In response to a Longboard link I posted last week about Wieden + Kennedy's sleepy (think web based narcolepsy) new website Anson Parker writes, with great passion (and language not suitable for Airbag readers):
I assure you, this is nothing new and for an advertising agency that has been the poster child for out-of-the-box thinking in the advertising world for the last twenty years it is a big yawn. Timelines?! Pfffttt.
Hello W+K? Josh Davis called and he wants Praystation back.
Who isn't doing timelines? Look at BBDO at least they but some time and effort behind their efforts. It's still nothing new but the execution is a thousand times better.
I disagree. I think both belong in the same category of lame. And about that "vapid statement of differentiation" thing, get over it. Businesses have been doing it since Rome 1.0 and it's not going to go away any time soon.
Agreed, but that doesn't make W+K's website any better. Don't lower your standards just because the masses have. Expect more from the people who have the means and resources to do more.
Two things. First, do you hunt kangaroo with that potty-mouth? Second, if you're not the president of the W+K Fan Club then what in the hell do you have to be so angry about? Got First Amendment issues?
Feel free to chime in but keep the MySpace angst off my lawn. I've got enough for the both of us.
Join the fray by reading through and commenting at the end.
Now there's one way to ensure you get published on Airbag. The other, I think, costs more through The Deck.
I'm sure the lack of a good website (by W+K) is directly proportional to their lack of needing one. It's not where the vast majority of their business is coming from, or where they're choosing to focus their efforts. There's money to be made there, sure, but peanuts compared to their broadcast work and media buying. Whining about it just sounds envious of their power to not care, frankly.
My first initial reactions to the W+K site:
1) Is that a circle gradiant, or the Big Bang re-enactment?
2) Timeline is certainly chock full of words, but it is not visually appealing to click around. After two clicks I was done.
3) After initial click on client name, I much prefer the "line" data. But I'm a sucker for stylistic plus signs.
4) Gut reaction (subconscious voice yelling from behind the door): "Trying hard to be different, but slips into the middle."
Can't blame 'em for trying. Can certainly critique it, however it is a better effort that some big agency web sites. Of course, that tickle of something new and different just isn't there. And that's the problem.
Now somebody please turn on the happy gas in Greg's room.
The timeline and 3D navigation has been done before, but not to this level of quality and detail. The tag cloud system is very interesting and fun to navigate.
The design does feel a bit dated. I'd go with a better color pallet, nicer fonts and lose the stars. Still, hardly the worst site ever.
If Nike is looking elsewhere, it's not because W+K hasn't delivered amazing work on the interactive side.
The timeline and functionality of the tag cloud certainly have been done before, though things like timelines are basic enough that I think they can still be innovated upon. The idea is kind of neat in terms of display if it was an art project, but it's not. It's painful to navigate, especially if looking for a specific project. Some of the displays are better than others such as the client list. Oh yeah, the timeline is also very very slow if you're someone with a large display on an average machine.
It was a step up from their previous site at least. That thing was terrible. I think the biggest problem is them using the wrong kind of method to communicate. If I'm going to an ad agency website, I'm probably going there to find out about the projects they've done, not play with a flash toy (as neat as it can be to poke around with in places).
They just make it too difficult to get to the most important information. It's too bad, considering I enjoy their other work and they've thrown down some great First Thursday gatherings (free beer can't be wrong).
Greg, I think some of the surprise about your post is more due to the fact that the WK site isn't horrible. It's not even bad. Wether they find it eternally boring or sort of intriguing, I think most people would agree that it's not a horrible site.
Uninspired?
Maybe.
Not the ground-breaking work you'd hope to see from WK?
Sure.
Deserving of being ripped a new a-hole for being "narcoleptic"?
Nuh-uh.
Your post comes across as you having some pre-existing animosity or dislike for WK. Obviously we'd have no clue if that's the case, but that's just what it seems like.
> If Nike is looking elsewhere, it's not because W+K hasn't delivered amazing work on the interactive side.
From the WSJ on March 26th:
"What really unnerved Madison Avenue was that one of the main reasons for Nike's move was dissatisfaction with the agency's digital expertise, according to people close to the account. Despite its top-notch ability in every other department, Wieden has been slow to adapt to the Internet -- an important arena for a marketer as focused on the youth audience as Nike."
> Your post comes across as you having some pre-existing animosity or dislike for WK.
I like W+K, they have done some really great work. This post is in repsonse to the fanboy email I received. I still stand by my original evaluation, the site is boring considering what W+K could have done. I don't care that they make the bulk of their money through other, traditional, channels of advertising revenue. If you're going to do spend the time to do something online why not lead instead of follow?
W+K is better than this.
They don't care. They're not 'spending the time to lead' because it's not worth it (for them). The animosity from the author I think is his getting ruffled at the implied criticism of the web in general by W+K's between the lines treatment of it. For them, working on the web is likely restrictive, uninteresting, and unprofitable. That would be a position they share with most large traditional media agencies who are passionate about being creative.
> ...who are passionate about being creative.
Just not online apparently.
I have to agree that the W+K site is terrible. Imagine yourself as a person involved in the decision to hire W+K to handle the Web component of some campaign, so you go to their site to see what kinds of things they have done. You simply can't find anything in the site easily. It takes far too long to make sense of the site, takes too long for information to load, it's nonsense.
The W+K website is the equivalent of reciting Howl as your presentation in a business meeting. It just doesn't communicate clearly. I'm simply not going to hire an agency that doesn't understand how to communicate with an audience on the Web.
I have to agree with one aspect, there old site was MUCH better than this new one.
