
Is Good Design a liability when you're trying to appeal to the Masses? (MySpace vs. Virb) - joshwa
http://www.mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2007/03/virb-vs-myspace
======
pg
In a sense, by definition not, since good design is design that achieves its
purpose.

Sometimes ultraclean design can send a message of fanciness or snobbishness
that turns off "ordinary" people. But I think a good designer can temper that
fairly easily.

~~~
amichail
I don't believe that most users will put up with poor design.

It's just that some sites like myspace have so much momentum that users will
go to them despite their poor design because all their friends are there
already.

The problem in terms of design is just the opposite. I would say that users'
high expectations with respect to presentation have hurt web startups in a big
way since many founders can't afford a professional web designer. Flash over
substance is always a bad thing.

~~~
motoko
Quick quiz: To make the most profit, sell by:

\- reason, to solve needs

\- fashion, because they can be made to want it

------
domp
Virb does look real good. My only worry is that it doesn't offer many features
that matter to normal people. The best addition is the button to stop
customization. For the majority of myspace users they're not going to care for
most of the techie features. They could have some tricks up their sleeves
though.

When Purevolume updated their site a while back I was real dissapointed at the
lack of additional functions. They just added the social network part into the
site. I'd hope that they are taking a more innovative approach to this project
and not just trying to compete directly with everything Myspace offers.

------
aristus
Heh. I would like to see the author's home page circa 1998. I will bet cash it
had a textured background, MIDI file, cat picture, stock art animation, link
to Lycos, etc.

 _Everyone's_ first web page looks ugly. Most will stay ugly.

But there's something to the idea that ugly works, that worse is better.
Direct Marketers have known for decades that a 'downmarket' look improves
response, at least in the US. Junk mail looks trashy because that's what
thousands of generations in a viciously competitive ecosystem has produced.
Ugly works.

~~~
herdrick
"Direct Marketers have known for decades that a 'downmarket' look improves
response"

Interesting. Source?

~~~
aristus
3 years doing ads for the Yellow Pages and DM. This guy has the same
conclusion with good examples:

<http://alistapart.com/articles/whitespace>

~~~
herdrick
How sure are you that the relevant quality of the successful ad shown in the
link isn't downmarketness but that it's eyecatching? As the author says, the
'upmarket' one is harmonious - which is a really bad quality in an ad. The
damn thing needs to grab you! If you can do that and maintain an upmarket,
snooty feel, then you have a big win when selling such beauty products.
Probably most things, too.

Let's hear about your experiences.

~~~
cbueno
[aristus, lost my passwd :)]

"Eyecatching" means garish, cluttered, etc. This is not always desirable.
Usually it's reserved for wide-spectrum ads for cheap items, hence
"downmarket". Audience drives design. If your audience is a few thousand rich
wives you'll take the elegant route. If your audience is a million working
girls your best response comes from more strident stuff. Since there are so
many more working girls versus rich wives, it seems as if all DM is
"downmarket". I am sure of this because I've seen the difference even a few
changes can make, and I've seen years and years of real-world research on how
different styles gather response for different things.

Let's say I'm doing an ad for big copiers. Artsy doesn't work here. You need
strong, reassuring. Price isn't listed. Instead you want a couple of pictures,
big (local!) phone number, local address, and an IBM-ish logo. IKON, formerly
Alco, wanted to establish a trust brand that buyers don't have to think too
hard about. So: IKON came out of "I Know One Name".

Now you are selling pizza. Number, types of food, price, delivery options,
hours of operation. Closeups of bubbling cheese. Sizzle, not steak.

Cut to the iPhone. Popular yet hip. It's a fine line, and very few orgs can
manage it. That's why Apple is the darling of the ad world. They are an
outlier.

Another great fine-liner was Grey Poupon mustard. They took the visual cues of
the rich, the exclusiveness, the clubby feel un-rich people imagine exists
("But of course!") and placed it right in front of the fact they were flogging
mustard for 4 bucks a jar. But once that hook was in and the audience was ok
with funny crunchy brown stuff, other fancy mustards went right back to the
more familiar downmarket themes of "fun for kids" and "kick it up a notch".

...and so on. Non-commercial (and, frankly, inexperienced) artists tend to
make the mistake that ads are not thought about too much or are made by folk
who lack taste. Sure, 90% of every profession is crap, but the aim of
commercial art is different from Art.

