Pink Edition
Ugly Websites Stink
Gerry McGovern recently wrote that the best websites are the ugly ones - he is wrong. Only cheap companies can have ugly websites.
I have a deep respect for Gerry McGovern, I own every book he has ever written, I have been a subscriber to "New Thinking" since he started publishing them, but in his latest article he wrote:
"Ryanair, eBay, Amazon, Google, Craig's List, My Space, and YouTube are ugly websites. They are also hugely successful websites. When I show audiences the Ryanair website, there are audible gasps. I see people recoil from its sheer ugliness. Yet last year, Ryanair flew 42 million passengers, and the vast majority of them booked their flights through Ryanair.com."- Gerry McGovern
And, he is right - all those websites are ugly, and all of them are a huge success... but, they are not successful because their websites is ugly - it is because an ugly website fits the concept of those companies.
Ryanair is a no-thrill company. You do not use Ryanair to get a good experience, you do not use them to fly "first class", and you do not use them to feel good. You use Ryanair to get as cheaply as possible from A to B - and in doing so you trade-off the good experience.
Ryanair is a no-thrill company, and so it also needs a no-thrill website. Ugly is perfect for Ryanair, because it makes them look cheap - and that, for them, is how they make money.
Not everyone is no-thrill
But what about the companies that sells expensive product? Companies like Audi, Aston Martin, Apple, Nike, Bang&Olufsen, Concorde (when it was still flying), Gucci, Wally Yachts, Rolex, Armani etc.
None of these companies would benefit from having ugly looking websites - because they are not selling ugly products, they do not even sell products, they sell good experiences. Ugly websites would ruin that experience - it would be a disaster.
You do not buy a good experience based on how the product is made, or what it can do technically. You buy it to show-off to your friends. You buy an iPhone to be able to say "look I got an iPhone", you buy a Jaguar to make people look at you, and you buy Gucci to make your friends jealous.
Luxury companies need a website that is about that experience. They need cool design, amazing look-and-feel, perfect finish and extreme attention to exquisite colors and visual details. You even need the right kind of sound.
The world in-between
Not all companies sell luxury products or good experiences. The vast majority sells products that are neither insanely cheap (like Ryanair's), nor anywhere close to being like Gucci.
If you are working for one of those companies you need to take a really hard look at what people want. Cheap companies can get away with being cheap - you cannot. Luxury brands can get away with not displaying factual information - you cannot.
You need to do both at the same time. You need give people the factual information they need, and you need to do in a way that fits the experience of your product. Kellogg's All-Brand is a good example.
Kellogg's All-Brand
People do not buy Kellogg's All-Brand because they want something to eat. Why would they? There are much better tasting products on the market. Instead people buy All-Brand to feel healthy.
But Kellogg's All-Brand is not a luxury product. It is sold to everyone, and it is relatively cheap. It is also one those products where product information is very important. People want to know why it is healthy, why is this good for me?
This is a dilemma - Kellogg' needs to sell an experience, "feeling healthy", in a factual way. They need to create a website that is about the experience of healthy living - while giving people the nutritional information they are looking for.
And so they did:
The Kellogg's All-Brand website is almost exclusively about the healthy experience. It tells you the benefits of fibers, how much of it there is in each product, why you shouldn't eat pills, and what your nutritional needs are. As an added extra, they also offer a bunch of healthy recipes.
Also notice the site menu. It doesn't say "product information", "Nutritional chart", or "Ingredients" like it is supposed to. Instead they have created unusual menu labels like "The Scoop on fiber" and "Daily fiber tabulator" which is actually much more usable and a lot more suitable for that experience.
The result is a good mix of all the elements people need:
- A "healthy experience"
- Factual information
- A usable menu
- Easy to use, easy to understand
- Useful content
It doesn't look cheap and ugly as Ryanair. It looks good (but not over designed), has a suitable and usable experience and most importantly - it fits the concept of the brand.
Ugly websites rarely work to your advantage. Base your design on the content and the experience. But, just as important, never base your design on "making a design" either.
Comments
Thomas Baekdal - Jul. 24, 2007
Steven, Well actually you can - or more precisely, you can trick your brain into thinking something taste good (or bad)
The simplest way it to take a picture that is visually impressive, which trick the brain into thinking: "if it looks good, it must also taste fantastic"
If that doesn't work, you can always add people enjoying the taste. Now your brain thinks "well it looks good, and those people really like it - it must be fantastic"
Sounds like a cheap trick, but it does actually work that way :o)
thalia - Jul. 25, 2007
Thomas,
Yes, it is all so interesting-- I love your comparisons. What about nature websites? how to entice people in the city to go to your country vacation spot, website.
Travis - Jul. 26, 2007
Very nice interpretation, after all, who would believe that a company that spends 200K on their website makes it back on $20 airfares?
Paul Rouke - Aug. 1, 2007
Great article Thomas. I think an interesting point with the likes of Ryannair is that by even still keeping the cheap and cheerful look and feel, by further enhancing the user experience of their site (with perhaps a moderation in the over use of strong colours and messaging) they could expect to be converting even more of their 42 million customers using the online channel.