I can't say I ahte the site, but all the points against the site seem pretty valid to me, and it's ahrd to argue against them. Sure they do GREAT work in print, and as far as television goes, they are outstanding, I'm not sure I ahve ever seen a website they have done for anyone else, unless they did the nike site, and if that was the case, I love the nike website. IF we are basing their web skills solely on what they did for themselves then I would ahve to say it isn't looking too good for them.
"Just not online apparently."
Correct. Not online. They don't want the web component of your campaign, frankly, unless it comes with a multi-tens of millions of dollars traditional media component. It's a waste of their time; time that could be spend more profitably elsewhere. Most agencies of this ilk find working on the web boring and restrictive and it's simply better business to just out the work and hire smaller, more web-centric shops to do it (and mark them up 300%). Why does their site stink? They likely just tossed it on the desk of a bunch of junior "web team" guys — who are probably the least potent creatives in the building.
For some reason, I've given this site a lot of thought, and I think one aspect that a lot of people are missing, is that this is not a site aimed at being this super clean, easy to navigate site. That doesn't seem to me what they're trying to accomplish. This site is to demonstrate in an instant the absolute vastness of their work, and as you navigate through, whatever you come to, to blow the visitor away with their archive of incredible quality.
Most of the people I know who are responsible for making large advertising decisions aren't web interface experts, nor are they information architects. However, they are aware of history and reputation. When you come to this site, those guys don't know/care if the aesthetic is new or fresh, they don't care if the timeline/tag interface has been done before. They come to the site and see this magnitude of work that is powerful and excellent. That, in my opinion, is what this site is set to do. Blow people away with their work, not their website. Just my thoughts.
Hello W+K? Josh Davis called and he wants Praystation back.
Haha...my thoughts exactly.
To JG: I agree with what you say about their showing the magnitude of their work. But what use is it if after about 10 seconds of fumbling around, getting frustrated and not knowing where you're going or where you've been, you just File > Close Window?
I have to say, as an advertising student I like how much content they have on their site, even if it's a bit... awkward to navigate. After reading Where the Suckers Moon, it was nice to be able to actually watch the spots W+K did for Subaru back in 1992.
Almost all agency Web sites are hard to navigate (Leo Burnett's is amazing the first time but tiresome every time after that). At least W+K's site actually has some content worth navigating to rather than a couple of stale spots and a page about how the agency believes in big ideas.
W+K is better than this.
Actually, this is exactly how their online work is, according to both you and Nike! It just goes to show that marketing savviness in print and video doesn't necessarily mean you understand the online component, even in 2007.
@Cameron:
>>Almost all agency Web sites are hard to navigate (Leo Burnett's is amazing the first time but tiresome every time after that)
I was tired of Leo Burnett's website after a few seconds. If a website is 'awkward to navigate' then the information architecture has failed. It's that simple. I'm a big fan of lots of good content, but there are better ways to organize and present that content. W+K has done a poor job. Their previous website also sucked.
I find that most ad agencies don't understand (or don't care) how to communicate on the Web. I'm also confused by that, because communicating is communicating. Any form of marketing, to me, is storytelling, and that doesn't change just because you're on the Web. So if you can tell a story to an audience, if you can get your message across, if you have the skills to do that, how come you don't do it on the Web? Well, maybe because you don't really have those basic storytelling skills? I've seen a lot of TV spots and print ads from big agencies that would lead me to believe that the art of communication, the art of storytelling, is on life support.
Or perhaps it's just that all the work is done by juniors with little talent or experience. I dunno, there's a lot of bad advertising around these days.
This writing is the reason I started reading Airbag years ago! (and the dirigible, too ...) You've got strong opinions ... but you actually back them up with examples. I'd forgotten about Praystation.
I'm less interested in the site and far more interested in the fact that this is a great critique from Greg and the Airbag readers. Bravo everyone; talking about design can help us all improve.
The site didn't interest me much either upon first inspection. These days I'm looking for certain nice human touches in a web site that tell me the designer spent some time worrying about super minor things that only a good designer would worry about. The W+K site architecture does a serious disservice to the content; that's too bad.
It's pretty bad. Funny, it seems like they've spent so long forcing clients to listen to what they say about the client's brand, that they've forgtotten what their own brand is. They're all branded out....That site tells me nothing, not graphically or verbally, about what W+K 's really IS.
Muriel Cooper was doing this 12 years ago - the Doblin group has been mapping information with this exact same visual style and format for many years. This is in fact, nothing new.
Its interesting to hear so many comments about the site "not being new." I agree, BTW - its been done.
But what you have to keep in mind is that what's "not new" to you, may be new to millions of people who aren't hanging out on FWA all day. Do you think that most mass-market products are "new" when they hit the shelves? No. Wait, let me rephrase...Hell no.
Someone earlier mentioned:
"I have to agree that the W+K site is terrible. Imagine yourself as a person involved in the decision to hire W+K to handle the Web component of some campaign, so you go to their site to see what kinds of things they have done."
Well, that's not exactly the case. Perhaps if you were looking for a progressive agency that is trying new, experimental things on the web, you may look at their site as a "good try". While not the best in the world, certainly better (and a more progressive use of Flash) than alot of agency sites.
I guess what I'm saying is, maybe they know their audience - and perhaps the readers of this site are not it.
>>Someone earlier mentioned:
"I have to agree that the W+K site is terrible. Imagine yourself as a person involved in the decision to hire W+K to handle the Web component of some campaign, so you go to their site to see what kinds of things they have done."
That would be me that said the above. The W+K site has lots of good content, it's just organized poorly. The 'innovative' navigation of the W+K website is simply making the site harder to use than it has to be.
I'd go as far as to say that anyone who thinks the W+K is good or 'cool', hasn't studied much usability data on how real people use the Internet.
So if W+K's audience includes any humans, they've missed the mark entirely. Or perhaps W+K works for aliens who can't understand human information architectures?