For example, let's look at the fishing industry. According to FLW Outdoors, over 44 million Americans ages 7 and older fish. It ranks as the 5th most popular participation sport in the country (behind walking, camping, swimming, and exercising with equipment). 33% of anglers reported that they fish to relax, while 25% fish to spend time with friends and family.
The fishing industry is quite lucrative--anglers spend upwards of $35 billion a year on the sport for trips, equipment, licenses, dues, magazines, and tournaments. Thus, it's not surprising that there are millions of fishing sites on the web that sell equipment and offer information about fishing and fishing tournaments. However, you'd be hard-pressed to find among these results a site that approaches fishing in a Web 2.0, user-generated fashion.
Of the ten sites that hold the highest percentage of the fishing market share (based on U.S. visits, according to May 2007 Hitwise data - see below), four sites have virtually identical layouts (Cabela's, Bass Pro Shops, Lake-Link, and Orvis--all of the retail sites in the top 10), while the other six (wildlifelicense.com, michigan-sportsman.com, Outdoor Minnesota, Walleye Central, landbigfish.com, and the unfortunately titled Fish Sniffer Online) are inundated with flashing animated gifs, a late '90s color scheme, frames, and outdated copyrights.
Hard to believe, but this site is ranked 5th in monthly fishing market share (2.44%)
Even fishing.com, which appropriately ranks #2 in Google for the term "fishing" (behind Wikipedia, of course), looks as it if has been caught in an Internet Time Warp:
Now, I'm not saying that fishing retail sites need to adopt a Threadless or an Etsy look, nor do the fishing information sites all need to incorporate a lime green color palette, over-sized bubbly-looking icons, and star bursts (see this web 2.0 style guide for examples of what I'm talking about)--after all, fishing is a rugged outdoorsy activity, so these sites shouldn't alienate their audience just to win a design award. The point is that it's simply quite obvious that these sites (and others in various other industries) have an opportunity to catch up to the new, user-centric Internet and reap the rewards.
Think about it: how beneficial would it be for your site if you plotted user-submitted fishing spots on a Google map? Or if you allowed your users to rate various fishing equipment? Or if there were real-time updates of various fishing tournament standings? Web 2.0 is not just about design but user inclusion, and I don't see why non-tech industries shouldn't be able to dive into the pool and provide their existing users and customer base with an improved, quality experience while at the same time attracting new visitors with great features and clean, contemporary design.
I'll close by saying that not all is lost for the fishing industry. Bounty Fishing, an online fishing tournament and community site, is attempting to bring Web 2.0 to the online fishing sphere, and so far it's looking pretty good. The site sports a slick design, an innovative fishing tournament structure, a members section that allows you to upload and share photos, write posts, and befriend others, and an interactive "Bounty Map" that displays prize winners and trophy catches. It's too early to tell at this point whether Bounty Fishing will be a success, but I'm impressed with the effort that was taken to try and catch up to the whole Web 2.0/user-generated era of the Internet. I only hope that other industries will take notice and follow suit, both for the benefit of their users and to de-uglify the web. ;)
EDIT FROM RAND: Full Disclosure on this piece - Guillaume Bouchard, one of our long-time blog contributors, works at NVI Solutions, the company that created and is marketing the BountyFishing website. NVI is also a client of SEOmoz. I've also added the Hitwise data below:
Of course this isn't all too surprising. You and Jane, after reviewing so many 2.0 sites over the last couple years, respectively for the Web 2.0 Awards, have experienced and exceeding high percentage of 2.0 to 1.0 sites. I think that this is one of the few cases where 1 actually is bigger than 2.
Certainly we'll see these numbers change, but there are some hurdles to overcome. Perhaps I should have saved this for a YOUmoz post but here's...
