Microsites Suck

Mostly.

If the client asks you why people would actually go to the microsite you're proposing to advertise their product, and you reply, "because that's where all the ads will direct them," you've given a very, very wrong answer.

If the reason someone would go to your microsite is because that's where the ads click through to, don't make it! Seriously, just... stop it.

Office Max's "Elf Yourself" is a microsite, and the reason people go there is not just because some ads directed them there. Burger King's "SimpsonizeMe" is a microsite, and people don't go there just because they clicked on an ad and were directed there.

People go to these sites because they offer something other than another advertisement like the one they just clicked on. People go there because the means (a fun experience interacting with the site) justifies the end (being told about a product). In fact, they'll spread the link around to their friends for the same reason, they'll advertise for the product because, at the end of the day, there's a rewarding experience to be had.

If your microsite doesn't offer an interesting, rewarding experience to the consumer, you're building it because you can't think of anything else to do.

And if your microsite has a loading screen... just give up, go home, and sit in the corner and think about what you've done.

It's just about goals

Carman’s post about planning campaigns or creative based on what you or your peers or your friends will believe to be “cool” got me thinking about something we all have to ask ourselves and our clients all the time.

What’s the point?

I left a comment on his post saying that I was critiquing a client’s website (as it’s incredibly hard to use) and was told that it won awards (or was recognized in some way) at Cannes.

That’s a fabulous honour but it matters not at all. Nobody who actually tries to engage with the site, only to be confronted with a loading page and then a non-existent nav structure in a fully-Flash page (no direct linking, no image/text copying) cares at all that the site won some awards. They might be intrigued with the look of the site, briefly. But they’ll never come back. Best case, best case, they pass the link along to a friend because the site looks cool. Worst case, they never enter the contest, their friend never enters the contest, no one sends a direct link to the contest.

And that worst case is just about the current case, it turns out.

If your campaign has a goal, which should almost never be to drive traffic to a micro-site, build around that goal. If the goal is to get information on your customers through a contest, make getting to the contest, sending the link to the contest, and entering the contest the easiest friggin thing in the world.

That simple.

All engine-less cars are equally useless

No matter how pretty the design of your Flash-only, single-page website is, it's just as useless at a 1994-era static, ugly website.

If you don't allow direct, internal linking, or image-copying, or text-quoting, your site is useless. If you build a website, assume someone is going to want to share it with their friends, and likely only a single part. If you don't think someone will want to do that, then why are you making it in the first place? Make it as simple as possible for someone to spread what you have to say and offer around. If you don't, if you force people to start at your splash page and proceed from there, you deserve no one's time or indulgence.

That website is no better than an ancient relic of the internet, a page with frames and manually-updated HTML. A useless site is a useless site, no matter how pretty.

A Ferrari without an engine is just as useless as a Chevette without an engine.

The only difference is that you could probably sell your useless Ferrari for more money.

A bad static website is just as useless as a dynamic, pretty, single-page Flash site. But you can probably charge your client more money for the latter.

Ajax Expectations

If a user clicks on an image on your website, what does she expect to happen? You should know this, or at least give it some serious thought.

Because, likely, she doesn't expect her screen to be grayed out and have an ajax-loaded larger image slowly appear over top of the page. She doesn't expect to have to sit through a similar animation every time she selects a new picture.

Your site needs to manage your users' expectations. When your user clicks on an image in a gallery he expects to have it load promptly, in a manner that lets him quickly navigate away from it when he realizes it wasn't what he thought it was, and quickly select the image he was actually looking for.

Unless your website is your portfolio, it's not a presentation. So people expect an experience that they'll define, not one that includes a flashy use of javascript for its own sake.

If an animation or graphical element doesn't improve the experience for the user it necessarily detracts from it. Because they don't care about that it looks neat or that you couldn't do it without Flash before. Only you do.

Get rid of your splash page

It's just a speed bump. It's an obstruction.

It's bad for the user.

It's a sign that says, "Turn back, because this is how the rest of your experience will be."

Just get rid of it, okay?

Oh, and if you have a splash page that says, "Loading," what are you doing? You're saying, "Thanks for taking the time out of your busy day to come to my website. You didn't have to, you probably didn't even need to. You just wanted to. Now wait, dammit."

And if you need a more tangible business-related reason to get rid of it: It's bad for SEO, all right?

Lessons My Facebook Taught Me

It's only been a few years since people en masse started using Facebook, and probably only about a year since everybody started using it.

For now, you can get away with your company website being Flash-only, being an entirely creator-defined experience. For now you can have splash pages and a navigation that doesn't allow for tabbing, and un-copyable images.

For now.

Eventually people who've had their internet experience defined by Facebook are going to expect this experience to come with them across the web. They'll expect interaction and control over their experience on your website, too.

People will expect websites to deliver what they want, what they're looking for, when they want it. They won't watch your intro, they won't send your link to their friends if they can only link to the first page. Don't expect them to.

Are you ready for that? Have you come to terms with that yet? Or are you still designing or commissioning websites with splash pages (speed bumps and warning signs that tell your users to turn back now), and single-page Flash-only sites that don't allow for direct linking to content?

How long do you think that can last?

Not long enough to justify still doing it.