Comments on: Why not have your print agency do your website?

By: Matthew

Matthew — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 00:01:48 +0000

I think this is an interesting debate to focus on. Now that the general public has been aware of the internet for over 10 years, I propose that there are more agencies that position themselves as overall “media agencies” than as a print shop with a web arm. The ones I’ve worked with in the past take great pains to make that distinction, and I know of at least one that stopped doing print as is “interactive” exclusively. I’d like to continue this discourse in person, perhaps over some good drinks? Its 2009, print is dead (or rather, close to dead).

By: Eric Reiss

Eric Reiss — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 07:23:06 +0000

Well, Matt, none will admit to being stand-alone print, but a lot of them still are. They set a traditional art director to work designing an interface that resembles the design guide for print and then farm out the template-making to a freelancer who knows some HTML. Or the agency turns the project over to a technical integrator. But as Lynn points out, the look-and-feel take precedence over the functional concept, which is why so much of this crap fails.

By: matthew

matthew — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 22:22:10 +0000

But nowadays, are there such things as stand-alone print agencies? How do you feel about agencies with an interactive arm? Or, agencies that partner within the larger corporate parent?

By: Søren Muus

Søren Muus — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 07:56:51 +0000

Right, print agencies thinks like ad agencies; in attention, interest, desire and action (AIDA). When users get to your website, they are usually beyond both attention and interest, but filled with desire and ready to action.