It’s one thing if your average corporation has a boring, utilitarian website. It’s sort of expected. After all, most corporations are sort of boring and utilitarian.
Agencies, on the other hand, should never have boring and utilitarian websites. Well, utilitarian maybe. There is nothing worse than an agency with a website that is unclear and difficult to use. If you can’t be clear and drive action with work for your own agency, why would I think that your consumer-facing work would be any different? But boring? An agency should never be boring.
I think that I designed a website that looked like this about ten years ago when I just learned basic HTML and had a page at Angelfire. Even uber-corporate GE has a better looking, if vaguely similar, website:
One would think that an interactive agency would have something compelling on their website. It doesn’t have to be lame and hokey like the “kill the lemmings” game the BEN Marketing has (on every. single. page.), but there should be something interesting on or about their site.
Anyway, back to DEWmocracy. TracyLocke is another of the roster of agencies that works on Pepsi brands and, compared to WhittmanHart, they get this web design thing. I don’t love the site, but it’s functional, easy-to-use, branded, etc and so on.
How is it that an agency like TracyLocke has a better, more engaging website (let’s forget, for a moment, that it’s built in Flash and searchability is an issue, we’re just talking design right now) than a company that specializes in this webbernet stuff?
Why do agencies think this sort of thing is okay?
When will they get a clue?