8 Challenges to Web 2.0The complexities of design, to some extent visual design, but especially scripting level (at least for customization) are far greater. Site management is considerably greater.Site/server security is considerably greater with opening up the site to UGC. In the overall scheme of things, this is all still very new, cutting edge... one needn't go too far within any industry, even cutting edge web/tech, and find animated gif spinning "email" envelopes being gobbled up by animated mailboxes, CSS "implementation" that involves nothing more than styling hyperlinks, or no CSS implementation at all, and plenty of discussions from old and new designers on nearly any webmaster forum aboutwhy tables should still be used for layout. Many of those most capable of undertaking these kinds of initiatives, the big fish (pun intended) in this case, may also have either legacy systems that may require considerable or complete overhaul and/or replacement, or legacy legal departments that may require considerable overhaul and/or replacement.The big fish might also have considerably more red tape... who manages, monitors, controls etc.... too many driving the boat to get any fishing done.And the flipside, those most willing to undertake this may simply have the least knowledge or resources to do so.And of course for this industry especially.... they'd all much rather be out on the lake ;)
Happy fishin'
>`/`/`/`/> ~
Fantastic points, identity! You really are an SEOmoz MVP.
No, Becs, you're an MVP... I'm happy just being a supporting character ;)
Nah, your comments are always incredibly valuable and insightful. We are always impressed with you here at the SEOmoz Headquarters. Keep up the great work!
Well I'm honored, what more could I say.
btw... do I send the check directly to you or to Rand? ;) cheers
(to me...) ;P
checks in the mail ;)
My company's background is in developing websites for the outdoor industry. I can tell you, getting fisherman and hunters to buy into Web 2.0 or just a simple redesign is not easy at all. Their idea of updating their site is to pay $200 to the kid down the street to do it. That's a generalization I know but it is a situation we've run into numerous times. The technology is largely foreign to them so they don't entirely understand the potential or why they should invest in it.
Great post, Rebecca. I completely agree in my experience with small business clients.
Speaking purely from a visual perspective (rather than more content-focused areas of Web 2.0 like UGC, mashups, etc), I am amazed at some of the sites my clients have told me they "like" prior to hiring me. As Linda said, it's the old-school sites that tend to show up higher in the SERPs for terms in their industries. When I show them some of the sites that I have in mind as sites to draw upon visually for their own site they are blown away. The Web 2.0 look just hasn't caught on in non-tech industries yet, let alone the potential for more exciting applications like user reviews, etc.
I had hoped to start a series of posts about it on my own blog to help initiate some of my newer clients, but as of yet have only gotten around to a brief synopsis of the aesthetic. You have spurred me on to write the second in the series tonight: my favorite and less favorite components of web 2.0. thanks!
Unfortunately fishing is just one of many industries that are plagued by dated design as you described. When researching competitors for our web redesign clients, especially in equipment manufacturing / B2B industrial type sites, "old school" is the first thing that comes to mind, and of course, ugly. It is very difficult to find good industry specific CSS designs to show the client as inspritation from the search engines. I usually spend hours browsing through the CSS galleries, as it's the old school sites often are the highest in the SERPs!
Don't forget that fishing is more popular in rural areas than in urban areas -- precisely the places that lack good broadband options. A 1999 design may serve these customers well, while a web 2.0 design may be completely unusable for a large segment of potential visitors.
According to one web page analyzer I ran, the bounty fishing website would take 275 seconds to fully load @ 33.6K, while fishing.com fully loads in 19 seconds @ 33.6K.
Good point, Selkirk. It's easy to overlook that lots of folks still have slow connections.
Very good point (that I was about to make) :) You'll often find that people will respond better to sites like these, that don't scare people off by looking too flash.
Old school folk like old school looking things, and sometimes that converts better. Wierd but true.
I guess it depends on how tightly the industries are tied with the technology, competitiveness and making money. Not every fishing site owner has the guts, understanding and money to invest in a website (then again, minor additions, such as user contributed stories, are affordable).
If you take the fishing industry as an example, you'll have to note that interest is declining by 4-5% per year, which means site owners have less desire to invest in it.
By the way. The link above shows the other industries not so tied up with Web 2.0 and their interest increase/decrease. Those on the rise are cheerleading, football (tackle), cross-country skiing, while those on the fall are bicycle riding, inline roller skating, skate boarding, target shooting and so on.
And really. While it'd be great for the industries, site owners and their visitors, to have rich and useful websites, using all or most of the Web 2.0 perks, I don't see them being interested in this movement or willing enough to enhance the experience to their visitors. They need to be aware of the problem to solve it, and there's a small amount of people (us), who will tell them the truth.
