Three to tango

Why do massive corporations with large web budgets often end up with bad websites? Why do great web companies’ portfolios contain some masterpieces and some also-rans? There are three key parts to a successful project, and only one of them is in direct control of the agency.

The three legged stool

Often during pre-sales, a client will point to previous Contrast work, or existing work on the internet to exemplify what they’re hoping for from a project. This can sometimes be useful as it sets the bar appropriately and gives us insight in to why they chose Contrast. However, one point I always have to drive home is that all projects are not equal, all clients are not equal, and all contracts are not equal. We alone can’t guarantee that the outcome will be of equal quality, because we’re only one part of the picture. I often draw a three legged stool to explain this.

There are three important parts in a project: the client, the contract and the consultancy. Just like a stool, all of these must be reasonably solid to ensure things work as expected.

1. The consultancy

If you hire a bad consultancy, it’s usually game over, do not pass go, do not collect $200. A good client willing to spend a lot of time and money might rescue it, but they are exceptions.

However it’s not always that simple. You can hire a good consultancy, but end up with the wrong people working on your project. Much as large consultancies would like to pretend otherwise, consultants come with different skills, experiences, attitudes and interests. There are people who are a good fit for a project, and those who aren’t. For example, all else being equal, I’ll design a better World Cup web application than someone with no interest (or a nerd-like disinterest) in soccer. Enthusiasm and domain experience are significant force multipliers, and it’s worth remembering that when picking an agency.

2. The contract

The best people doing the wrong work will result in project failure. The best people doing the right work under the wrong conditions, will rarely be any better. For example, impossible deadlines (”we need it yesterday“), or unnecessary requirements (”we want to see four different visual designs”) can greatly reduce the quality of the work.

In addition, the scope of the engagement and its technical constraints might prevent the project from being a success. For example “we’re in charge of the copy, and we’re sticking with Sharepoint 2004, but we need to see massive improvements”.

Another point that gets over-looked is the relative value of the engagement to both parties. For example, a small company paying a four figure sum, to a large company used to dealing in six figure sums rings alarm bells for me. For a small company €5K is a huge spend and they will expect the world. To the consultancy €5K is a drop in the ocean, and the project may be regarded as a pretty insignificant deal.

It is as important to choose the right engagement as it is to choose the right people.

3. The client

Clients are the making and breaking of any project. Luckily as an agency you can choose your clients accordingly and work with them to maximise the potential for success. That said, there are still some variables beyond your control, and some details you might not find out until it is too late.

Good things to look out for in clients are: Can the client provide good feedback, and participate in effective meetings? Does one person on the client team have the time to take the project seriously and act as a single point of contact? Can you win their trust? Have they participated in large projects before, can they keep a cool head when the project hits speed bumps? Are they willing to take a risk and try something their competitors haven’t done?

Outside of the running of the project itself, the client’s business is also put under a microscope during a design project. If a local restaurant is looking for a website, and they want to look like a Thomas Keller restaurant, you’ll eventually draw up a content requirement list that looks something like this…

• high quality photos of ambient, spacious, well-lit dining room to make the restaurant appear “world class” to guests.
• list of books by Chef, with sample excerpts to establish his/her international credibility.
• list of reviews from international media, Michelin Guide, mention three-star rating.
• high quality, mouth-watering photos of signature dishes offered by the restaurant.
• “Behind the scenes” shots of chefs working in the kitchen, team preparing food.

At some point the client will fill their shorts and exclaim “but we don’t have any of that, we’re not that big; if you saw what goes on in our kitchen, you’d never eat again!” A restaurant with a horrible dining room, a filthy kitchen, and bad service can’t have an honest website. At best it’ll look like a stock photo gallery.

The quality of the website often reflects the quality of the business — as I’ve said before, quality is fractal.

A note on criticism

When you see a firm launch a new site, app, or project, it can be tempting to criticize along the lines of “ZOMG where is the AJAX” the second you see one interaction that could be better. It’s worth remembering what you know, and what you’re criticizing. If you know who’s involved, you know the details of the engagement, and you know the client, then criticise away. However the chances are you’re just looking at a home page and thinking “I could have done better…“, and off you go to Twitter.

I’m not saying that there is an excuse for bad design. There isn’t. Ever. However, a design agency alone can’t ensure a successful project. They can bring a consistently excellent level of skill, discipline, and professionalism to a project, but the engagement has to be correct, and the client has to be a good fit too.

A good consultancy shouldn’t make a habit of getting involved in bad engagements, or with bad clients, but it can happen. In pre-bid discussions you can test the water and see if this project will look good in your portfolio; Andy Rutledge offers a good set of pre-bid questions.

Picking and choosing

When picking a potential agency and looking through a portfolio, it’s tempting to find a nice design and hope that they can re-create that for you. However, confusing the output of an engagement with the engagement itself is a sure way to set yourself up for disappointment. A better test would be to call the firm, explain your business and your budget, and see what similar projects they can point you to. That’s a far better way to assess the quality of the work you’ll get from them.

As an agency, it may seem strange to talk about “choosing your clients” at a time when budgets are shrinking and projects seem scarce. However, to flourish, or even survive, it’s extremely important to choose the right projects. Not just the profitable ones, for profitable mediocrity will catch up with you eventually, and not just the sexy ones, for an agency is nothing without profitable projects. It’s easy to say no to an unprofitable project, but the ability to say no to a six or seven figure deal is just as important when your reputation for quality work is at risk.

To paraphrase Henry Ford, a business that makes nothing but money is a poor business.