« More Microsoft laptop hunters on the prowl | Main | Doers do stuff in latest Honda ad by Wieden »
Is the Flash-powered agency site obsolete?
There's something interesting going on with agency Web sites. Ironically, many of the shops that pioneered immersive Flash sites for clients are turning their backs on the high-tech immersive approach when it comes to their own sites. The Barbarian Group, EVB and Juxt Interactive are going this feeds-over-Flash route. Big Spaceship, creator/builder of HBO "Voyeur," is the latest shop to use a simple WordPress blog to show off not just its portfolio but feeds from its blog, Twitter and Flickr accounts (including lots of photos from something called Moustache Day 2008). The idea is to show the company's thinking in real time rather than treat the agency site as a static art piece. The bonuses: a WordPress site is cheap and easy to update regularly. Meanwhile, traditional shops are still generally going immersive. McKinney, Leo Burnett and BBH are examples of what some call Flashturbation. It all comes down to the purpose of the site, whether it's to impress potential clients, new hires or just be there in case someone gets lost coming to the office. —Posted by Brian Morrissey |
|
April 13, 2009 in Agency web sites, Big Spaceship, Morrissey | Permalink |
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Glow Interactive, too.
Posted by: thedigi talhobo | Apr 13, 2009 2:40:35 PM
I would not gauge the industry based on these few sites that went the way of a blogger platform. Digital agencies are not only about Flash rather the bleeding edge of technology. The "cool kids" always try to be different and tend to lose credibility for abandoning what made them awesome in the first place. Every idea needs to be built on a platform that is relevant to the audience it serves, when it comes to agency sites every shop has the choice to choose the technology it feels best tells its story. We at Freedom + Partners chose to go a duel route in Flash using both 2D and 3D interface (http://www.freedomandpartners.com) because we believe so much in what we do we chose the best storytelling platform that we felt best positioned us the best way possible. Granted, Flash has become as commonplace as HTML and the iPhone has definitely given a new life to HTML/CSS based sites but at the end of the day why would you hang a hand written sign in your window when you could have neon lights illuminating your wares?
I do not think that just because a few shops adopted a blog platform for their site is cause for alarm, I think its simply because it has a shock value in drawing attention because Flash was what put those shops on the map in the first place.
Every platform has a use, its all based on how you want to tell your story, I think that we now play on a more even playing field until the next thing emerges, jumping bandwagons just makes me feel a lack of dedication by the shop and going retro isnt always the smartest message you want to convey when proclaiming bleeding edge services.
Posted by: Craig Elimeliah | Apr 13, 2009 2:45:46 PM
There's a lot to factor here -
1) Flash isn't nearly as dynamic and makes updates infinitely more difficult. No agency want's to be perceived as static or not have the latest information on their page.
2) Flash is not compatible with mobile devices. I think once we see Flash-enabled phones we'll be seeing more of a move towards Flash websites.
3) It's much harder to make a site SEO-friendly in Flash
Posted by: @jeffdegeorgia | Apr 13, 2009 2:46:52 PM
I can tell you, at Catalyst Studios we really debated this issue last time we picked up the pencil to rework our site. In the end we decided it was still too much of a pedestrian expectation that a digital agency show its chops (al la Flashsturbation) on their portfolio site. I think even though we conceded on the issue begrudgingly we at least took up web standards, usability, deep linking, and mobile support as our chosen ways to "show off" vs just all fun and games.
I can tell you this, our next site is in the works and is not Flash, aside from it's appropriate use of video playback. It's our assumption the rest of the world grew up on the subject, and hopeful is not a risk for us when presenting our brand to the world.
Posted by: Jared Lukes | Apr 13, 2009 2:48:13 PM
This is a silly post. A very silly, narrow minded, short sighted, shallow post. P.S. that girl with the moustache is hot.
Posted by: Oh Blah Dee | Apr 13, 2009 2:52:24 PM
We work with content buyers, instigators, creators and developers. Increasingly, it's hard to draw the lines.
We've seen a growing trend towards websites that support conversations, not simply demonstrations. And Flash - in its current form - is deaf technology.
Add to that the issues of updating, SEO and lack of mobile support and Flash in its current form feels increasingly outdated for these kinds of uses.
Posted by: Charles day | Apr 13, 2009 3:03:32 PM
Flash crashes peoples' browsers, on top of all the other reasons not to use it listed above.
Also, presentation websites using Flash generally look really (out)dated, sorry to say.
Posted by: Pudenda Shenanigans | Apr 13, 2009 4:15:32 PM
Craig, your post about your Freedom partners site is a perfect example to go with this story, because I've been a digital creative director working on Fortune 100 websites for 12 years, and when I got to your site, I had absolutely no clue how to get past the opening flash 3d thing to access any content. Epic Fail. Good example of cool kids trying to show they're different and losing credibility in the process.