Which means a fishing site will only become customer-focused (contributed stories, ratings, blogs, feedback, forum, photos, maps, mashups, etc), when an Internet (not specifically a SEO or a web designer) professional gets to work. It is a matter of chance that such a pro would be hired by the aforementioned industries. Unless something bites them in the behind about it.
So, as much as you really want/expect everyone to go with Web 2.0, the reality is such that only desperately needing it will take it up.
In some ways I would expect that for the fishing industry along with a whole bunch of other industries... but what always amazes me is how poorly designed a lot of computer hardware stores are.
Sure - you've got your geeks who are great at coding but terrible at design - I can appreciate that, but at the same time, their target market are people who are online everyday. Surely they'd have to realise that having a framed website that looks like crap will impact negatively on their conversion rates.
This is just another example (of which I'm sure thousands more can be made) to re-iterate what an excellent point you've brought to everyone's attention Rebecca! Keep up the great posts!
part of it may also have to do with the rankings. Many businesses are afraid to change their site if they rank well. Because Google is so temperamental I've dealt with more than one site owner that didn't want to change for fear of a ranking drop.
I'm such a typical male. What was my eye first drawn to on the BountyFishing site? The "First Fluke" picture.
Pics of girls in bikinis (don't hate me, I'm just being honest) are way more attracting than any flashing animated gif used to be .
Wowsa.
On a side note Rebecca, do you mind me asking if you guys have done some work for the BountyFishing site? Something about the layout reminds me of the Drivl site, although I can't put my finger on it. Just curious is all :)
Well, you aren't the only one, but I imagine, looking around most fishing sites, that was probably just a fluke.
Even geographically speaking, websites outside of the US tend to have less web 2.0 features.
But I have to be honesy, my site is trying to work with user generate content such as blog posts, reviews, job postings but its taking so much energy to get users involved...
I haven't given up hopes since I think its mainly because the site is new (less then 6 months). Any tips are welcome.
We had nothing to do with the site design--Bounty Fishing is a client of one of our colleagues. :)
Great post. This is the reason I went "in-house" years ago. I ran my own business specializing in the golf industry, trying to sell SEO to courses, businesses, and resorts in 98, 99, etc. Clearly it was too early for most of them, but the real hard part was that all the decision makers were 60+, and "didn't need" the internet. There still, to this day, isn't a clear leader in the golf industry online. Think Google maps, pulling in Flickr images and Yelp reviews nationwide. TONS of fun stuff could be done. Thanks for reminding me why I got out of that vertical, and for giving me a place to rant. The SEOMOZ blog makes me feel better!
Dan
Hey. Thanks for all that great feedback for the site. We truly believe that the look and feel of the site should look like Nascar or something similar, although we were starting with a 2-3months of simply social community as the tournaments were not planned to launch before July 2nd, so we had to appeal a bit more to the community crowd. There is a nice ticker coming and the tournamet section will be very cool.
The site is an ongoing project and will have the main advantage of having people caring about it on every level of decision: the marketing team, the BountyFishing team, and the users.
It's rare that I got the chance to get such great teamwork with companies we work with, and I have to say that I don't believe this is going to be an easy task, but a very enjoyable one if we succeed to become the partypoker.net of fishing!
How about you guys? Do you fish? What is your biggest catch? ;)
My dream is to get a swordfish :D
I've never done it, but want to one day. We could have a Euro-SEO fishing expedition someday
I think one thing you see is that for the very big providers, like Cabela's and Bass Pro Shops, there have been no significant market entrants who can even touch their brand. A friend of mine's dad visited him in town, and had to make a pilgrimage to the local Cabela's. When a brand is very strong, they often have less motivation to go to what they would consider very edgy.
On the other hand, I've seen tourism providers try to go very Web 2.0, and I think those offer both some potential for the tourism sponsors themselves and for some of the mom-n-pops who drive a tourism industry. In Minnesota, lots of resorts are family owned, and most of your nature guides are one and two-person outfits somewhere in lake tourism country. For them, tourism sites like Minnesota's, which allow for user top-10 lists and the like (a la an Amazon list) may be good visibility and possibly even good for link-building and traffic, depending on if the lists allow for link-embedding.
