Wow. It’s absolutely astonishing — and frankly, appalling — that the Wall Street Journal, a respected business publication, would pushing such a steaming load of shit as this article. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen something so incredibly stupid in a serious publication in my entire life. Wow. This really sums up everything that sucks about our industry.
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB121841809487028753-lMyQjAxMDI4MTE4MTQxMTE4Wj.html
001 // Brad Dielman // 08.11.2008 // 6:47 PM
This seems to be the new standard for the WSJ. I’m sure you’ve seen or heard about the Amy Chozick article, Too Fit to be President. I’m sure Vauhini Vara researched this article in as much a half-assed-affront-to-journalism manner as Amy did.
002 // Tim Kadlec // 08.11.2008 // 8:05 PM
Absolute crap! Wow…hard to believe a publication as well known and respected as WSJ would publish something so completely wrong.
My favorite line out of the whole thing:
Pure genius.
003 // Adam Hobson // 08.11.2008 // 8:07 PM
I thought this was the real gem:
“All you need to know is that a block of HTML — essentially, a bunch of gobbledygook words and symbols — can add extra features to your site.”
Yea, that’s really all you need to know…
004 // Joshua Works // 08.11.2008 // 11:12 PM
I wouldn’t be surprised if her primary source was her 12-year-old nephew “who’s really into computers”.
It occurs to me that there may be some merit to this backwards, uninspired “build a website” methodology. The insulting bit is that she implies this is an appropriate approach for small businesses (those “with fewer than 100 employees”), when I’d proffer that it’s only acceptable for fanzines and small businesses with less than 8 employees. Neighborhood daycare, my favorite laundromat, the ladies that ring door bells asking to wash your carpet, the party supply store downtown — they all would benefit from a “proper” website, but with 120 bucks for a marketing budget, I would imagine this serves as a helpful, albeit naïve, DIY instruction manual.
The greater crime, as you mention, is that this was published in such a prestigious publication, and not, say, some soccer mom’s MS Publisher newsletter where it belongs.
As an aside, I just got done watching “A Mighty Heart” about an hour ago, and I see that the brilliant author of this article was the first Daniel Pearl intern, two years ago at the age of 20.
005 // Jeff Croft // 08.11.2008 // 11:40 PM
I agree these are the appropriate businesses for such a strategy. Another way to say it would be, “those businesses who don’t really need a website, but want one anyway.”
006 // Pablo DiCiacco // 08.12.2008 // 12:23 AM
Disappointed the story stopped short of explaining spiders ahd how they climb up and down the web-spout.
007 // Brian Ford // 08.12.2008 // 7:36 AM
Ahem.
008 // Brian Ford // 08.12.2008 // 7:37 AM
Damn your markdown formatting. My ahem was supposed to be a link to my most recent article on Newsvine. You may enjoy it.
009 // Matt Brown // 08.12.2008 // 10:19 AM
Playing devil’s advocate (which is a stretch with this piece), I can agree with some aspects of the tone and intent of the article. Part of the piece is about educating people about the ‘elements’ that go into a website — getting a domain, getting a host, building a site, refining seo, etc. This can be a difficult concept (domains, registrars, servers, hosts, etc.) for many new to the web to understand. Hearing it discussed in a large business magazine is encouraging.
Also, the tone, while annoying and brash, is also focused on ‘empowering’ people to take control and try it themselves. While most will fail, I do think that there’s something to pushing clients to get more exposure with the technology.
Is it sound advice? No. All non-web businesses will need professional assistance. And throwing around absurd situations along the lines of ‘I made a bazillion dollars with $10, and a night of working on my computer’ are very hurtful suggestions, for our industry and aspiring businesses.
Most alarming, is just how little most businesses spend on their websites, still (see the chart in the article). I would say that a low-end design contract, if you’re an honest business, starts at a $3,000 engagement. And again, that’s where things start.
What amazes me is that many don’t see a website as a necessity. Strange that many restaurants will drop thousands of dollars on great signage, branding, decorating, etc — and then reserve just a few hundred dollars for their website. Today, nearly ALL customers will Google for your company name, and it’s criminal not to be ready to impress, assist, and educate your audience.
That article is terrible. However, it’s up to all of us to get some literature out there to help clients. It just looks like we’ll have to educate the mainstream press as well :)
010 // Andrew // 08.12.2008 // 9:04 PM
Reading this article makes me think:
“Have you got a newsreader and an interest in surfing the web? Then you can read news for nothing. Thanks to competition among newspapers, search engines, and the ease of online publishing, it’s never been easier to read news for free — from the New York Times to the WSJ to the same AP stories printed in your local paper. But many people still feel it’s too hard to unsubscribe from their newspaper subscription.”
011 // Jeff Croft // 08.12.2008 // 9:46 PM
It made me think:
“Have you got a family and $100? Then you can build your own home and live in it!”
Sure, it’ll be made of cardboard and fail the first time it rain, but you could.
012 // sjl web design // 08.13.2008 // 5:45 AM
A new low for wall street journal. A complete insult to the web and design industry.
013 // Matt Robin // 08.22.2008 // 6:48 PM
This article is like a test: how far can you read before you feel nauseous?
Can someone pass me a bucket?!! I’m hoping Wall Street Journal Online and the Wall Street Journal are two totally different things, if not, then there credibility has just taken an Olympic high dive.