Web 2.0 Taken Too Far?
Ah yes, we l33t geeks love web 2.0. Community. Social networking. Collaboration. [insert new marketing buzz word here]. No moderation. The truth, uncensored. A dream soapbox for most, but for an old school marketer, it’s absolutely terrifying.
As digital marketers, it’s our job to take these people by the hand and lead them into the light. And so far, no one has done it quite like Modernista!. Like any other shop, they’ve created a website to tell the world who they are, display their work and share their accomplishments. Pretty typical – except in its execution.
The entire website leverages existing social platforms. A tiny global nav in the top left provides the only branding and secondary pages are served via i-frames: About Us is a combination of wikipedia and Facebook pages; print work is captured on Flickr; TV spots on YouTube; web work on del.icio.us.
It is by far the ugliest mish-mash of a website I’ve ever seen. But it does one thing very, very well – it shows those terrified traditional marketers that the new content dissemination isn’t scary at all. It’s just a new way to show off your wares with the added bonus of amplification and discussion.
I’m not sure I’d want them to design my new website, but then who am I to judge.
Filed under: marketing | 3 Comments
Tags: modernista, social media, web 2.0, website
Great find.
However this quote “It is by far the ugliest mish-mash of a website I’ve ever seen.” could use a bit more explaining. Given that none of the sites are designed in the traditional sense by them why do you think its ugly. I think your second point that it highlights a new thinking and demonstrates just how creative one can get in using the web to market a service or company is the key.
Thanks for posting it.
Hi Siddiq, thanks for commenting! I actually quite like the design of Facebook, YouTube, etc – minimalist and user-friendly. What I meant is that it’s a bit jarring to move within what’s supposed to be a single site and see something completely different on every page. They could have easily used the Flickr API, or RSS feeds from their Facebook page to achieve a similar effect (live and evolving content) while still maintaining an overall sense of branding and cohesiveness. But then again, had they not done it this way, it wouldn’t have demonstrated the utilitarian nature of these social media sites so clearly, which was their goal all along :)