At least it is somewhat hard to find sites that use ultra-flashy text these days... I remember back in the 90s they were all over the dang place.
I'm surprised that in all of this you don't seem to have considered the user. Do the people who visit fishing sites understand Web 2.whatever? Do they really want to contribute anything? (I venture to say that not many of them are going to share the location of their favorite fishing spot)
Do the people who visit fishing sites really all that interested in anything but getting the information and then getting out there and casting a line?
Perhaps they are ... but then again maybe they aren't and if they aren't then what's the point of going Web2.0? Why fix something that ain't broke?
But then again it could be that the older I get the more of a confirmed Luddite I become.
It doesn't have to be knock-you-in-the-face web 2.0. An important aspect of web 2.0 is focusing on user experience, and I was just saying that many of these older, cluttered sites seem to focus more on displaying crammed content than on considering usability. Also, some users may not want to contribute, but others might, and those that don't can still benefit and enjoy what their fellow anglers' input is.
Rebecca, great points.
I fully agree...it's all about user experience. There are all levels of interactivity that can be incorporated into Web 2.0 sites, from basic to advanced, and even some simple interactivity upgrades would help improve user experience. Regarding the cramming, I also agree...these sites need to improve visually, (because that is a big part of the user experience) and at a minimum, simplify the layout to make things easier to read.
As Rebecca noted, and perhaps another part of the challenge, is there are many elements to web 2.0... an nearly everyone has a slightly different perspective on it.
But you are correct that many in this specific audience will have no desire to reveal their favorite spots. But how great would it be to have a "The One That Got Away" with the community voting on the best story each month?!
Reality is, I have to imagine that these "full-blown" web 2.0 (the on-steroids versions) sites will always be the minority of sites... factor in the needed attention from the audience at a level that keeps it rewarding for the community and it will be pretty hard to maintain that if mosts sites were trying to provide that. How many SEOmoz could the SEO industry support?
I think the heads-up here that Rebecca may be hitting on (consciously or otherwise) is like everything else in business and the web... how important it is to get in early, grab your corner of the market, even more so in an industry like this where the proportion of community focused sites may be even smaller.
"how important it is to get in early, grab your corner of the market"
Really well said, identity. There are still so many opportunities out there for web 2.0 sites (on steroids or not) in niche markets that it's almost a free-for-all right now...building a brand that people in your niche recognize right now could pay huge dividends in the long and even not-so-long run.
Some of it may not be about recognizing Web 2.0 so much as it's about 'this site looks like other sites I shop at and know.'
I certainly agree with posters who say that lots of shoppers in a market like fishing would rather be on the lake, but we'd be out-of-touch with the users if wesaid that they themselves were luddite. Fishing itself is not unlike being a gadgethead with the shiny digital camera and the glossy cell phones and etc. Your boat, your reel, your electronic fishfinder... all just different techno-gadgets. And many of these people are immersed in the work technology world.
Even 'conservative' web sites (from a design/tech/update perspective), whether in commerce or in big corporations, eventually get the 'keeping up with...' bug compared to other web sites people use and are familiar with.
Excellent post and dead on Rebecca. The main point I took away from this was the whole move toward being more "user-centric"...usability doesn't always get top billing when someone is working on marketing a site, but it really needs to be a part of the overall strategy. Otherwise you might get people to the site, but they're going to head out pretty quickly.
Web 2.0 *style* only appeals to a certain portion of the web populace. If your audience is over 40 and lives in the midwest, they don't trust anyone under 30 who lives on the coast, and a web2.0 look clearly demarcates your site as under 30 driven.
Fishing or nascar, good-ole-boys don't want slick. jayski is no idiot. As counterintuitive as it may seem, for some audiences a 2.0 feel actually depersonalizes a site (and detracts from the very 2.0ish concept of genuine community) - an ugly site is one that has to be run by someone who cares about the content of the site, not by a webbywebster. For this audience, 2.0 look/feel could actually decrease trust.... just like it increases trust for other audiences.
Thanks, Naoise, I'm now blind from following that link.
Point taken though.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - that site is a massively big deal... I think ESPN hosts it for him. It sure as hell doesn't appeal to likes of us visually, but when you visited, I bet you didn't feel like you were being sold something by someone who was out to make a profit ;)
I completely agree that a full-blown web 2.0 -styled site will not work for every community. But I don't think that 1999 designs are going to work forever either.
