A WWW Critique Model | Exploring Web Marketing and Project Management

This lab introduces a useful critique model for assessing Web sites and their creative presentations. The World Wide Web has been compared to the Wild Wild West in American history due to its quick expansion, unproven business models, the general wide open nature, and free-range spirit of this communication medium. One of my favorite films depicting this time frame and its outlaw characteristics is the movie The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, starring Clint Eastwood.

Current Web presentations tend to fall into one of three categories: good, ugly, and bad. This process is not an exact science but rather a loose, fun, and very subjective way to think about Web site communication efforts:

The good Web site looks good and delivers information wanted by an audience. Creative strategy engages the targeted audience and content presentation informs. This type of site looks a good and does a good job delivering appropriate interactive communication.
The ugly Web site looks bad but delivers the goods. This type of site may not have an engaging creative strategy, but the presentation successfully informs and communicates with the audience.
The bad Web site looks bad and doesn't deliver information wanted by the target audience. A bad Web site doesn't have an engaging creative presentation and doesn't communicate successfully. Another type of bad Web site is one that looks good, with lots of appealing creative elements, but has no useful content. This version of the bad Web site is particularly frustrating due to overdone graphics and slow-loading multimedia elements that don't deliver any worthwhile interactive communication.

Another useful term for describing Web sites involves the level of stickiness. A sticky Web site is one that keeps its audience engaged with interactive communication presented in an appealing fashion. Good Web sites are sticky; end users can't leave because they are so well engaged and informed. Ugly Web sites are kind of sticky or maybe sticky enough with room for increases in stickiness. End users stay for a while but are not stuck there. Bad Web sites are not sticky. End users leave as soon as they can.

Exercises

Rating a Good, Ugly, and Bad Web Site

Critique the Web sites listed here with a rating of good, bad, or ugly based on your interpretation of these definitions.

www.disney.com

a) Is this site good, bad, or ugly?
b) Why do you rate it this way?

www.gouldshawmut.com

a) Is this site good, bad, or ugly?
b) Why do you rate it this way?

www.putnaminvestments.com

a) Is this site good, bad, or ugly?
b) Why do you rate it this way?

www.llbean.com

a) Is this site good, bad, or ugly?
b) Why do you rate it this way?

www.vw.com

a) Is this site good, bad, or ugly?
b) Why do you rate it this way?

www.aarp.org

a) Is this site good, bad, or ugly?
b) Why do you rate it this way?

Exercise Answers

Answers

Critique the Web sites listed here with a rating of good, bad, or ugly based on your interpretation of these definitions.

www.disney.com

a) Is this site good, bad, or ugly?
Answer: Your ranking may be different, but I rank this Web site as good.
b) Why do you rate it this way?
Answer: Your answer is based on your ranking. I think that the creative aspects of this Web site are fun and engaging for its entertainment-seeking audience members, who are mostly children. The site is also packed with information and media presentations, making it highly informative and sticky as well.

www.gouldshawmut.com

a) Is this site good, bad, or ugly?
Answer: Your ranking is based on your opinion, but I would have to give this site an ugly ranking.
b) Why do you rate it this way?
Answer: Your answer is based on your perspective. Mine is based on the information-rich presentation geared toward that company's audience and presented in a boring, uncreative fashion. The site is ugly but delivers the information its audience wants. Not sticky but effective.

www.putnaminvestments.com

a) Is this site good, bad, or ugly?
Answer: My answer is to rank this site as good.
b) Why do you rate it this way?
Answer: Though the appearance is sparse, I believe the presentation is appropriate for the audience involved. This site is highly informative and provides relationship-building interactions that increase the sticky factor significantly.

www.llbean.com

a) Is this site good, bad, or ugly?
Answer: As an old school direct marketer, I must rate this site as good.
b) Why do you rate it this way?
Answer: Again my subjective opinion is that I find this site highly attractive to its loyal customer base while providing an interactive shopping experience. As an L.L. Bean guy, I find this site as sticky as a well-read catalog.

www.vw.com

a) Is this site good, bad, or ugly?
Answer: Though it should be quite obvious by now that I chose these Web sites as examples and therefore must like them, I also feel this is a good site using this ranking system.
b) Why do you rate it this way?
Answer: Engaging for hip, slick, and cool people with hip, slick, and cool creative presentations, this sticky site also informs, entertains, and builds relationships with potential and returning customers.

www.aarp.org

a) Is this site good, bad, or ugly?
Answer: Though you may not agree, I see this as another good site.
b) Why do you rate it this way?
Answer: Targeted to its audience with appropriate use of text and visuals, this site is also highly informative for its audience. Sticky for the retired set.

