I posit that a bad website design with good copywriting will perform better than a fantastic design with poor copywriting.

Kudos to Karen and her art-mates.

I mention this because I've been trying for 5 years (actually, since slightly before I was hired!) to get my boss to approve the hiring of a good WEB copywriter. (Note: I'm a facilitator ... I make dreams come true ... I'm not as good at the business side ... ;) ) In that same time, he has gone through over a DOZEN re-designs using the same content.

Confusing, to say the least.

They want the website to generate income, and they decide to put the development money into look-and-feel ... which is surely important, however not as important as what the page is communicating lyrically.

IMHO.

So, Here's to the Copywriter! In particular, Here's to the Copywriter who understands the demands of writing for the Web. Sales and Grace. Possibly in that order ... ?

Thanks.

I posit that a bad website design with good copywriting will perform better than a fantastic design with poor copywriting.
I'll take copywriting over design every time. Of course, adding design to the mix makes it more powerful. But, if forced to choose, I'd go with the copywriting.

Oh, I'll definitely agree with y'all on that. Certainly, given the choice between an ugly site and an attractive one, I'd choose to have an attractive one... but given the choice between a visually stunning but poorly-written page and a plain, but well-written page, I'll take the good writing every time. :cheers:

--Torka

Yep, content still rules and I think good copywriting falls under that category.

This is a relevant topic to me right now as I've been doing a lot of reading and research about blogging. I think people are hungry for good content and blogging (most of the time) forces this issue. Not to say of course that all bloggers are good writers or copywriters. But at least the blogging explosion is reminding us of why we're all here ... to acquire relevant information and connect with others.

Karri

Hmm...I'm not sure about this one.

I think it depends on the site. For many sites, an unprofessional looking design still does very well. In fact, sometimes better because many people trust it more.

But for other types of business, a professional look is paramount because it conveys a certain message. For those types, I'm not sure if the copy alone could save them...

I agree 100% SS. If you don't have quality content, then a redesign is not going to improve your situation. With quality content, you can be successful with or without a 'good' design.

While I understand your comments Jill, my experience is also that some times a good design is needed for specific industries to build a perception of trust. This doesn't matter if the sites content is low quality though. It still won't perform on design. With high quality content, most sites imo can thrive regardless of design.

Personally I'm amazed at how some very poorly designed sites often do great versus good design ... when content is good in both cases. I'm not always easily convinced an improved design equals an improved site.

The bar is set pretty low when it comes to quality content.

I think that poor design can definitely be a turnoff and will degrade a site's perceived credibility; after all, you only have a matter of seconds to command your user's attention before they decide whether or not to stay. But that judgement on aesthetics happens very very quickly (probably in a second or two), so the user immediately begins digging into the content. If that content is empty and pointless, well, they're off to another site just as quickly.

Of course, competitive issues are big here because if the majority of sites within a particular industry (especially a relatively "young" industry) are poorly designed, then you could probably have an ugly site with good content and still do quite well. But if you're in a maturing industry or one that is more tech-savvy for example, your site needs to at minimum look professional and preferably be user-friendly. Otherwise, users quickly draw the conclusion that you're either a newbie or your site isn't worth the trouble required to gather the desired information (or both).

But again, as Jill was eluding to, it really depends on the industry and the kinds of users you are drawing to the site. I mean, look at Jakob Nielsen's site (useit.com). People go there strictly to gather information and nothing else. He's "the" guru so no one cares squat what his site "looks" like. Harks back to the beginnings of the web.

I'm actually reading Nielsen's new book Prioritizing Web Usability and he seems to indicate that we are finally getting over our lust for pretty sites and returning to the web's initial purpose which is to gather information, much more so than to be "impressed" or entertained.

Just some thoughts ;)

Karri

I'm with Jill -- it depends on the product/service being sold, the industry you're in, the target audience, etc.

