Giraffe Forum

excellent article i love it i was pitching for a project recently and this is the reply from the prospect/client

“Adam,

We’ve decided to allow our advertising agency to develop our website. Thank you for your interest. -Josh

im disappointed and did not want to fire off a nasty email ! how the heck should i reply to this , i can send him this article from gerry ! but i think that my client may still not get it ! or just leave it alone !and move on to the next project!

You’re basically saying most agencies should stay offline. Well, have you seen advertising as generally practiced offline? It’s awful. Too many agencies are focused on selling the client their services instead of selling their clients’ services and products. And shame on them.

I hear what you’re saying about the websites that represent the agencies themselves, but your attack on the work that is done by them in general in my experience is untrue. As someone who has worked for several of the larger agencies in the NY metropolitan area, as a Content Strategist/User Experience Designer, doing anywhere from 4 weeks to 6 months of research to prepare the foundation of client corporate sites is what is more of the norm these days. True, budgets are tight and the luxury of getting clients to spend upfront money on discovery can be a challenge, but for big projects this is what is done. So the real issue and culprit, if you will, is not the agencies, but getting the clients to realize that investing money in the discovery stage is not a frivolous expense, but a necessity that will make the difference in ensuring that their site is not only relevant to the user, but is also meeting their business needs. And attacking the creative folk who work in the agencies is really off base.

Picking two of the worst examples you can find, saying “Ad agencies suck on the internet” is a pretty cheap shot if you ask me. Sure, there are lots of crap agencies taking peoples cash and making horrible websites, but there are also lots of agencies doing amazing stuff with websites so pardon me for saying that your article isn’t really very balanced.

Yes, the Ogilvy.com site sucks, as does the Leo Burnett flash-site, as do a lot of crappy flash-sites. Those are the two examples you managed to find? Did you even try to find a good one?

I also find it funny that you criticize others for “not getting the Web” with a site of your own that is so horribly designed in every aspect of the word that I feel like closing the window before having read a single word. Was it designed in 1998? I know that’s a cheap shot of my own, but come on—how are you a credible website evaluator with typography, a grid and a choice of colours that would make a first grade teacher proud of her PowerPoint set in Comic Sans?

It’s true that “design is not just what it looks like and feels like”, but what it looks like and feels like can be a major factor in terms of a pleasant user experience when it comes to reading and understanding information. I’d even go as far as saying it’s crucial when it comes to getting a potential user or client to stay long enough to bother exploring the site or reading the whole darn text. At least don’t knock it till you try it.

Jeff - you just don’t get it do you.

For the target audience of this page it is perfect.

I came here to read Gerry’s article. Full stop.

Black text on a white backround makes it easy for my eyes and brain to meet that objective [do you think it is an accident that newspapers use this set up? And by the way, they were around long before 1998. Good ideas don’t go out of fashion].

Double-spaced sans serif font is the easiest to read on a computer screen [check the research].

I defy you - or anybody - to ‘design’ that better?

As for choice of colours? You obviously don’t like blue. However, I would suggest you do some research on the effect of colour in design, in particular what colours are perceived [by viewers] to represent.

Or maybe Gerry just likes blue

There is a major disconnect between the words “Advertising” and “Marketing,” and how each of those are used on the Internet vs how they are used on other types of media outlets.

Yes, Gerry, you may have been a bit stereotypical on your opening statements, “Advertising agencies don’t get the Web because the web is the place people go to do things.” And, the following, “So, have ad agencies changed? In 2010, have they gotten any better? No. If anything, they’re getting worse.”

I would clarify it a bit and say, “Most advertising agencies don’t get the Web, at all!” The reason is they are still stuck in the world of television and magazine publishing and advertising. They don’t have a clue about people searching online for the items they are looking for, based on keywords. The Internet is all about contextual advertising first and foremost. The way most advertising websites are put together, it’s as though they expect others to find them with an Ad for themselves as though it was being displayed on TV or a printed publication.

To me, it appears as though most advertising agencies don’t know how to properly market themselves. They are weighted too much on the form of advertising to spend any degree of form on marketing, especially as it comes to marketing on the Internet.

Gerry, there is no doubt the two advertising agency websites that you have selected are very poor on the website design structure for marketing online. Both of them are designed in the very heavy use of the Adobe Flash design categories. This is very typical for artistic designers. I’ve seen it used so many times for a website; and I know you have written about it in the past. They think, Flash is beautiful but forget about marketing. I am convinced that most advertising agency artists are just using one side of their brain.

