CAMPAIGN INTERACTIVE: NEW-MEDIA CLINIC - Keeping sites current is crucial as a year is a long time on the Net

Now I know how Morgan Freeman felt in the Shawshank Redemption when he walked free, blinking and bewildered, after all that time behind bars.

Now I know how Morgan Freeman felt in the Shawshank Redemption when

he walked free, blinking and bewildered, after all that time behind


I’ve spent the past two days judging entries for this year’s D&AD

new-media categories.

I don’t really mean to say that my time spent judging Websites, CD-Roms

and interactive kiosks was akin to half a lifetime in prison. It was a

great privilege and thank you for asking me, Mr Kester. Mind you, the

fundamental changes to society that had taken place over the 30-odd

years that Freeman’s character had been inside, and for which he was so

unprepared, are - in a very small way, admittedly - analogous to the

changes that have affected new-media design in a much shorter space of


On the evidence of some of the work entered for D&AD, there are quite a

few designers who are as dumbfounded as Freeman’s old ex-con.

The passage of time has not been kind to some of the entries, the oldest

of which was built just a year ago. Part of the problem is that the

limited tools new-media creatives have to work with result in many

projects looking similar, with most owing more to the software than to

the ideas of the designer. And whenever someone comes up with something

new, everyone copies it, quickly leaving earlier work behind but

achieving stand-out for no-one.

Quite how you get round this problem is not obvious. But on the Web a

solution does exist. It involves renewing your site on a regular -

perhaps bi-annual, certainly annual - basis, just like your average ad


But this isn’t palatable to most clients because it means spending a lot

more money.

Understandably, clients aren’t going to commit more investment until

they can see concrete evidence that the Web works for them as a

communications tool. Which, incidentally, is another difficulty for the

new-media jury - not that D&AD was ever famed for its concerns about

effectiveness, but with Websites it’s very difficult to divorce

functionality from design.

What’s the point of having a beautiful site whose beauty can’t be

appreciated because it doesn’t download properly? Or a useful site whose

design doesn’t highlight its main use?

Forgive me if I don’t go into specifics - I don’t want to break the

confidentiality agreement all jurors must make - but I’m sure anyone who

uses the Web regularly can think of examples of both of the above. And

I’m sure Web-users know plenty of sites that time has left behind.

So is there an easier answer? I believe there is: if a Website’s too

expensive, don’t build one. Make banners and I-Candies instead. They’re

cheaper, more easily refreshed, more obviously part of a specific

campaign and less easy to complicate with too much design. The lack of

banners, particularly banner campaigns, entered for D&AD was one of the

biggest disappointments of all. Perhaps they need a separate category,

but they certainly need to be there.


Before commenting please read our rules for commenting on articles.

If you see a comment you find offensive, you can flag it as inappropriate. In the top right-hand corner of an individual comment, you will see 'flag as inappropriate'. Clicking this prompts us to review the comment. For further information see our rules for commenting on articles.

comments powered by Disqus