With referencing the tasty experience, I have a client website due live soon and they are fine dining establishment - my use of professionally shot dishes similar to your 1st example, along with the overall visual design of the site, will help to take site visitors as close to the experience they can expect when physically dining at this restaurant.
I'll post a link to the site once it is live for any further comments!
Keep up the great articles...
Anonymous - Aug. 3, 2007
Thalia: I think nature sites should focus hard on the visuals. Use big breathtaking images and fantastic video clips from the area - with soothing music. Of course it also needs to be practical. It should be easy to find and read about thing like: Where is it, opening hours, recreational areas, camping sites, what to look out for etc.
Uzi: I wrote the following comment about MySpace in my article "4 Tricks to Making Great Products":
It obviously should not look ugly, despite of what you might think of MySpace. MySpace is not successful because it lacks style - MySpace is successful despite its design. That is very big difference. In the case of MySpace, the need for individuality far outranks the need to have prefabricated design templates.
Shane - Aug. 5, 2007
I'd totally agree from an ascetics point of view, they are ugly and with "Anonymous".
Fundamentally, each of these sites/companies has focused on their product and their customers, in terms of offering the functionality to meet their real needs
As a customer of eBay, I don't really care about the looks, my goal as a seller is to easily post my goods efficiently and effectively and then sell my wares to MILLIONS of people. And as a buyer, I don't want my bids impeded because I have to wait for fancy images to download.
I can tell you from own design/dev experience that biz people are so focused on the looks, i.e. color of graphics and finding the right graphic that they lose focus on the product and their customers. The results are deadlines getting pushed, copy is lacking, site looks pretty but customers hate it. Or you've just blown your load at getting everything right and getting no traction.
Obviously, the key is finding the right balance - more like back to basics of the convincing the business to put the time required for proper design of UI and UX!
Paul Rouke - Aug. 9, 2007
Our fine dining client website which I mentioned in my comment last week is now live, which to rewind we strongly recommend we provide them with a professional photoshoot to ensure the site provides visitors with a real insight to the quality of the food in taste and preparation, as well as selling the restaurant as an overall dining experience to the right clientele.
Take a look at http://www.theredcat.co.uk
I'd be interested in any follow up comments on how this visual experience comes through.
Paul
Thomas Baekdal - Aug. 14, 2007
Paul, I think it is a very nice website - the images looks good and "tasty" - and the websites provides a comfortable experience.
The only thing Iwould chance is the order of the two main menu's. Move "Food and Drink" above "Restaurant" (people do not come to meet the staff, they come to eat).
Ilina S. - Dec. 3, 2007
Finally somebody said it right!! I have read so much on the issue of these big players with ugly websites and as a web designer who's all about aesthetics and pleasant user experience, my heart aches every time :-)
Awesome points Thomas.
Though I have been noticing Amazon, Yahoo, eBay adding more and more lovely design improvements lately!! Finally :-)
Uzi Shmilovici - As for MySpace - two ideas.
1) Being so ugly... doesn't it actually make the user want to personalize it and make it pretty? (engage him/her), and
2) they have been lazy and resting on their laurels - that's why they recently started losing public attention to much more user-friendly Facebook (though still not the prettiest site out there, it is still much more 2.0)!
Thomas Baekdal - Dec. 3, 2007
Ilina, Thank you :)
BTW: I agree with your observations about MySpace and Facebook
The Identity Guy - Mar. 27, 2008
I think companies that end up with ugly or cheap looking websites have just hired the wrong people to build the site. Like Ryanair, that's just a very poor design, more than likely its a site that is done in house by a programmer and they may not have a designer for the site, a company like that comes off as management with bad taste, did you ever see their uniforms.
However Amazon and Ebay, I don't know if I would call them ugly, they are content driven ecommerce sites and there design serves them well, both have been redesigned and the look is clean and nice.
Google and Craigslist, well they fall into a different category, they are strickly SEO friendly sites and their main objectives are to get their content found online, design is their lowest priority. Does that classify them as ugly, hmmm I'm not sure because when using these sites the last thing I think about is design and I'm a designer, so I don't see them is ugly because all I want is the results I'm looking for.
Anyway, I like your blog, keep up the good work.
Anonymous - Jun. 17, 2008
i love you
weddings new zealand - Jul. 30, 2008
Thomas
Where do you get the time to review & write all this great content - plus do all the hard work you do?
Besides being ugly - what else do you believe these companies have in common that made them a success? I mean they all started small many moons ago. Do you think changing the design of a pretty average site, to something that is really wow, would have a effect on sales? For example my friends small wedding company. Would redesigning that help it grow? Any suggestions for someone with little time and zero marketing budget?
Sorry for all the questions just really value your input :)
Cheers
Published: Jul. 23, 2007 in Branding
Thomas Baekdal is a Writer, Interaction Designer, Change Advocate and Project Manager.
Steven Cheung - Jul. 24, 2007
Hi Thomas,
Nice article! Thus I was wondering how to "visualise" a "tasty experience"...can't let them smell the food or can I...
Steven