Good content is like a Pixar film. Pixar films fall into the "You Have to be a Jerk to Not Like These Movies" category. (see also: Wallace & Gromit.) Other studios think that Pixar's success at the box office and among fans and critics has to do with the technology: hence, the slew of CG animated movies that have all but killed 2D, hand-drawn cartoons. But why does Pixar score big at the box office while movies like Everyone's Hero, The Ant Bully, and Monster House debut to numbers ranging from so-so to horrible?
Pixar films succeed not because they seek out A-list actors to voice the characters, or because they rely on the technology to sell the movie for them. They succeed because they're all extremely well written. The story is what sells the movie, and fans and critics alike have begun to associate the name Pixar with high-quality content. You can't emulate that sort of positive branding overnight, not with a Madagascar or a Robots or a Shrek. (and yes, I threw Shrek in there. I hate that movie.)
Pixar's content is incredible(s)
Which brings me back to the Web. If you consistently serve up good content, people will start to associate the consistency of high quality to your name brand. Getting there's the hard part. Once you're up there, it's easier to maintain (Cars, for example, didn't do as well as the other Pixar films but was still successful at the box office and among critics).
The only time you can overshadow content is by offering some groundbreaking feature that can serve as a substitute. Even then, however, it's only a matter of time before someone else comes along and dethrones you with the same awesome feature paired with better content. Wing Commander and The Matrix both featured bullet time and came out about twenty days apart, but one of them paired the technology with better content. I'll let you figure out which one...
Take a page out of Pixar's book and realize that while the bells and whistles can certainly boost audience appeal, it's the content that will keep them coming back.
Postscript: Looks like Tom Schmitz also likes to compare good content to quality entertainment.
The only time you can overshadow content is by offering some groundbreaking feature that can serve as a substitute. Even then, however, it's only a matter of time before someone else comes along and dethrones you with the same awesome feature paired with better content. Wing Commander and The Matrix both featured bullet time and came out about twenty days apart, but one of them paired the technology with better content. I'll let you figure out which one...
Take a page out of Pixar's book and realize that while the bells and whistles can certainly boost audience appeal, it's the content that will keep them coming back.
Postscript: Looks like Tom Schmitz also likes to compare good content to quality entertainment.
Thank you for the link Rebecca!
I thought it was a great write up, and it does pertain to what I just wrote.
I think one of the problems with coming up with good content is that people are disconnected from their customers and their wants and/or needs. There are numerous ways to encourage customer feedback which, when used properly, can help one better understand what one's customers wants. For instance, a feedback button is easy enough to add to a website. Also, if one sends out a newsletter one can use their newsletter to engage one's customers and solicit their ideas and suggestions for the site. There are other ways also. The point is that coming up with quality content is often related to how well one knows and understands the needs and/or wants of their customers. Of course, one has to be able to (sometimes creatively) meet those needs also.
All the best,
Moshe
I'm glad that somebody agrees with me that Shrek isn't half as good as any Pixar film. It's so true!
(Whoa, my new FireFox beta underlines misspelled words! Nice!)
Hey, same here! I've always felt I was in the Shrek-hating minority.
Using your Pixar analogy, I think you can also make a case for producing content that appeals to more than one audience segment. Pixar has the goofy stuff that kids love, but they also have the witty dialogue and interesting plot that appeals to adults.
Yes, that's also a very good point. Cater to your core audience but don't alienate the long tail, either.
I think most things on the web can be better refined by thinking about the audience. I typically try and adhere to three primary questions before starting any project: what does the audience want, what does the audience expect, and what do we want the audience to want? If you’re addressing these issues within all elements, then and only then are you truly doing a service to your product, and most importantly, your audience!
I recently wrote a post on “What do you believe is the role of design?” where I address the same attributes.
I also thank you for not writing about Google buying YouTube!!
Nice, concise post. I think it's easy to overlook what the design's role should be and instead focus on all the cool functions you want to implement.
Rebecca - I think you're suggesting that the quality of the story, the dialogue and the plot twists are what make Pixar's films stand out. How does that relate to website content - does it mean better tools or better writing or more creativity or a better GUI?
Write something compelling. Write for your audience. Don't write for yourself. The biggest problem I hear with companies struggling to build a successful website is that they offer what they think is good and don't keep the audience in mind. While other movies seem to think that fart jokes and cuddly characters = an instant hit with the kids, Pixar gives their audience more credit than that. They know that moviegoers are smart, and they reward them with smart dialogue and compelling storylines. Likewise, web users shouldn't be taken for granted. They should be served good content that they'll value and want more of.
Creating Passionate Users to the rescue!. Again.
Excellent analogy. I really enjoyed this post, nice job.
Thank you for not writing about Google buying You Tube.
I guess my Google Reader is a little behind, b/c Fluxx did!
Hey, we delayed 36 hours or so just to let it sink in.
Yes! That is a perfect anology for what makes sucessfull websites sucessfull (well, aside from a Tom Hanks analogy). Movies make good social milemarkers, since everyone can relate for the most part. But having good content, above EVERYTHING ELSE on a website, will make it sucessfull.
I'm glad you're pro-movie analogy like I am (even if you seem to gravitate to your stock Tom Hanks comparison).