Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Should i start a web design business?
Options
-
01-12-2010 2:00am#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
pixeldesign, I am pretty much in the very same position as yourself.
I have a few "twists" on my planned business model to hopefully give me a boost over, for example you
But one thing that worries me is the tax situation. What are your thoughts(if any!) on how your going to deal with tax?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
Random idea - I'm sure there are loads of you in the same boat on boards.ie. Why don't you all get together and devise something?
There are loads of Team Collaboration sites out there that could make that work for you guys. As mentioned earlier, someone good at marketing etc could handle that and pass the actual design work on to someone else.
Random idea over.
That is a good idea, but it needs work in terms of:
1. Trust (how do I know Joe Bloggs won't just sell my design? How do I know Jane Bloggs is working as hard as I am?)
2. Commitment (half-way through the project and Jane finds a full-time job - then leaves or loses interest).
3. Hard work for little money (at first it may be necessary to put in work to establish yourself, maybe no return on investment).
4. Disproportionate workloads. (a business person will probably be putting in less hours than developers if a contract is won).
I'm not trying to shoot your idea down, just looking at it critically
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Hey David, happy new year to you!
Hey Tom - thank you and many happy returns - I hope 2011 is another great year for you!I was going to abstain from commenting,
It just didn't work out huh ?
but when you used Ryanair and Lidl as an example of how a website can be successful with "bad design" I just couldn't resist.
I didn't suggest it was "bad design" - I just suggested it wasn't great design. My point isn't too dissimilar to yours, I'm just looking at it a different way. I do actually think that a site can have little or none of many of the aspects that designers with a strong emphasis on pretty pictures have and still make a tonne of money. Think of the sites that sell million dollar marketing tricks or "top secrets the banks don't want you to know" - sure, they're nothing more than snake oil 99.999% of the time and there is simply no design, just a really long scroll bar. Awful from a business and consumer point of view but they clearly do the job of conning (I nearly said convincing, which I guess is true) people. Its an awful business and I'd love to see them stamped out but it makes a really important point to consider.You probably know more than most that the reason the Ryanair website is successful has absolutely nothing to do with the design of the site, but how it is marketed.
To expand my point: Blue and Yellow is intentionally tacky, not a lack of design. They intentionally use this colour scheme and design style to give the impression of "no frills". I'm actually suggesting that its intentionally designer this way. From a UI point of view it works quite well. For them. You gently get taken through a set of screens where the amount of money you planned to spend (€10 one way for example) slowly builds up as you pay for baggage, priority seating (lulz) insurance....0 -
It just didn't work out huh ?
Couldn't resist! Inner urges we're just way too strong!!I didn't suggest it was "bad design" - I just suggested it wasn't great design.
It's terrible design, in so many ways, but that's neither here nor there - it's the fact that you used it as a way of explaining how websites could be successful with bad design.
My point is that it's success has absolutely nothing to do with its design at all, but simply how it was marketed.I do actually think that a site can have little or none of many of the aspects that designers with a strong emphasis on pretty pictures have and still make a tonne of money.
Your first post made out that pretty picture design and good design were the same thing - I'm just trying to point out that these two things are completely different.
Take Google for example, there are no pretty pictures there, yet its design is something that they spend a lot of time and money on.Think of the sites that sell million dollar marketing tricks or "top secrets the banks don't want you to know" - sure, they're nothing more than snake oil 99.999% of the time and there is simply no design, just a really long scroll bar.
But why do they do the job? There are many reasons for it.
1. They're everywhere - so most are well marketed and it's safe to say we've all come across them
2. What are they selling - generally a "get rich quick" or "lose weight fast" - these instant promises that aren't realistic that a lot of people are just suckers for.
3. NLP - Most of these websites are wrote using NLP techniques that "trick" people into needing the product they are selling.To expand my point: Blue and Yellow is intentionally tacky, not a lack of design. They intentionally use this colour scheme and design style to give the impression of "no frills". I'm actually suggesting that its intentionally designer this way. From a UI point of view it works quite well. For them. You gently get taken through a set of screens where the amount of money you planned to spend (€10 one way for example) slowly builds up as you pay for baggage, priority seating (lulz) insurance....
I think that's a little assumptious - I'm not sure of the history of Ryanair's corporate branding - but their website came a good few years after their business was set up. So I would imagine the design is purely based on the companies corporate colours.0 -
Couldn't resist! Inner urges we're just way too strong!!
I like consistencyIt's terrible design, in so many ways, but that's neither here nor there - it's the fact that you used it as a way of explaining how websites could be successful with bad design.
My point is that it's success has absolutely nothing to do with its design at all, but simply how it was marketed.
Yes - exactly - the design is often seen as what will market a site - but often its other things you do that push it.Your first post made out that pretty picture design and good design were the same thing - I'm just trying to point out that these two things are completely different.
Take Google for example, there are no pretty pictures there, yet its design is something that they spend a lot of time and money on.
No I don't think good design and pretty pictures are the same thing. I suggested that a site can still sell without a good design. And it can. And you don't have to rely on TV or big advertising.
Craigslist - good example.I think that's a little assumptious - I'm not sure of the history of Ryanair's corporate branding - but their website came a good few years after their business was set up. So I would imagine the design is purely based on the companies corporate colours.
I know the guys did their first website.
I know that a lot of companies we're dealing with now, are intentionally copying these colour schemes - as they're seen as a value/low cost style. Many of these companies had high end designs and now want a competing low-cost site for the recession.
For example, if I owned www.lechocolat.i.e - a high end, luxury purveyor of chocolate, and I'm losing business in the recession or even just stalling, I might be tempted to setup up www.cheapluxurychocolate.com as a competing non-branded website that sells good quality chocolate at low prices - sans frills - I'm likely to copy the Lidl/Ryanair look. Thus, I'm saying it may be a lot more intentional than you think.0 -
Advertisement