Posted by: Steve C. | Apr 13, 2009 4:28:56 PM
It's not the technology, it's how you use it. Ask YouTube how that Flash thing is working out.
Oh, and I heard Flash didn't wash it's hands after going to the washroom once either.
Posted by: Andrew | Apr 13, 2009 4:31:58 PM
Just because a couple of agencies have decided to make an HTML site rather than a full-Flash site doesn't mean Flash is "obsolete". This is such an old, tired argument. A poor workman always blames his tools. An HTML site can be designed just as badly as a Flash site. Blame the designer, not the technology used!
Posted by: Paul Neave | Apr 13, 2009 4:36:04 PM
Flash isn't perfect, for all the reasons mentioned and a few more.
The pens I use every day aren't perfect either, but they give me the kind of line that I like. Oil paint isn't perfect, but Picasso did OK with it. Isn't that all this really is? We all pick the tool that we feel best allows us to express ourselves.
For our agency site (www.takethirdstreet.com) we used flash but kept it simple and stayed away, we think, from getting caught flashterbating.
Posted by: Third Street | Apr 13, 2009 7:18:13 PM
I think this is a valuable discussion. In my experience, most Flash sites, even the best ones, tend not to get updated very often compared to their CMS powered brothers. I think this is often because they are built on XML, which limits who can change content- since so many people are afraid of even the simplest code/markup. Also, few allow deeplinking, the ability to bookmark or even the slightest attention to SEO. Moving forward Flash sites will need to powered by CMS. For example, one of our sites, jameszabiela.com is powered completely by drupal. It took some up front work, but we were able to maintain the experience of a Flash site while allowing the site to be easily and continually updated.
Posted by: bluecadet | Apr 13, 2009 7:44:41 PM
A good idea is a good idea. Flash is a tool. Sometimes it's right. Sometimes not. But nothing ever "dies". Take this, for example:
http://www.liquidawesomeness.com/
nothing new here. But really funny stuff. (and no, it's not anything I or anyone else I know is connected to)
Posted by: oat soda | Apr 13, 2009 8:16:32 PM
Wait, just to be clear. The referenced digital production companies in this post are finding it too difficult to update Flash sites they have created? Companies like The BBG, Juxt, EVB, and Big Spaceship can't handle, manage or gain from the work they have recommended and produced? Obviously these companies are failing in ways I cannot even conceive as they now try and say Web 3.0 is HTML. Total Fail. Total and utter fail.
Posted by: Erp | Apr 13, 2009 8:57:37 PM
I love Flash. I teach Flash in exchange for monetary compensation. I, personally, don’t like websites made entirely in Flash. To extend the metaphor comparing Flash to a tool, why would I peek into my overstuffed web toolkit and pluck out only one tool to use?
Posted by: Rebecca Cullers | Apr 13, 2009 10:09:15 PM
I can go either way on most all comments, but simply put, the trend is making it near impossible to differentiate a one man show from a company these days. I always lean towards, let the work speak for itself, and if it is done right, it works. In the case of the work that I am involved with, clients are looking to my company at face value. If the front face is boring, they're going to look at us as stale. Motion is the key along with a great "theme". Big brand examples, again, look like a portfolio that is accompanied with a resume. Everyone has them.
On a stabbing point, I believe that the scaled back sites are made by those who don't have any good ideas for their own look . For as long as I have been in the business, over 15 years, design studios always had an interesting message and look for each revamp. The inspirational sites are the ones that will attract the eyes and keep the talk going. Thats the next phase. Scaled back doesnt create conversations about the shop, only about the brands they designed for.
Posted by: JJ | Apr 13, 2009 11:50:52 PM
I think a simple point is being missed here. The evolution of these sites is more symptomatic of the companies themselves evolving than the flash technology failing. If you look at the evolution of BSS's blogs for instance you see them getting more serious about being thought leaders in the industry as well tech leaders.
If they want to evolve to having direct relationships with clients and being AOR for companies (rather than a production too for agencies) then I guess this is a natural step.
Posted by: Bill Allen | Apr 14, 2009 4:16:32 AM
But now who'll do all the flash production for creative agencies?
Posted by: Flashy | Apr 14, 2009 9:45:08 AM
so now nobody will visit sites filled with feeds nobody cares about. net/net: nobody cared/nobody will care.
Posted by: A. Prinze | Apr 14, 2009 11:15:28 AM
Look, everyone knows it's about the steak and not the sizzle.