This exercise is lacking a bad Web site example. This was done for two distinct reasons. First, Web sites are dynamic and may not be bad by the time you are reading this book. Second, it's not very nice to comment negatively about a Web site in a publication such as this. Web communicators are doing the best they can in most situations.

I am confident that all Web users have visited a site that was not especially pleasant to look at and contained little valuable information. Some promotional sites even look quite good but contain no value. These sites might actually negatively affect relationships by frustrating the audience they are trying to reach. You can probably identify a bad site with little effort, unfortunately.

Self-Review Questions

In order to test your progress, you should be able to answer the following questions:

1)	A good Web site has which traits? _____ Engaging presentation _____ Appropriate information and communication _____ Stickiness _____ All of these _____ None of these
2)	A bad Web site has which traits? _____ Engaging presentation _____ Appropriate information and communication _____ Stickiness _____ All of these _____ None of these
3)	An ugly Web site may look bad but still deliver appropriate communication exchanges for the target audience. _____ True _____ False
4)	Stickiness describes keeping end users engaged at a Web site. _____ True _____ False

a)	Is this site good, bad, or ugly?
b)	Why do you rate it this way?

a)	Is this site good, bad, or ugly?
Answer:	Your ranking may be different, but I rank this Web site as good.
b)	Why do you rate it this way?
Answer:	Your answer is based on your ranking. I think that the creative aspects of this Web site are fun and engaging for its entertainment-seeking audience members, who are mostly children. The site is also packed with information and media presentations, making it highly informative and sticky as well.

a)	Is this site good, bad, or ugly?
Answer:	Your ranking is based on your opinion, but I would have to give this site an ugly ranking.
b)	Why do you rate it this way?
Answer:	Your answer is based on your perspective. Mine is based on the information-rich presentation geared toward that company's audience and presented in a boring, uncreative fashion. The site is ugly but delivers the information its audience wants. Not sticky but effective.

a)	Is this site good, bad, or ugly?
Answer:	My answer is to rank this site as good.
b)	Why do you rate it this way?
Answer:	Though the appearance is sparse, I believe the presentation is appropriate for the audience involved. This site is highly informative and provides relationship-building interactions that increase the sticky factor significantly.

a)	Is this site good, bad, or ugly?
Answer:	As an old school direct marketer, I must rate this site as good.
b)	Why do you rate it this way?
Answer:	Again my subjective opinion is that I find this site highly attractive to its loyal customer base while providing an interactive shopping experience. As an L.L. Bean guy, I find this site as sticky as a well-read catalog.

a)	Is this site good, bad, or ugly?
Answer:	Though it should be quite obvious by now that I chose these Web sites as examples and therefore must like them, I also feel this is a good site using this ranking system.
b)	Why do you rate it this way?
Answer:	Engaging for hip, slick, and cool people with hip, slick, and cool creative presentations, this sticky site also informs, entertains, and builds relationships with potential and returning customers.

a)	Is this site good, bad, or ugly?
Answer:	Though you may not agree, I see this as another good site.
b)	Why do you rate it this way?
Answer:	Targeted to its audience with appropriate use of text and visuals, this site is also highly informative for its audience. Sticky for the retired set. This exercise is lacking a bad Web site example. This was done for two distinct reasons. First, Web sites are dynamic and may not be bad by the time you are reading this book. Second, it's not very nice to comment negatively about a Web site in a publication such as this. Web communicators are doing the best they can in most situations. I am confident that all Web users have visited a site that was not especially pleasant to look at and contained little valuable information. Some promotional sites even look quite good but contain no value. These sites might actually negatively affect relationships by frustrating the audience they are trying to reach. You can probably identify a bad site with little effort, unfortunately.