Forum Moderators: phranque
Last year, we opened an office in the USA, and we made a special website for our US business, wich basically uses the same design guidelines.
However our partner "over there" has a different approach to websites. Instead of putting work into the corporate website, hew has now his THIRD microsite along the lines of real-cool-widgets.com. Those sites are hacked in Frontpage, only display right on newer versions of Internet Explorer, feature loads of graphics with huge image sizes, are stuffed with different fonts, huge font-sizes, bold-red-on-yellow "special offer" labels and each link invariable leads you to a registration form where you need to enter your name, email address, mothers maiden name, grandpa's shoesize, blood-group and other information. In exchange you get some - admittedly useful- PDF files. He even promotes these sites with AdWords and he's in the range of 7-9 US$ per click...
He claims this is the "American Way" of webdesign. American users don't want to read (long) texts. They want to see images. And they are conditioned to "sale" and "special offer" signs.
Is that true? Does one need to build - excuse me - "spammy" and ugly sites to attract US-American visitors?
Any feedback is appreciated...
I have found that to really crack a market, 1 has to have local buyer knowledge etc etc, something we can not have sitting 0000s of miles away.
Shak
@iblaine: See my message above. Our widgets are not at all compulsive. Typically we have decision-forming timeframes of 6 to 12 months.
What strikes me is that his strategy somehow works. I've seen some of his logfiles and his AdWords account, and he DOES get hits and clicktroughs. And of course I know his sales figures and they are up to our expectations.
I have just had a big go round with the graphic designer of a client. The pages I wanted for their site were more functional and geared towards sales. The pages he wanted were beautiful but lacking in some important features (for example, he wanted to know if we really need to have a phone number on the page as it "cluttered" the layout).
Don't confuse function with design. A functional yet astectically ugly site can still do well. A astetically beautiful but functionally a nightmare site can not.
Find the balance between astetics and functionallity, and you have yourself a real winner.
However, you only get it after revealing your email, realname and phone number.
I mostly provide a group of content sites (with adsense) I also sell some cheap e-books and spread sheets. However, these are sold to professionals in a small engineering niche, typically engineers who have just bought or are planning to buy a $100K or above widget system.
I have found that my customers, as well as viewers of the content sites, prefer content rich sites that are clean, simple, do not require signup with personal information, and are not flashy or trashy.
Perhaps your web designer should stick to selling music to teenagers.
I have found that my customers, as well as viewers of the content sites, prefer content rich sites that are clean, simple, do not require signup with personal information, and are not flashy or trashy.
That's EXACTLY my approach!
The only problem is that our US-office is a one-man-show. He's all in one person: sales-manager, CEO and webdesigner.
What I hoped to find here is either some calming words along the lines of "Yes, this is the American way. Just relax it will work out", OR arguments why this is absolutely NOT the American way.
What I hoped to find here is either some calming words along the lines of "Yes, this is the American way. Just relax it will work out", OR arguments why this is absolutely NOT the American way.
Tell him:
1) It is not the American way. There are many clean, simple, easy to read sites in the U.S.
2) It is not your way, and you are the boss.
3) There are probably other people in the U.S. who would be very happy to take over his job and do it your way.
Good Luck
2) It is not your way, and you are the boss.
I wish this was true.
Reality is: I'm just a group manager. I have a boss of my own, and MY boss owns 51% of our US subsidiary, and my US-colleague owns the other 49%.
And since this guy DOES sell stuff, MY boss thinks more along the lines of "never change a winning team".
It's only that I strongly believe we could do BETTER.
Change one thing that you think would make a positive difference, and watch whether it has any measurable effect on user response. Let your stats tell you whether to keep the change or cut it.
Repeat with more variables, one by one.
Never met anyone who likes that kind of site.
I've seen stats, as have many people here, that would argue different. I agree with buckworks. Testing is the ultimate decision maker.
... American users don't want to read (long) texts. They want to see images. And they are conditioned to "sale" and "special offer" signs.
Is that true? Does one need to build - excuse me - "spammy" and ugly sites to attract US-American visitors?
