeal to other audiences and that may be what gets them to act. It's really grey and complex. But each time you design a site or any piece of collateral, ad, etc. you need to go back to the 30,000 foot level and see if it meets the objective.
Posted by: Jennifer Mayerle | 10.20.06
Jennifer, I agree. It's more complex, but you still make a great point that if you can't necessarily measure results, you can still determine if it accomplished an objective, which runs along the same lines. A web site should be judged on the desirable outcome(s) it's meant to achieve, not just the site itself.
And I also think those 4 criteria that David suggested (Useful, Usable, Desirable, Sustainable) are perfect for judging a site as objectively as possible. Perhaps strategic should be another.
Posted by: Daniel Monday | 10.22.06