Never Let An Ad Agency Do Your Web Site

Gerry McGovern tells it like it is. I’ve got first hand experience on serveral occasions that can back this up.

Site Link: Never Let An Ad Agency Do Your Web Site

Comments

1. Andrei said:

He’s right on how poorly most ad agencies handle designing corporate web sites, but as usual with most experts who seem to lack a design background, he goes a bit too far with this comment:

“Branding on the Web is about successful task completion, not fancy images, or heaven forbid, Flash.”

Actually, it’s about both. It’s always about both. It will always be about both, no matter how long people want to debate the form and function thing. Brand comes about from how people think of your product and company, how they relate to it. That relationship always comes from the form and function used by the product and the company.

Why is the iPod so successful? Because it hits both the sucessful task completion and it looks damn good. The iPod has built a brand around the entire experience, which includes its simple functionality and it’s aesthetic appearance.

Not to take a pot shot, but I bring this up because note that when you look at this: http://www.gerrymcgovern.com/about.htm … See that he states his area of specialty is “writing and laying out content for the Web.” Yet, his own web site is pretty much on the amateur end of the scale in this regard in terms of layout, color choices and typography.

I’ll point you back to what I feel is the truth on this debate, from the late great Paul Rand:

http://www.designbyfire.com/000028.html

Posted on January 18, 2004 04:11 PM | #

2. Keith said:

True enough. In defense of Gerry – he is in no way a Web or UI designer. He is, however, a leading expert on Web content, and he does know quite a bit about what makes a successful Web site. When he talks about laying out content I think he really means this from a very basic semantic level – not design really at all.

I think a case can be made for both sides of this and to be honest in most cases it really depends on the site. His site doesn’t warrant or need any “Flash or fancy images.” Oh and Web designers aren’t his primary audience.

Having said that, I’m pretty sure he’d be the first to admit his Web site isn’t anywhere close to being one of the better designed sites out there.

Does this effect his “brand?” In my eyes – not at all, I come to his site for his thoughts on content and not much else. Content is still king – on the Web anyway.

Could he benefit from a professional Web redesign? Absolutely and I’m sure he’d be the first to admit that. Does he need one to be successful or have a site that serves his needs and his readers needs? Of course not.

Posted on January 18, 2004 04:55 PM | #

3. Andrei said:

“Does he need [a redesign] to be successful or have a site that serves his needs and his readers needs? Of course not.”

This is where I would disagree. Maybe our defintions of “success” are different?

At any rate, it should not be enough for people who are concerned with content to also not be concerned with the presentation of that content. In fact, they should be concerned more so with every aspect of their content. Especially if they are going to criticize design firms on the flip side of the equation.

Content and presenation are intrinscly tied to together, like the body and the soul. They cannot be separated, and both need to be nurtured. To ignore one is to damage both.

When I visited his site, my first reaction was “amateur” for better or worse. Whatever opinions or content he has, whether expert or not, were immediately brought down by the amatuerish presentation. People who care about content should also get a firm grasp on at least the basics of presenation. It doesn’t take much to create a well formatted, readable web site.

I say this as someone who is still struggling to find the best presenation on his own site. I don’t like the way it flows yet, and nor do I like the use of photos or illustrations, which are clashing too harshly for me. But I will work that problem over and over until I find a design that satisfies on as many axes as possible.

Posted on January 18, 2004 05:47 PM | #

4. Keith said:

Well, I don’t know, I think Gerry knows what he is doing. He is probably the leading expert on Web content.

He is to Web content what Eric Meyer is to CSS or Zeldman is to Web standards.

But yea, it’s probably our definition of success where we differ in opinion. I’m not really into arguing semantics so, again, we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.

As far as his points on Ad agencies. He is right on the money. There is such a thing as “over-designed” and I think that’s what he’s saying. I’ve been on the receiving end of what he’s talking about. It’s very easy to end up sacrificing your content and/or functionality for design.

This is just as common (if not more so on professional sites) as having great content and a shoddy looking design. I’ll not open the whole form vs. function thing – it’s a dead horse, but his article is important because it highlights something that has burned many and is one of the reasons why there are so many desingers out there who think the Web is Flash.

Posted on January 18, 2004 06:51 PM | #

5. Dris said:

Aye, both sides of the discussion have valid points. Give and take?

See, the idea of advertising is to make people think that there’s more than there is. Even if a product is good enough without adding anything on, advertisers try to make it look even better. That’s what they do, and they do it well, well learned (to be pronounced in two syllables) in the ways of psychology and graphic design.

The web, as centered around content, is more about instantaneous response. This is what I want, this is where I get it; it’s done. People don’t want to go through an advertisement when they’ve reached a website; they know why they’re there, and they just want to get it done (though it’s good to advertise to those who don’t know about the site, and to point to other areas of interest within the site).

Graphics, aesthetics and the like are good for keeping people interested and for giving them a sense of credibility. However, it is possible to go too far. Too far is when the presentation impedes the content.

Posted on January 18, 2004 11:26 PM | #