Websites can cost anywhere from a thousand or two all the way up into the million dollar range – so what separates the two? Unfortunately, not a whole lot!

The style I want to discuss today is flash sites. Flash is a tool used to add animation, movement and interest into a website. For example, our main site, Motor Creative, was created using flash. Flash is more expensive (usually) than a traditional style site because of the development needed, the photography and the skill of the developers.

With that said, I have seen hundreds of flash websites that are beautifully done, easy to read, easy to follow and were easily under $10K (including our own). On the other side, I have seen sites that make me want to rip my hair out for the lack of usability, and yet know the designers were paid well into the six figures, if not seven, to create the monstrosity.

Here are two sites that fit the bill:

Inexpensive but incredibly well done (other than ours): Sipper Photograhy

Horribly pricey and impossible to navigate: Panamera Web Special (click web special in the bottom corner)

What is the first difference you notice about the two sites? The obvious factor is it is a small business vs. a multi-billion dollar business. But what about the sites themselves? Which is easier to find information? What about details of the work/product? At the end of the day, just because a company is bigger and worth more doesn’t mean their sites are any better.

What flash sites (or normal sites) have you seen that fit either category?

Well, I’m embarrassed again. Embarrassed for our industry and fearful of where it’s headed. The recent work done by Ford has to be the epitome of either poor staff or just downright laziness on both the agency and client sides. Ready for this? Drum-roll please……Ford. Drive one. Really? That’s it? That’s the best you could come up with? I can picture my fifth cousin rolling over in his grave – Yes, I’m related to Henry Ford although we’re not getting a heck of a lot of work out of the deal! Anyway back to their new tagline. I can almost see it in the creative session – wait this has to be the client’s doing. So they’re in the conference room and the marketing staff is standing ready to work on the “new” Ford. The line of thinking goes a little like this:

Williams: “Well what is it we’re trying to get them – the audience – to do?”

Johnson: “Buy a car, sir?”

Williams: “Yes of course we want them to do that, Johnson, don’t be foolish! It’s got to be something more, something bigger, something emotional.”

Johnson: “We want them to, um, ahhh, drive one, sir?”

Williams: “Johnson, you’re brilliant! That’s it. Ford. Drive one!”

Johnson: “Wait! We need to instill a sense of urgency. How about: Ford. Drive one today!”

Williams: “Johnson. You’re an idiot.”

Or something to that effect. I can’t possibly imagine the agency coming in for their next big pitch with a whole bunch of research and strategy around “Drive one” and living to tell about it. I know I couldn’t pitch that. I think the US Big 3 car companies need to take a better look at who their competition is and how they’ve continued to be successful. As in a previous post, they’ve never taken the time to establish a brand in the first place so falling flat on their face with “Drive one” really doesn’t hurt them any more than they’ve already hurt themselves. But maybe they should peer across the pond at what success looks like. Ooops, I’m late for my next meeting. Need to hop in the Ultimate driving machine and step on it. I have to pitch a new tag line to a consumer electronics account of ours. Ready? [Brand of TV]. Buy one.