Things This Movie Web Site Does Wrong
I'd note at least four things:
1. The title of the movie, "the boys," is very hard to "own" on Google. The words are just too common (try searching on "the boys" in Google). Pick a title that is non-generic enough that you have a shot at appearing on the first page of Google results. ("Burma VJ," a doc from this year's Sundance Film Festival, is a good example.)
2. Site is built entirely in Flash, so there is no way to link to a specific part of it. Sites in Flash are close to invisible when it comes to search engines. There's also no way for bloggers or other Web sites to easily "grab" text, like the movie synopsis, when they want to write about it on their site.
3. There's no info whatsoever on where I can see the film (at festivals or in theaters).
4. No way for me to give them my e-mail so I can be notified when the DVD goes on sale.
What else can we learning, using this as a case study?
Labels: Disney, documentaries, marketing, Sherman Brothers, the boys
10 Comments:
1. NO VIDEO.
2. Design looks like it's from 1997; type awful. Somebody had a cousin who "could do websites" and paid him $750 all-in.
3. The website plays music. Don't care that the mute button is there. Everybody hates that. Music adds nothing.
4. "Gallery" doesn't seem it's like from the film--maybe it is--but it could be any old Disney stock imagery. Tells me nothing.
5. Ben Stiller is a producer? THE Ben Stiller? Don't know because his link is dead.
Even though the following link is for bands, the filmmakers could use this guide to leveraging social media as a point of departure:
http://minneapolisfuckingrocks.blogspot.com/2009/04/advice-for-bands-social-media-guide.html
By Pliny, at 11:25 AM
No Facebook page.
No Twitter feed.
Could use a YouTube page filled with 1 min clips from the movie.
No digital press kit to download (PDF)
By Cunningham, at 11:58 AM
Some more reasons why this is a bad idea. I wrote that post over a year ago, and it seems like very little has changed.
But also, it's ugly and feels cheap. I agree with Alban about the Login link. Plus, it's highlighted. Why?
And let's not forget your old point about films hiding their publicity info behind publicists and firewalls.
By Brian Chirls, at 10:06 PM
It lost my attention with the low resolution pictures in the intro. By the time the actual page loaded, I was ready to leave it. My (and the average) attention span is only 20 seconds long, if that. Don't waste it!
By Chae, at 2:37 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.
By Kendall, at 5:23 PM
and of course flash is a no go for mobile phones.
By Unknown, at 4:52 PM
pixelized photos too.
By mikehedge, at 11:37 PM
How should you design your movie Web site, if not in Flash? What's best?
By Jane Kelly Kosek, at 9:00 PM
Intro: Starts with low-res movie posters of Disney Movies. Even if they have permission, they feel stolen--so I'm immediately wondering if this is a student film or no-budget personal project. And Auto-play music is never good.
Main page: Something about the images of the brothers feels like they are recent pictures made to look old-fashioned. Maybe because they are cut out and placed over the sheet music background? The melodramatic music & sad faces is too much. There's just this element of cheese to the design--it feels amateur.
Story: Pops up in a box on the same page. Sounds interesting, but I'm also wondering if it's a mockumentary.
Filmmakers: Still can't shake that mockumentary feeling. The one name I recognize is a dead link.
Gallery: Ok, now at least I believe that the Sherman Brothers existed, and that this is probably a true story.
Login: Why?
Contact: Is this who we should contact about where the TRAILER is? Ok, there is a different photo on the background that at least feels like it's from the past.
I still don't know if the film actually exists.
By Rich Stack, at 10:01 AM
nike shox torch
nike shox r4
nike tennis shoes
nike discount shoes
nike shox shoes
nike free shoes
nike womens shoes
discount nike shoes
By Anonymous, at 2:00 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home