What these firms have done is allow themselves to show off more of their steak. And do it on more of a regular basis. It's smart. And personally, I'd rather use a smart company than someone with no substance but some masturbatory neon sign out front.
Every tool serves a purpose - Flash included. But right now the purpose so many people are using Flash for is to be bright and shiny, not to be relevant.
Posted by: MattM | Apr 14, 2009 3:54:24 PM
BTW: That freedomandpartners.com website is absolute crap. Who the hell can navigate that thing?
You just proved everyone's point that people use Flash for shitty, self-conscious drek.
Posted by: What a joke | Apr 14, 2009 5:46:58 PM
This story is dead on for our firm's experience. We had the flash heavy design oriented site last year. We redid the site early this year to "practice what we preach". We are leveraging blog feeds, flicker feeds, facebook feeds etc, and although our creative director probably wishes for more sizzle, the analytic results speak volumes. Bounce rates are way down, and page views and time on the site is way up. So, we think it makes tons of sense. Check us out at www.hillmullikin.com
Posted by: Chris Hill | Apr 15, 2009 9:36:21 AM
there's a list of top 5 agency sites + shitlist (the ones that use flash...): http://tinyurl.com/5apg65
Posted by: Ana Andjelic | Apr 15, 2009 10:53:42 AM
BBH wishes they Flashturbation. They have Stupidation.
Posted by: Al | Apr 15, 2009 12:15:27 PM
I think its a matter of cost and having a on staff flash genius. When I say flash genius, I mean an employee that can use all the feeds from the different API's like twitter, flickr and any other social site that fits your brand personality, all the while using wordpress/any blog engine as the backend, making the site updatable by any blog friendly employee and still delivering a pleasing user experience. An experience that invites play, wonder, sharing and delivers your brand message.
If your not doing that much interactive stuff in-house then that guy/girl may not be on staff, as well as, you my not be pushing that side of your model.
If you remember EVB's older flashy site, they didn’t upgrade/update that site for years, only the news section and squeezing new projects into an interface that wasn’t built for expansion.
Posted by: acplus3 | Apr 16, 2009 1:35:37 AM
EVB is famous for viral flash sites, ie. elf yourself, That's all they do when it comes to websites.
Posted by: acplus3 | Apr 16, 2009 1:46:29 AM
EVB is famous for viral flash sites, ie. elf yourself, That's all they do when it comes to websites.
Posted by: acplus3 | Apr 16, 2009 1:46:30 AM
Big Space and EVB laid off TONS and are desparate. That is why they have their lousy html sites.
Posted by: I RULE | Apr 18, 2009 10:12:30 PM
what a post!awesome one..
Posted by: My Little Blog | Apr 24, 2009 2:53:58 AM
The web is evolving, just like any other new technology or medium evolves. Driving the evolution are the ways in which people use the web, and what they expect from it, at any given moment. The tools we use to create things on the web can, and should, change with user expectations for a particular message, or type of message. The creative challenge is interacting with people - making your message interesting to users, regardless of the platform, and understanding that users get to pick the platform now. Here's a little more perspective: http://www.smarterfaster.com/?p=345
Posted by: Ernie Mosteller | Apr 24, 2009 9:06:55 AM
'Flashturbation' for the McKinney site? ha! Actually, with the our site, we wanted an experience that served the needs of our typical visitors and we wanted the metaphor to be conversational. Hence the use of the bot (type a question in the lower right hand corner).
There are a lot of interesting comments here and as with everything some people will like one thing and others won't. As a group we don't automatically default to flash because it can do pretty things we go there when we need a specific tool that can do things others can't (along with the level of penetration)
As a side note but just as important we actually invested a lot of the discovery and development time working on the custom CMS that allows full management of the entire site. This was key to creating a rich experience that on the backend is completely scaleable and manageable by people with no programming experience- that was the biggest challenge but it did allow us to flex different parts of the brain.
There is a custom physics engine, and also some custom papervision elements too. And then the whole AI engine built on top of the A.L.I.C.E bot. As I mentioned Flash is just one piece of the overall experience.
So this response won't change the minds of the readers who just plainly dislike flash sites rather offer up a different POV.
Cheers.
Posted by: Trevor O' Brien | May 2, 2009 11:17:34 AM
Flash rocks....depends the job you are doing, sometimes is best flash, sometimes you can choose wordpress, movable type, etc... with flash you can biuld experiences that cannot be acomplished with html technologies.
Posted by: Angel | May 2, 2009 6:15:38 PM
Great Post.
