November 2009 - Otis Regrets... or not

What cool web sites used to look like

A search for free range Thanksgiving turkeys led me down a rabbit hole today… culminating at two websites which were probably quite artful in a very different time, but don’t fit the expectation of today’s web users. We’re tired of hearing about Web 2.0… but here’s what we looked like before it got all interactive.

Meatpaper is a magazine about responsible meat practices when raising animals for food. It’s a cause I believe in and in fact I think I encountered these guys during a writing assignment. But now it all looks very unhelpful and self-absorbed. The cow in the preview pane has long since gone to her reward. The two ladies posed at the table are not nearly so interesting to me as to themselves. And if I go looking for content, there isn’t any. I have to subscribe to the magazine to get it.

Then I click through to the site of Julio Duffoo, who took the picture of the two ladies. Take a look: Nothing but the guy’s name and an arrow I can click to start a slide show, no instructions. Once that would have been sly, now it’s haughty and ultimately ineffective.

Web 2.0 users want instant access to a fire hose of information. We make fun of the ubiquity of content but this is the alternative. And I’m not saying either of these sites was bad in its day. But the assumption that “I’m important and interesting and creative and therefore I will put up a website and you will appreciate it” is not viable in the Web 2.0 era. And I think that’s a good thing.

On the value of “spec” creative (“spec” as in “specious”?)

Business is getting better, but I still make an extra effort to seek out potential projects I think would be fun or challenging. The creative director at one such client contacted me last week and said that frankly, their management was used to seeing potential creative resources do products on spec and I’d probably have to do the same if I wanted to get an assignment.

I sent a response in which I said, politely I think, that

There are two concerns I have on a philosophical basis about the whole idea of spec:

–for the writer, if you have other, paying clients waiting you are inevitably going to spend less time on the spec than a “real” assignment.

–for the client, there is the temptation to value the work on the basis of, it’s worth what you pay for it. They have no skin in the game, so they’ll evaluate the spec result less seriously than something they’ve paid good money for.

I didn’t hear back and not sure I will. This isn’t a stretch, by the way. It’s a category where I have done a lot of work for a competitor in the past and that work is easily accessible if they want to see “what I can do” in selling their product.

It’s my loss, but also theirs I think. If you demand spec work then you lose access to all the writers and designers who are too established or busy to be able to consider it.

And here’s something else. A good writer, especially a direct response writer, is going to go through a self-editing process (often unconscious). They will go through a series of drafts they never show the client because though they may sound sweet, they don’t have the oomph, benefit statements and sharpness required to sell effectively. This is something you don’t get from junior writers who may be great wordsmiths but not experienced salespeople. And if the client is used to choosing their talent pool from spec submissions, they may never know what they’re missing.

Along these lines, here’s a nice piece from a down-under designer on “Why Logo Design Does Not Cost $5”. Copywriting neither!

New Media meets Old at AdTech NY

Yesterday at AdTech a panel moderator asked the question, “now that anybody can find whatever they want through search, is creative still relevant?” And a panelist, I think from MTV (I can’t read my notes because my hands were shaking with outrage) replied that sure, for example when people go searching for a band we’ll show them another band they’ve never heard of. She MIGHT have been talking about contextual targeting a la Pandora or iTunes Genius but I don’t think so; I think she was talking about selling product.

Later on I was checking TweetDeck before a session and the guy next to me muttered, “Twitter, what a waste of time.” And it occurred to me how different this conference was than the last few I’ve attended and posted about.

The “old media” here isn’t print; it’s MTV, AOL, Comcast and the other mass produced content that the advertisers who attend will put their marketing messages alongside. I saw some clever solutions for monetizing just about every square inch of the Internet, but the core content providers seem stuck in a 20^th century attitude of “we will build it, and they will come”.

Apropos which, equipment failure forced a switch from my beloved TiVo to a generic Direct TV DVR this week and I was amazed at the arrogance of the DTV user interface designers in assuming they could get away with the absolute minimum of features and intuitive usability. Good example: in TiVo there’s a “Season Pass” that lists all the recurring shows you plan to record including what is in the queue. On my new DTV box, I select the show and then it disappears. The “list” function only shows what is already recorded, no positive feedback to reassure me that yes indeed 30 Rock will be taped tonight.

The “new media” is of course the self-broadcasting that the audiences of all these old media companies have learned to do by TiVoing, Boxeeing, YouTubing and mashing it up with applications so you can see and share exactly what you want at any time. And getting back to that moderator’s question about whether creative is still relevant when people can find “whatever they want” by searching… where does he think that “whatever” is coming from?

Best practices for graphics in emails

This Ace Hardware email has some great offers...

Right now thousands of people are re-installing Microsoft Outlook as they upgrade from XP to Windows 7. And the majority of these folks won’t touch the default settings which don’t load graphics within emails unless the user specifically asks to do so.

... but most recipients will see it in their preview pane like this.

Right now hundreds of marketers are designing emails that ignore this reality, by placing a big beautiful graphic at the top of the message that shows up as a blank spot superimposed with a red X instead of the desired image. Which means that most recipients will never see the graphic, or the message, because there is nothing visually compelling to pull them in. The “before and after” examples from Ace Hardware are proof positive. Inviting graphic and great offers, but most of the people who got this email will never see them. (I’m on a Mac so the red X’s show up as question marks for me, but the problem is the same.)

So what can you do to fix it? Use HTML text creatively at the top of your email instead of relying on graphics to tell the story. The REI newsletter example is isn’t pretty, but there is a lot of REI identity here to pull people in, including the bar of clickable links.

Best: very little of this message is lost, even without graphic.

Better yet is the email from Beasley Direct that has a good ol’ compelling headline to pull people in, and places this to the left of the page so it will have maximum visibility on small screens. This email also includes ALT text—the words “Beasley Direct Marketing” over the graphic—which appear when the graphic doesn’t load. That’s another good practice. Better yet would have been a benefit message or call to action in the ALT tag, such as “request your complimentary landing pages guide”.

Make sure you’re following these simple steps next time an email goes out. Don’t get intimidated by your art director… the design can still look great, you just need a backup scenario when the graphics don’t load. And everybody will be happier with the higher open rate and, hopefully, more clickthroughs.