You see all these bigger companies who only just discovered “The Internet” a few years ago and have created (yet another) department within their crazy office-structure to deal with anything that’s _supposed_ to be “hip and trendy”.

And this in essence alone creates two problems that make for Complication Galore.

For one, they’re big companies.
Any self-respecting big company has an elaborated style-guide in which they are not only both restrained themselves but also restraining the hired agency in developing anything that’s not “5 years ago”. Web 2.something anyone?

Logos are to be used in exactly the dimensions stated. Colors are defined (and restricted) as is the combination of them, to what extend and in what context. Shapes and layouts must conform the way they were defined when they sat together the first time to make the fourty page booklet which defines their “style”.

Webdesigns change. Bigger, bolder, spacier. You have to be able to see webpages without wearing the 2001 nerdy internet-glasses. Not with the trusty styleguide they don’t. If it’s not in the book you will find yourself redesigning the pages until they match something they already got.

Web 2.0 functionality then? Not a chance. Remember, it’s about looks. The budget is blown on YouTube movies (eventually not shown on YouTube as it defies the brand of the company) and Virals (not the usual email ones, because that conflicts with office politics and undermines integrity of the product).

Second (mm, I was sure you have spotted more already) problem you wonder?
Remember that “e-department”? I’m not kidding by the way; that’s the commonly used ‘trendy name’ for them. Anyway, the fact of the matter is they got bugger all to say within the big office. They’re just there to “communicate” with the agency executing “their” project. If you want something “approved” it has to be shown to 8 people in just as many department who are sort of not sure what they’re approving.

(Just like you are unsure of what the hell you’re doing things for by the time you get a reply)

Result being concepts take weeks to be approved before things can actually be built. Just to be adjusted along the way. And of course, afterwards.

How is that for trying to keep up the pretence of being a hip, dynamic, going with it, young, fresh company. Well, I guess with all the constant changes to the original idea “dynamic” still goes.

Only thing a web-agency is left to do is producing the project the best they can conforming the best they can to match the standards. Making sure the whole thing doesn’t get “killed” at the very end. Wait, conforming? Standards? Where is the creativity gone ..

Solutions then? I’m not sure I can come up with anything else but … “don’t”

There’s very few well known brands out there that get “the job done”. But this is by going on a limb and trying ’something new’. And that’s taking a risk.

It either has to be something fun, shocking, relaxing .. and having very little to do with the brand/company itself; or something really useful.

The latter being reserved for the real companies who do know what the public wants on “the net” and actually have the knowhow and flexibility to make that work, big companies are left by the first one.

And yes, either the public receives it as intended (fun, shoc.. etc.) and just get a glimpse of the brand/product because of the URI or the small logo hidden inside. Or they dislike it.

Both are exposure. Both get your name “in the head”. Something being good gets sent through. Generating a viral effect; something bad works just the same, very bad works even better.

At the end of the day, I’ve yet to meet the first person that doesn’t buy a razor because they made a bad website.