Doe Anderson Website
Posted by Admin @ 6:13 PM March 9, 2008
Doe Anderson launched their new website. Congratulations guys! Getting enough free time to do your own site can sometimes be quite the challenge.
T_Admin
Loki, please go into more detail. If you think its "not good" then please say why, and how it could be better.
Thanks!
Well for one thing, there's nothing new about it. In fact, it may even be a step "backwards" in web design.
Is it just me, or do high-profile agencies have a responsibility to do good work...even if its their own website? People look at them as leaders. So in a way, they are part of the face of the creative industry here.
Let me be constructive for a minute:
- Lose the Flash intro. They died in 2002.
- If you are going to be minimalist, let the function follow the design. Right now there are too many choppy, "old Flash" transitions for no reason. Its not cool, so all it does is take away from the experience.
- Be original. I know its hard, but you guys are a big shop, clearly with some talented people under the roof. Use them. I think they started to hit on something with going back to their "roots", but lost it. They need to think around stale designs like this and do something fun and even remotely cool to represent your agency. The web and Flash have come along way. Use it to your advantage.
Are there any good agency sites in this town?
I believe agencies are in a transition period, and are rushing to adapt to the new digital era of advertising. So maybe a lot of the sites you see right now aren't the top of the line, but I ensure you (and I would hope) most of these companies are pushing to enhance their sites as we speak.
If your goal is to attract new business, you need to make sure that your website is a clear representation of your company. The best way to do that is to showcase your work in creative and innovative ways. I think Leo Burnett is a great site that really showcases the work in a pretty cool manner.
This is a great example of how to utilize technologies like Flash to create fun and engaging websites that keep users on them for extended periods of time. Sure, I can flip through an HTML portfolio, OR I can see it in a new creative light. You have to think of what will be more inviting to the people you are trying to attract to your site, and the few who may stumble upon your company via Google.
Most ad agencies in Louisville seem to neglect their own Web site. I agree that it has something to do with the fact that they don't know how to fully embrace the art of Web design/development. Good news for Interactive shops.
Doe's site seems to be anything but creative.
I always thought that a company's site needs to leave the user with one thing. For agencies, that thing should be something to do with how that agency views "creative'. That is what ad agencies sell. This site, and its content, does nothing to communicate "creative" or "creativity".
Looking for something nice to say... let me get back to you on that.
For the record the site broke for me when I clicked the "skip intro" button.
Overall it's hard to believe an agency with so much history could drop the ball is such a monumental way.
It's hard for me to understand how an agency with so much talent, and so many intelligent people can look at this and say "we did it! lets launch it!"
Their work is displayed poorly, the navigation and design is archaic, and the flash intro seems like a poorly executed after thought. Once I did find their "gallery" I came upon so many pieces that were wonderfully designed, and well thought out. I'd love to see the same effort and attention put into their web presence.
Doe Anderson is one of the oldest agencies in the nation. If there is one thing this site accomplishes, it's that. It makes them look old. Maybe that's what we're missing? Perhaps we're fools for not putting two and two together?
P.S. Loki, aside from the intro, all of the "old flash" transitions are actually "new javascript" transitions. Yuck.
Hey, look how awesome Crispin's website is:
Oh wait... sorry... that website sucks too. Must be something in the water...
I agree with you A_Bogusky. This is another example of a great agency that missed the mark with their web presence. As theg8rking posted agencies in town seem to be in a transition period in regards to their vision of how to be effective on the web.
I'm pretty sure it's not the water that's at fault. Though this is not my favorite site out there, I think it's done rather well, and projects a clear and concise experience: Finelight
Hey, it's Jason Falls with Doe Anderson
(Note: I identify myself and my agency. Worth considering.)
This site is viewed by and comments are generally posted by our competition. We thank you for your input and take it with the appropriate grain of salt.
Hey Jason, thanks for being a part of the site!
Sure, your work is viewed by your competition, but its also viewed by independent artists, designers, and creatives from many fields.
That's exactly what createlouisville is meant to do. Everybody can learn from the goods and the bads of what we've all done. This site is about Louisville as a whole, so the comments made here are hopefully so all of us can get better at what we do.
