|
WebWord Weblog Posting Posting Date: October 29, 2002 Sites that don't click (37Signals) -- "We reviewed the home pages of 10 prominent retailers and found that all of them displayed product images that were either non-clickable or were clickable but did not lead to a page where the featured product could be bought." (MadMan comments: 1) This report takes a small point and stretches it out over 10 pages, each just reiterating the same issue. 2) Does 30 minutes of surfing to see which sites allow you to click home page images qualify as "research"? 3) Joel Spolsky says, '37signals have made themselves sound like those annoying 20-something clueless web designers from 1996, telling everybody "you just don't GET IT."' (He has also posted some stuff on their weblog) And lastly... 4) ALT is not a "tag", 37Signals. It's an attribute. IMG is a tag. :p
Reader Comments...
Well that was a one sides post, any reason your not sharing the positive reviews? Posted by: on October 29, 2002 01:40 PM
Well, Mr. Anonymous from Connecticut, I've linked to the discussion so people can read it for themselves. The comments are simply my take on the topic. Now Webworders are free to agree or disagree with me. Or even add their own take. We love discussion here at Webword. :) Posted by: MadMan on October 29, 2002 01:47 PM
The sites featured seem to be for heavily 'branded' products, where you are paying a premium for the name and the 'consumer experience'. I can understand why they would not want to sell lots of products on the web as it would diminish the 'brand experience'. Having your posh clothing delivered to your door by a postman isn't the same as being smarmed over by a 'brand ambassador'. I have dealt with a few 'brandoleroes' in my time, and their position does actually make sense when you understand their marketplace. They would rather sell 10 items at £100 a pop, than 150 at £10 a pop. On the report itself, I think it's fine that the 37 folk produce this to prove that they are capable of selling (in the future) reports over the web. It would be interesting if someone did a comparison of this report against a NNGroup and UIE report. As for their choice of subject, I wonder if they have taken such a narrow scope because it's easier to produce a good looking sample if you don't have to spend too much time actually doing the 'research'. I think that Joel is making some good points, but is being a bid rude about it. I imagine Joel is over 20 now and thinks its OK to beat up on the youngsters. Posted by: Mac on October 29, 2002 03:40 PM
That's OK, they're probably still laughing at him for saying Netscape shouldn't have scrapped the v4 code. I thought the report was OK, it simply pointed out something some people may not have thought about. Perhaps labelling it "research" was a mistake though, it implies a more scientific approach.
2) Does 30 minutes of surfing to see which sites allow you to click home page images qualify as "research"? Yes. Granted, it might not be very valuable research, but it appear to be well done, which is more than one can expect from many other "researchers". 3) Joel Spolsky says, '37signals have made themselves sound like those annoying 20-something clueless web designers from 1996, telling everybody "you just don't GET IT."' One consultant makes an ad hominem attack against a competing consultant. Why do we care, other than to note Joel's lack of professionalism?
I'm really surprised to see Joel being so vicious. I've seen him talk about things he doesn't buy into before, but he's never been so jerky about it. He's been wrong, like all of us, but at least he writes out a clear thought with supporting evidence. This just seems like a slam. Posted by: Lydia on October 29, 2002 07:05 PM
That's OK, they're probably still laughing at him for saying Netscape shouldn't have scrapped the v4 code. Why? Netscape is in the dumpster now, isn't it? I'm really surprised to see Joel being so vicious. Well, yes, that was what I wanted to point out. Be sure to read his points in the linked discussion too. Posted by: MadMan on October 29, 2002 11:11 PM
Netscape are in the dumpster because they tried to do a bit too much and took waaaayyyy too long (no, I don't know what their programmers have been doing with their time either). I agree with a lot of Joel's recent clarification (scroll down), in that they should have left XUL til later, but not with his original assertion that rewriting from scratch is always a bad idea.
Mac said: "I can understand why they would not want to sell lots of products on the web as it would diminish the 'brand experience'." Please. How does adding a link to a product YOU ARE SELLING diminish the "brand experience?" Posted by: Randy on October 30, 2002 09:13 AM
Agreed Mac, but these people aren't not selling online. They ARE, but making it harder. Not quite the same thing, what? Posted by: Phil Colbert on October 30, 2002 02:48 PM
A slighly picky point, but will you agree that for the seller it is not always best to go too far on a first date? Posted by: Mac on October 30, 2002 03:07 PM
Mac, um no. ;) Bottom line, forgetting all the importance of branding, is to sell products. Having a customer buying, and then wearing your product will ALWAYS be the best way to enforce branding. You've got a happy customer who gave you money. Posted by: James on October 31, 2002 09:40 AM
You guys have seen "Swingers", right? Remember that scene where they are trying to find the hip L.A. club, but it's in a generic alleyway and has no sign or discernable features except for a guy sitting outside the door and smoking? People, especially teens, like hip stuff that doesn't do any overt marketing. As pretentious as it sounds, Abercrombie & Fitch (to use an example from the 37 signals site) probably realize they get sales by being less obvious. They know girls want to swarm to their stores in packs, giggling and pushing each other, drooling over the huge picture of the naked guy in the front window (more giggling), and trying to cram into one changing booth so they can see how the clothes look. A few of them might not have credit cards that they can purchase with, or parents willing to buy the stuff for them online, or they may just be like many who don't want to buy clothes that they haven't tried on. Let's face it, A&F's target audience does not include people over 30. So, yes, branding does have a huge influence on site design. If this same target audience went there and all they say was marketing, marketing, marketing, they'd get bored, or they'd feel cheapened. Kids like to think (and will allow the suspension of disbelief) that they are not considered a faceless number - that corporations are trying to create an experience for them. Posted by: Lydia on October 31, 2002 04:35 PM
Overt marketing? All we're asking them to do is make the image of the product they are featuring on their homepage clickable and linked to a page where I can buy it. If I like it, I should be able to buy it with minimum fuss. If I want to be "hip" and struggle to find the item, fine -- that's my choice. I just don't understand the logic of making it very difficult to buy something I want to buy from an online retailer who's spent millions to sell products online. Posted by: Jason on October 31, 2002 05:54 PM
Another example of why open slather selling can be bad: One of my clients is a wholesale supplier for hair and beauty salons. It's a good business with close to 100% margins. My client is relatively new in the market, just a few years, and the reason they have succeeded so well is because they capitalised on a mistake the incumbent of the time made, and have assiduously avoided repeating that mistake themselves. The mistake: selling retail to the public. The only sell to salon businesses. Not to the public. The moment they do their salon customers will turn on them (fair enough since they would then be competing for the retail trade). Furthermore, the pickings in retail would be thin, given the preponderance of existing discount outlets. Posted by: Eric Scheid on October 31, 2002 10:41 PM
Eric said: "The mistake: selling retail to the public." How does this have anything to do with the 37signals report? It was on retail e-commerce sites that sell to the public. Posted by: Randy on November 1, 2002 12:05 AM
Home | Moving WebWord | Cool Books | Hot Web Sites
URL: http://webword.com/weblog/ ©1998-2005 by WebWord.com. All rights reserved. |