no website
Out of context: Reply #13
- Started
- Last post
- 19 Responses
- chalk0
Obviously a website is not directly the brand, and I know you know that's not what I meant. I meant that the website leads the brand more now, as opposed to printed materials.
Your second paragraph thought IS what I meant. If people hear about XYZ company, and they are interested, the first thing they will do is look online. Not get the Yellow Pages and give the company a call. Therefore, isn't what you put online the front-runner for your brand?
You are right about the magazine bit—and that's partly where this discussion came up for me yesterday. Was having a discussion with friends about how much we all used to read, and how now we find it almost unbearable to try to read sometimes (print, of course; I could sit online reading articles, blogs, etc. all day, which is terrible).
It's an interesting series of thoughts, and I think in a lot of ways we're all very lucky to be a part of this "social age," which is really just an information sharing age.
- Forgot to add "through technology" at the end.chalk
- Why terrible? Your getting the info you want and instantly!sneakybadger
- Because I'm sitting in front of a computer screen, raping my eyeballs.chalk
- Frontrunner for the brand, OK didn't get what you were on about earlier lol. Like the Art Directors Club brand redesign, when people were complaining it was ugly people said "oh, but the print applications look so nice" right but who gives a shit, 100k will see the site and 5k the printed onesukit
- when some were complaining it was ugly people said "but the print applications look so nice" right but who gives a shit, 100k will see the site and 5k the printed onesukit
- will see the website and maybe 5-10k the print campaign. But I think in this case it's more a question of content and whether to offer it on the web at all.ukit
- whether to offer it on the web at all.ukit