You may (or may not) wish to sign up with a username and comment on some of your competition's work as gets posted. We welcome it.
Getting better requires communication and honesty. Can you elaborate, or provide insight as to the design choices and functionality choices that have been commented about on this thread? Thanks!
T_Admin
I'm sure we'll respond more fully. Criticism from anonymous sources begs the question of whether we should respond at all. We're happy to listen and respond, but the responsibility is one-sided, making us a target and not joined in a constructive discussion.
Still, this effort is not going unnoticed. We're flattered that our work is being offered up and commented upon. We're thrilled that the creative energy we all know this community has now has a forum for display and discussion.
But in my opinion (not necessarily that of Doe Anderson), hiding behind vague user names undermines the spirit of collaboration intended here. If getting better requires communication and honesty, why are people hiding? Would they be so harsh if their name was known? If not, why would they think it's constructive to do so behind a curtain?
We'll discuss and return soon. Thanks again for the site. The intended spirit and administrative guidance to date shows it's being done in the true purpose of collaboration and learning. We're excited to be a part of it.
I like the concept of anonymity. I'm a big proponent of it on the web. A promoter of www.eff.org and a user of TOR. So I'm biased from the start.
The biggest reason I can see a user not mention his/her name or agency is an employee/person needs to have their own opinion. Not automatically have their opinion be associated with their agency. If everybody list their agency then people won't remember the user but just what agency, inhibiting a person to truly be honest. Plus it could hurt the agency if a person and the company stance don't agree. It's nice to have the ability to post about your own agency's work too!
- Jesse Lucas
I work at Visual Scientists, Inc
Great discussion folks.
Jason, the anonymity of the members of this site are so that discussions become about the comments being made and not about who is making them. For example, if I had made a comment above and signed off as a designer from Power Creative, this discussion would become about Doe Anderson vs. Power Creative. But that's not what its about.
Instead, we are free to discuss the comments made about the work posted. I went through this discussion again and I honestly believe that while some were critical, almost all gave pretty constructive feedback that I hope stays with you guys the next time you sit down to plan and design a site.
Thanks all for participating in this sidebar discussion. Let's get back to the work.
Surely the content of what people say is far more important than what their real names are or where they work.
CreateLouisville is an outstanding, valuable addition to Louisville's communications skyline. Input — whether anonymous, negative, or even disparaging — is always instructive, and the point of this forum, presumably, is to encourage conversation and feedback. If anything, the ability to post anonymously encourages candour and should be welcomed, not criticised.
(By the way, my real name's Brett Jeffreys and I DARE Barbercheck to fire me.)
There is merit to seeing if the source of the criticism is credible. Otherwise, we could have a bunch of hacks posting comments on here and that will push away the really good creatives from posting or responding. Its like a bunch of Paula Abdul's posting! That could be scary.
Jonra,
This is an open forum where anyone who is interested in design/art can comment on pieces that are submitted in any way they see fit. If anything is going to hinder the effectiveness of this site it's comments like yours that have absolutely nothing to do with critiquing the website at hand. Advertising is art for the masses, if the masses have negative things to say about your work, then you have failed on some level. Granted, the target audience should be taken into consideration.
Getting feedback on your work, be it good or bad can only help a designer/agency understand a little more how their work effects people. There are always going to be haters out there, but I feel the comments on this particular thread have been tactful and insightful. If you don't agree lets hear your thoughts on the actual work that is being presented.
I think debates like this are wonderful, but perhaps the Admins should look into a separate section for all of us to wax intellectual and leave the comments on the posted creative pieces focused on the pieces themselves. WHO'S WITH ME!
Sorry Galdranis, didn't know I touched such a sensitive topic with you. I didn't intend to offend anyone with that statement. And I agree, I don't think any of the critiques have been off base yet, but the site is in the early stages and I hope it doesn't turn into a forum of a bunch of cynics. That doesn't help anyone. In my experiences, its a lot easier to criticize the work than actually do the work and I think good creatives understand that.
1. Loki says:
March 10, 2008 1:02 AM
Yeah, but its not good.