A financial advisor, or a lawyer, for example -- if s/he has a really low budget site, I wouldn't trust him/her no matter how great the copy is. The industry brings with it certain expectations.

An auto body shop ... if the great copy sells me on the knowledge and experience, and some customer testimonials convince me on the honesty vs. rip-off question, I might be inclined to overlook a Plain Jane design.

To me, you guys are assuming the good looking site (lawyer/financial) has good content. Then sure, it will survive and flurish. Not because of the design imo though. My experiences are it won't survive if it has a good design and worthless content - and that was my understanding of SS scenario. A good design isn't effective if the content isn't good.

My verdict is that they can't be mutually exclusive. Lame stance huh?

While agreeing with Jesse that both are critical to the true measure of a site's success, I must also tie in with what Karri posted about the interest (explosion of interest) in blogging and blogs.

Are blogs using terrific design principles and executing them well?

They all (and I do mean all) look very similar to me. It's the content that people appreciate the most on those sites. (In my lame defense, I think the blog template does very well with regard to its intended purpose, which is to feature the copywriting.)

It's also true that a lawyer charging top dollar for their services better have a big office in a gleaming skyscraper. And when I go in for my first meeting, they better talk the talk and turn me into a believer. So I also agree that the niche often helps determine the value relationships between the various aspects of the marketing.

I'm actually reading Nielsen's new book Prioritizing Web Usability and he seems to indicate that we are finally getting over our lust for pretty sites and returning to the web's initial purpose which is to gather information, much more so than to be "impressed" or entertained.
Karri

I am going to add a corrector to my own statement above: Nielsen points out that people now use the Internet as a "tool" in order to accomplish something, not to be entertained or wowed by nifty graphics or whatever. So, from a usability perspective then, yes, design matters, but only insofar that:

1) You present a reasonably professional image, at minimum to the standards your audience expects, and

2) People must be able to very easily accomplish whatever it is they need to accomplish at that particular moment in time.

I think this forum discussion is more important than a lot of people realize.

I am rethinking some of my assumptions because if the 'net has evolved into a transactional tool - as Nielsen claims - completely woven into the fabric of our lives, then the 'net is not "just" about content (i.e. information) is it? It's also about function which is really a degree or two removed from content.

Karri

ps: hmmm, I think I just figured out what my first blog post will be ... if the other Mods don't mind that is ;)

Good post, Karri.

I am going to add a corrector to my own statement above: Nielsen points out that people now use the Internet as a "tool" in order to accomplish something, not to be entertained or wowed by nifty graphics or whatever.I think that's spot on. The practice of "web surfing," where you're just bouncing from site to site with no aim, seems to be dying a quick death. Even my 8-year-old gets on the web with specific goals in mind -- check the Mariners score, see what else happened in sports the day before, etc.

Hi,

Good points. And one thing to keep in mind...most visitors to a site are unlikely to buy the first time they see your offer. That means it's important to make sure you're set up to collect their email address so you can continue the relationship until they are ready to buy or pick up a phone and call for more information. Otherwise, you may be educating them and steering them to a competitor who knows how imortant it is to capture their email address. The key is creating value on your home page that makes them WANT to give you their email address.

I posit that a bad website design with good copywriting will perform better than a fantastic design with poor copywriting.

Kudos to Karen and her art-mates.

I mention this because I've been trying for 5 years (actually, since slightly before I was hired!) to get my boss to approve the hiring of a good WEB copywriter. (Note: I'm a facilitator ... I make dreams come true ... I'm not as good at the business side ... ;) ) In that same time, he has gone through over a DOZEN re-designs using the same content.

Confusing, to say the least.

They want the website to generate income, and they decide to put the development money into look-and-feel ... which is surely important, however not as important as what the page is communicating lyrically.

IMHO.

So, Here's to the Copywriter! In particular, Here's to the Copywriter who understands the demands of writing for the Web. Sales and Grace. Possibly in that order ... ?

Thanks.