Internet marketing as well as online advertising is about using both sides of the brain. Advertising agencies in general need to step back a bit and understand the differences between marketing and advertising, as I had mentioned in the very beginning. They need to remember that if someone has arrived on their website, they no longer need to have heavy advertising for themselves. They need to think about marketing, not advertising, at that point in time. The two ad agencies may be very successful, (in making large amounts of money for themselves), however, it looks as though they are stuck in the advertising only mode of operation and have altogether dropped the fundamentals of marketing online.

I tend to agree with Gerry. Another area where you might shine your critical light is what I would term the vanity sites set up (and then neglected) by the motor industry. You know the sort of thing - http://www.ournewcarisfab.com. Actually, scrub that … the big motor manufacturer parent sites are just as bad - and think of the budgets they must have at their disposal!

“Rob, when you go to Google you also see a search box. Google makes 95% of its revenue selling ads. Don’t ad agencies make a lot of their revenue from ads?”

I guess that’s where I’m confused on your point. So should an agency site have a search box? but what would be searched?

Agencies do make a lot of their revenue from ads, but not isn’t that “break through the clutter, to get you noticed” creative/design/strategy, instead of what you are looking for?

I can Google cars or I can see what Honda is up to…

I think the confusion is, Agencies help Market or sell a product (like any ad or commercial) but the Net is so much more, information, reviews, testemonials, etc…

It would be more of understanding the space and using it wisely, instead of poorly laid out/designed websites or ads or “experiences” that don’t engage the customer…

is that what you are trying to say?

Having left the advertising world in Northern Ireland (small but very competitive) I would agree that there is still a disconnect between the off and on-line, and the creative directors are still dreaming of getting their hands on large sums of dosh to make their mini movies. I do like the black sheep reference - many years ago I was at the Kinsale Shark Advertising Awards, and almost every creative director wore a black Armani suit with a black t-shirt - it was a Life of Brian “We are ALL individuals” moment.

ROTFL! I loved that post. Thank you. Agency sites are, and always have been, absolute rubbish as is the online work they produce yet I continue to be amazed at the clients who continue to throw money at them year after year. I have practiced “quality web management” myself for many years and once you truly understand what makes a website great, it doesn’t take much to realize how poor agencies are at understanding the online space.

As a corporate employee, I’ve had to work with agencies who’ve been called in to create successful campaigns so I know first-hand how they work. In my experience, they do everything wrong from destroying searchability to decimating a natural information architecture. It’s all about the ‘flash’ and, sadly, many clients with big bucks to spend are easliy wooed by shiny objects.

Print and TV advertising is a very visual area and visual Creatives are highered on the strength of their (visual) creative ideas (Images); Are you saying that these creatives/advertising agencies should showcase their talents in black text on a white background? Can an artist’s skills be adequately described with text? perhaps I didn’t quite understand what you are saying.

Is the problem the fact that the sites are too “graphic” or that there isn’t much additional information about the creatives/agencies themselves in text form. Perhaps information such as: Rates, Pricing policy, Processes, How to place an order / engage the agency or send a brief…etc?

The last time I checked, a picture was still “worth a thousand words”, does this not apply to the web?

I would say there should be a balance and that the colourful visuals should be complemented by additional useful info in text format.

Does the intended purpose of the site not dictate the form it takes? If all I want, for example, is to show the quality of my print designs accompanied by my contact details, how best do you recommend I do it without heavy use of visuals?

Has anyone researched on the number of inquiries the sites you mentioned get from visitors to their sites? When you visited the sites you mentioned, was it as a potential client or as a critic because your experience would have been greatly influenced by this.

Your critique would have helped my understanding a lot if you had suggested how the sites should have been designed or mentioned what was missing (in more detail)or what it is that you failed to do on the sites, bearing in mind that there are numerous variables in advertising and that a lot may have been omitted for competitive reasons.

These clients who keep hiring these agencies to do the same thing year in and year out, are they not human beings like all of us who also use the web and know the kind of experience they would like to have? Do their marketing personel and consultants not advise them based on research and results? and is it possible to do a website that pleases everyone, surely there must be plenty people out there who love the sites you criticise - of cause I am not saying there are no poorly designed sites out there, but, I feel to say that a site is poor simply because of use of flash and images may be a little misleading.

Help me understand.