Is it true that the English are stuffy in character and always have tea in the afternoon? :-)
Of course not, any more than this is an "American" type of design. Additionally that statement is as biased and skewed as my parody. Did you ask this gentleman if his claim was based in any real marketing research?
If this statement was made by association - that is, by reviewing a bunch of sites that are ugly as hell but making millions - I think it's the reason this sites are successful that is being misinterpreted here.
Example: I had a customer that sold honey from her family bee farm. 100% genuine, her entire family would get up at 4 AM, harvest honey all day, and spend the evening selling it on their website.
This lady (rest her soul, one of the greatest people I've known) had the UGLIEST site possible. Pick anything you consider a violation - it was on her site. In spite of my recommendations (pleeeEEEEeese let me redo your graphics!) she refused, saying the "cheesyness" of it added a small-town charm.
But that wasn't it, not it at all. People bought her honey for the very same reasons I'm hoping you probably already see - it was the small business, honest working concept and the product. Period. People waded through tons of graphics, avoided pop-up windows, and paid more for her products because they knew what they wanted.
It's the product they are after, and a bargain.
Shortly after she passed away, a younger woman took over the site and revised the graphics and produced a slick templated off-the-shelf canned site solution. Sales plummeted. She's out of business now.
I think advertisers kid themselves sometimes. "I want it to stand out, I want it to flash or something." People hate that. :-) They really do. But if you have something they want, they'll buy.
If it's the product they were after, then the site design would not affect sales in any way?
Back to my problem (and the few new posts above):
I'd really love to do some testing and tweaking. But my reach doesn't go that far! I do have complete control over the corporate website - in fact it resides on a server next room where the worldwide site is as well. But I have NO control whatsoever over his other three microsites. And also the logs I have seen where given to me as a favour - I don#t have permanent online live access to them.
So of course what I can do is put some more work into the corporate site for the USA, doing little tweaks and changes - one at a time - there and see how it affects behaviour.
Only problem with that is that he puts all his marketing/advertising effort into his microsites, using the corporate site merely as a mail-only domain.
Don't get me wrong: my colleague in the US has one hell of a work to do. As I said, he's a one-man show, and his primary goal is sales. Maybe IF a better site would draw more leads, he probably could not even handle the extra load. But still I think we're not doing the optimum...
Nice story. But isn't there a logical flaw in it?
If it's the product they were after, then the site design would not affect sales in any way?
This is not a flaw in logic, it is my point. My position is not one **just** of site development. I also manage a lot of domains that I have no part in designing or developing: for example, a customer may manage their entire site and I just build a contact form front/backend for them.
Believe me, some of these sites are atrocious, but they are doing VERY WELL. While one of the things that we'd like to believe as "designers" is that the graphic design is important in site profits and sales - in my experience, it is just not true. Form still follows function. If the navigational controls are in place and eveything functions - you can make a lot of money with an otherwise ugly site. :D
His pages won't even DISPLAY on Firefox!
Well, OK. As always in life, I had hoped to get an easy answer, but got the contrary.
I guess I put some work in the corporate site, and maybe I make this test run with another microsite. Let's see where this leads.
But, I'm not asking that you post a link to it.
My point is what are you in business for! Are you in business to make money or make sleek creative designs. If his site is working, then maybe he has the touch or has a well targeted audience. It sounds like he has a lot more decision making power than you do; so if you can't spearhead the project then maybe you need to sponge until it is your turn up to bat. If it's not broke then don't try to fix it, because when you try to do that it ruins everything. You can probably make minor adjustments, but you can't create a whole new design over his. Daily visitors would not like that.
I feel like this. If your boss man is meeting/exceeding expectations and corporate quotas, then he must know something about what he is doing. If you were to change his design completely, you may lose a few loyal visitors, because something must attract them. Change is only a new learning process, and most people don't want to re-learn anything.
As for this being the "American Way"...I don't agree. I have seen crappy sites on all sides of the spectrum. And I have seen great sites across the board as well. But every individual has their own particular taste. You may not like his creative design, but obviously someone does!
Best regards
