Web Canneries

Original photographies by SXC members alaasafei and solomon05.

A couple of friends and I were debating business yesterday and stumbled across a interesting topic: "If you're selling web design, what would be the packages, and what price would you put on each?" I felt from the start this isn't a good approach to the subject and questioned it: "But isn't one actually selling services?" Indeed he is! But what if his target audience doesn't understand "services" and rather looks for "priced packages"?

I'm surprised to find out that there are still people who chose their web agency by looking at the price. I choose carrots by comparing the price… There's nothing essetially different when comparing fresh carrots. Things are obviously different in web. First and foremost: packages!? In the past four years since I'm in this business I've learned that we're not selling packages. I actually find the package-sales approach wrong and mediocre! Some time ago, when I was in highschool, I knew a few web agencies who had pricing on their website. It was silly back then, but it's even worse now for a web agency to have this on their website:

• Website with 5 static pages and 20 images - €100
• Website with 15 static pages, 50 images and a contact form - €200
• Website with any presentational pages and a forum - €350
• Corporate website - €1000
• E-Commerce website - €2000

I mean, ... really? Why don't you add "Carrots – €2 per kilo"? This reminds me of a scene in a movie, I can't remember which, but it was something like this: "Hey, listen, Angie, you're hired to wash the toilets and cleanup the mess 4 hours a day!", "Yeah, but I finished everything in 2 hours, mrs. Franklin! You can check it if you want!", "I don't care! You did 2 hours, I'm paying 2 hours! If you had done it in 4 hours, I would have paid 4 hours!". Now, we all know that if she had spent 8 hours, she would have been paid 4… Now image some guy wants a website for his company… And he pays for the 15 pages package, but you solve his problem in just 10, and also add a cherry on top. And he goes mad, because you robbing him!

A web agency is not a cannery. I feel sorry for the clients of those people who produce 60 websites a month, earning a horde of money for their packages, but when it comes down to it, those websites score under 100 visitors a monthbarely have goals, we're not even talking about them meeting any. That's because nobody cared what's that website supposed to achieve… They just made it. Fast, as much as paid for, and on time—just like an overdose when all you needed is a Valium pill.

Clients come to web agencies because they have problems they want solved. Web agencies are like hospitals… Your business is ill because it has a problem about the online presence. Web agencies are doctors who can fix that, but the pacient must undergo a series of tests, to identify the disease in order to cure it. This process is nowhere near streamline production.

Will people ever be smart enough to think like that? Most people already are. We're living in a world where the Internet has raised the bar on awarness and education. Now we also need web agencies to understand the job they're actually supposed to do. Most web canneries still work for the people who think they know what they need and shop for website like they shop for tuna fish. For the majority of them, there's agencies like Grapefruit, agencies like the ones I like to work for.

YouTube: Can it be more rellevant?

Surprisingly for me I've tubed quite a lot in the past couple of weeks. I've grown my list of subscriptions from 2 to over 20 channels, mainly in the Comedy section. And even so, I sometimes find myself looking for more content, and not just any content more content relevant to me.

Issue: Irrelevant video responses

Lately there's this ugly trend on YouTube when people with low ratings post their video as a response to a more popular video, without even thinking of whether their video is relevant as a response to the other video. Because of this, I rarely even check the video responses. Usually, I'm just setting with the relevant picks on the sidebar, or, if I feel aventureous on a strager's channel, I pick more from the same channel.

I was watching X Factor 4, ep 2, John for like the hundredth time and greedy for more similar content, I glanced at the video responses. I didn't check them all out, there was just one thumbnail kinda sticking out: Leaked halo3 footage. For such a title, the thumnail was most irrelevant. For such a video, the title was most irrelevant. Anyway, I clicked it and it proved to be as irrelevant as it signaled. (The video is the childish "I-ll-put-a-loud-scream-when-it-s-silence- and-you-re-most-focused" kind of scary video.)

Proposed solution: Ability to rate video responses or mark them as spam, just like comments

Since we now have comment rating, it would be nice to also have video response rating. Video response is an awesome feature as long as it stays relevant, and video response that is irrelevant should be marked so, just like irrelevant or spam comments.

When someone watches a video response to another video, they should be able to rate the response. This has nothing to do with the video rating itself, but rather expresses if the video response is accurate and whether it is in tone with the video it responds to. I made a little sketch of how the interface would be like, you can view it on ImageShack.

With this system in place, you could actually see the response rating before ever going to the video, as in this little sketch.

More improvement ideas to come! Stay tuned!