Common Advertising Agency Website Design Mistakes

There have been few options available to agencies and design firms who are not large enough to have a dedicated in-house interactive department. One option, as we've already mentioned, has been to avoid the web. This is not a good idea both from a strategic and financial perspective. We have identified at least three other possible approaches available to such agencies and design firms.


This simple approach is to build relatively simple, static, what have come to be called "brochureware" sites, using DreamWeaver or other WYSIWYG tools. This has worked fairly well, although I have heard many stories of how sites built using these tools didn't work the way they were supposed to, or didn't display the way they were intended to in various browsers. Without a low level knowledge of HTML and experience with combinations of browsers and platforms, these tools can often get an agency or design firm into difficult situations. Another limitation to this approach is that static websites are often too simple to meet their client's needs. They are also inefficient and hard to maintain. As clients' expectations grow and their needs for their websites expand, this approach is quickly becoming inadequate.


Another approach has been to build sites entirely in Flash. Flash is an excellent product and is capable of building visually dynamic and highly interactive sites. The most recent version of Flash has begun to allow for better integration with databases. Nevertheless, a site built entirely in Flash has limited content management options, and is even harder to maintain than a simple HTML web site. If the client is only concerned with their brand image, then such a site may be appropriate, however most companies have much more practical needs for their sites and Flash is not the best tool. Additionally, Flash sites are not currently indexed by search engines - something most clients are concerned about.


Finally, many agencies have recognized that they will need to partner with a web development firm in order to provide the level of capabilities their clients will need. This is obviously the approach we recommend, however there are serious potential problems with this approach as well. The first problem is choosing a partner. If you are not technically minded to begin with, how do you evaluate a technical partner? Choosing incorrectly can be costly.

Finding a technical partner that is respectful and sensitive to the agency - client relationship is also tricky. Programmers tend to be very pragmatic. There is little tolerance for illogical decisions stemming from the internal politics from within your clients' organization. Agencies and design firms are used to walking this thin line and know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em. Explaining these kinds of subtleties to an unsympathetic technical partner can result in double frustration.

Finally, in terms of visual sensitivity to design, most programmers live on the other side of the planet from visual designers. It can be frightening to see how a programmer interprets and implements a finely tuned layout. Most programmers are oblivious to the subtleties of type size, and font, spacing, grids, and other aspects of design. Getting the final site to look like something resembling the client-approved layouts can sometimes be an exercise in futility. Technical explanations given by a programmer for why a site does not, or cannot look like a provided layout feels like being blinded with science. How does the agency then communicate these problems back to their client?