I think traditional agencies are still getting it wrong. Information changes quickly and you need a site that's dynamic enough to accommodate that. These static art that these sites are obsolete by the time it's live. And so what if you can ask a question and get a response....oohh. wow. Big deal. I can do that to. Post/submit/response. See. Done in seconds.
I've come to think that using flash is a mindset. You've done it for so long and so well, that these agencies don't know how else to do it. There a lot of different technologies out there Ajax, CSS, Jqeury, that can almost do the same. Yet, they still default to flash.
I know, cause I work at one.
Posted by: EDW | May 6, 2009 11:29:35 AM
As a certified Flash freak (which I claim forever) who have created some memorable flash work, I think the main reason for this shift is:
1.) The Wordpress designs I’m seeing are awesome and work well with what agencies need to do: communicate often with audiences who read words and content rather than “experience” flash sites. They have professional needs to sell services. Many agencies have flash sites that are like a block buster DVD movie. Yeah, it was a great killer Cannes Film fest movie…. but I ain’t gonna watch it more than a few times a year. I will read the NY Times every week. I will Google/Bing something I want to find/research and buy almost everyday. I will read and reply to social media several times a day.
2.) Web 2.0 Javascript has taken much of the low hanging fruit from flash. Rollovers, animation, slideshows, transitions can be done with jQuery and related javascript. Flash has become the defacto standard for video online and now it has to add dynamic parts to compete. Augmented Reality is the kinds of creativity that comes out of this shift.
3.) Flash CMS are in general harder to use than other CMS.. at least depending on who is telling you. Flash as a brand suffers from it's animation days. It's still an effects tool rather than a development tool. Flash-to-FLEX-to-Flash platform illustrate Adobe's insights into changing this at least a couple of years ago. They many have known the day of "content is the killer application" would be remembered by the long-time players in the interactive-now-digital game.
Langston Richardson
VP, Digital Brand Strategist, Creative at LazBro
Twitter: @MATSNL65 @lazbro
Posted by: Langston Richardson | May 27, 2009 1:05:28 PM
We recently put together a full flash site for an ad agency (www.hookusa.com). They also have a BLOG to accompany the site. The sites serves the purpose of a pretty picture show while the blog allows the client to post new / relevant data. We believe that this is often a nice solution that satisfies the client.
Nothing wrong with using both technologies.
Posted by: craig | May 28, 2009 2:41:41 PM
I am amused by all the back and forth that has been going on here. The simple fact is that you can use CMS platforms like Drupal and Wordpress to power a flash enabled site. So the argument about updating flash sites too difficult becomes null. The bigger challenge has been the SEO aspect of flash dev which recently has had some real breakthroughs with frameworks like GAIA.
As for agency sites... Most of the biggest agencies have been doing terrible personal company sites since they got on the internet. It doesn't matter if they are doing html or flash they're usually just bad, get this they flip/flop every time. It just depends on who's in charge of the site and what they want to do. Conversely the product they put out is usually or can be really good. So why not pay attention to the product and not what they are doing with their company site?
Somebody also made an argument above that stated that bad flash is the fault of bad design which I completely agree with. You can't blame the technology for how its used. That like saying hammers are bad because someone killed someone with them. That's not the hammers fault is it?
The point being that some technologies have strengths in certain areas so you can't say flash is perfect or that html is perfect because both have their shortcomings. What it comes down to is how you tell the story and what's most appropriate for that story telling.
Posted by: Seth Erickson | May 29, 2009 1:59:28 PM
Also, Juxt has had an html website since 2004.
Posted by: Seth Erickson | May 29, 2009 2:20:18 PM
So now all these agencies are playing me too and copycatting one another. These guys all do great work. Confused as to why they all subscribe to this already worn out approach to an agency site.
Posted by: Scott | Jun 2, 2009 1:31:33 PM
Loving the anti-Flash backlash. Sorry to say, but rich media on the internet is here to stay.
Posted by: Lee | Jun 9, 2009 12:01:32 PM
Even though Flash might be XMLable it makes sense to go a Wordpress route. After having worked at agengies of all sizes it is amazing how difficult it is to get anyone to do anything for maintenance. Making it as dumb-ass easy as possible is a giant plus.
Checked out hookusa.com, and although as a rich media buff I love it, it only makes sense for a company with their philosophy to use that style. A larger agency is going after marketing veeps at huge corporations who wouldn't have the patience.
Give them 5 years.... (maybe less)
Posted by: Nicklaus Deyring | Jun 16, 2009 5:37:44 PM
Flash sites have always had problems indexing in most seartch engines but with the latest algorythems, Flash is now controlable and idexable, so there is still a place for the Flash site. http://www.alladvertising.co.uk
Posted by: Advertising Agency | Jul 13, 2009 8:14:02 AM