Just because those kinds of sites are working now doesn't mean that the niche markets involved won't develop an appetite for more contemporary design and interface in the next couple of years (or even months)? Who's to say those audiences wouldn't prefer a more web 2.0-ish site if it were offered to them? Maybe they're just used to the 1999 look because there aren't any better alternatives...
Certain things like layouts that give text room to breathe and a lack of flashing GIFs are probably always going to be in style.
I didn't feel anything other than a searing pain in my retinae. But it all makes sense hearing that ESPN hosts it, ESPN.com is the most frenetic, ADD-style overdesigned mess ever put online (and I say this as someone who has, in fact, seen MySpace).
I know these sites are popular and effective, despite the fact that I don't personally like the design or even "get" the appeal of their content. Not unlike American politics: I know the Republican party is popular and their campaign is effective, despite the fact that I don't personally like the politics or even "get" (not even remotely) the appeal of their content. Still a nice big market, nonetheless.
Great call on ESPN. The level of ad saturation and intrusive streaming video has reached a new extreme this Spring.
I have a post about ESPN that I've been working on (meaning neglecting to finish) for a few weeks now. That site horrifies me.
Naoise,
It's important to remember that Web 2.0 isn't a style, it's a mode of designing sites that are more interactive, have better functionality, and are dynamic (vs. the static sites of the 90's).
Also, I'd like to point out that there are an unlimited number of design options in a Web 2.0 world, not just glassy effects and candy stripes. :) It's always possible to create a design that applies to a specific audience, including anglers. Rebecca's right, there really is no excuse for poorly designed or outdated sites, even if they were "cool" in the 90's. I've never seen a site that people didn't like better after an appropriate design upgrade.
BTW....Great post, Rebecca.
2.0 means a lot of things without meaning anything in particular, that's why I tried to clearly state that I was referring to 2.0 style in my post.
For certain industries I think adding some 2.0 functionality to a 1.0 design is the money in the bank decision.
I think the trigger of trust when an audience member first views a website varies widely depending on the demographics of that audience. The web2.0 look and feel triggers trust in the demographic I exist in, and that most of us here do, but it can actually do the opposite for many other audiences.
I've seen ugly pages convert better than slick pages too many times to fall into the redesign everything camp.
So, design wise 2.0 style doesn't always positively impact things. Functionality wise, when done well, I can't see it being anything but positive.
I agree with you about functionality first. I think design can have a huge impact, but it has be be hand-in-hand with funtionality...it can't be "design for design's sake" - it has to be appropriate for the target audience. Frank Lloyd Wright has a great quote I often refer to:
Like you said, an improved user experience through Web 2.0 technology is a good thing. I was more pointing out that a LOT of people say, "make my site look Web 2.0". I don't think that's what Rebecca was saying - I think she was saying that some sites just plain need an upgrade and need to get with the times.
I agree with you there, but in my experience that happens when the new design wasn't appropriate for the target audience, and/or wasn't functional. If the right demographic research is done, and a design is created that fits the target audience, then a design upgrade can have a big impact on sales, conversions, etc. I've seen a lot of people shy away from design upgrades because they've had a bad experience with some clueless designer in the past who created a sparkly new design that wasn't right for the target audience, and/or didn't work. It doesn't have to be that way though. :)
Brilliant quote WebGeek!
Oh so true.
All design, all SEO, all marketing-- all everything, must first and foremost, start and be founded on an understanding of the user, the target audience, and their needs and problems... and that's something that I think even Frank would agree with.
Thanks!
I completely agree - well said! :)
Web 2.0 just means community interaction helping grow the site.
...oh, and making everything look glassy and mac-esque
You're right about that. I know that for certain kinds of information I'm more likely to find what I want on a "my web page" kind of hobby site (like this one https://www.sentex.net/~mwandel/index.html) which of course usually has an unsophisticated look. Recently I've started using snap for this kind of search for that very reason. Try to find that kind of stuff on a web 2.0 site.
The point is different audiences, looking for different content will be attracted to different kinds of site designs.