$28 million website
Out of context: Reply #155
- Started
- Last post
- 193 Responses
- A020
surfito:
Your example of looks can be turned completely around the other way too.
I think many dotcom companies fell apart because they looked great, but content and usability was really horrendous.
I'd rather date the girl who looks a little less pretty that you could talk to for hours than the hot girl that grabs your attention when she walks in the room - but can't talk about much besides PRADA, handbags, etc.
CT's site is more like that less-pretty girl. There's more to her at the expense of potentially better looks. Of course there are super-models with a lot under the surface, but they are few and far between. As a business, it's a safer bet to make an average looking site that won't offend or turn anyone away.
CT's site isn't the prettiest thing around, but it works - and for the blue collar demo it's going after - it's works BETTER than average.
Business is all about making money. They'd be much happier with a bland site that breaks even than an awesome site that makes little because the demo doesn't feel comfortable.
They can always go back and fix the look of the frontend. They did the right thing by paying up to do the backend integration the CORRECT way the first time out - instead of trying to hack it all together in pieces down the road.
We could sit here forever and debate whether or not it could look better or even work better from a usability standpoint. The reality is that if the company is already seeing a ROI with this, they obviously did the right thing.
Just my ramblings...