[Previous] [Next] - [Index] [Thread Index] - [Previous in Thread] [Next in Thread]

Subject: RE: UKNM: RE: boo.com - should we be surprised?
From: Bharat Karavadra
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 10:53:11 GMT

I agree with Paul - I just had a look at the site and the damn thing is too
slow, I got that annoying girl help thing which I clicked off straight
away, why launch a site that doesn't work on (probably) the second most
common operating system apart from Windows, launch a new browser window as
soon as you go into the home page and tell everyone that the page has no use
what so ever.

I'd say that it is designed by lovies and techies trying to win an award.

My guess is that it's been designed in the West End of London as a portfolio
piece rather than a business tool.

That's my opinion.

Bharat Karavadra
E-business consultant
Direct Tel: (0)20 7362 0511

-----Original Message-----
From: owneratchinwag [dot] com [owneratchinwag [dot] com]On">mailto:owneratchinwag [dot] com]On Behalf Of Robin
Sent: 18 November 1999 10:25
To: 'uk-netmarketingatchinwag [dot] com'
Subject: RE: UKNM: RE: boo.com - should we be surprised?

A wee bit harsh, Paul, but I think the point you are making is that it is
the chiefs that need shooting, not the indians. Even then, though, for all
we know Organic's chiefs were saying, "No, no, no - think about the user's
experience" and boo.com were replying, "Bah humbug - get some more
animations in there. We like animations."

Getting the balance right, if the client is adamant about how they want to
do it, is a difficult job indeed.


Robin Edwards
Clockworx Design Limited
T: +44 1543 252370 F: +44 1543 420761
E: robinatclockworx [dot] co [dot] uk W: http://www.clockworx.co.uk/

On Wednesday, November 17, 1999 12:28 PM, Paul Durrant
[SMTP:pdurrantatindigo [dot] ie] wrote:
> Stewart Dean wrote: Looks like Boo has approached the project
> like some kind of new media show case rather than an actual
> Boois a great oportunaity thrown away by what looks like gross new media
> incompitence. I suspect there where an awful lot of talkers on this
> but very few doers so to speak.
> I couldn't agree more...
> If it wasn't for the damage that Boo could well be doing the industry,
because of its marketing budget, I'd shrug it off as just another bad site
that will no doubt fail (i.e. never turn a profit) unless some massive
re-investment is put into a complete rewrite.
> BUT should we be surprised? The underlying problem is nothing new. All
of us, whether in paper, tv or web agencies have seen it a thousand times
before.... over self-indulgent, arogant, designers and technophiles being
let produce (probably due to media ignorance of the client) what they want,
rather than what the client needs and the client's customers require!
> Getting that business led balance right is what the jobs of good account
managers, technical directors AND creative directors in agencies, are all
> P.S. I can point to loads of Flash sites that fall into the exact same
> Paul Durrant
> Tarnlough Ltd.
> Interactive Business Communications
> +353 61 455 187

post new media vacancies for free uknm-jobsatchinwag [dot] com
sponsor the uk-netmarketing list and website, contact
salesatchinwag [dot] com for more details.
To unsubscribe or change your list settings go to
http://www.chinwag.com/uk-netmarketing or helpatchinwag [dot] com

  RE: UKNM: RE: boo.com - should we be sur, Paul Gill

  RE: UKNM: RE: boo.com - should we be sur, Robin Edwards

[Previous] [Next] - [Index] [Thread Index] - [Next in Thread] [Previous in Thread]