Is the personal site dead?
- Started
- Last post
- 49 Responses
- georgesIII0
really?
come on people stop beeing lazy,
we all need a personal folio
- Atkinson0
I've been talking to a few artists and designers in the UK about this - I'm glad this post came up. Everybody I've spoken to rates Flickr highest, then FB and Twitter, then their own site.
I like having my own site, but would sooner make my site into a four section thing: CV, Flickr portfolio, Twitter feed and FB page. Just not found a nice way round that yet.
Frames?
hoho
- ETM0
Facebook is just another tool in the toolbox. Sure, maybe there is a lot of nails out there that need hammering, so everyone wants to use the hammer right now. Does that mean your should throw away the rest of your tools and hope the hammer does everything you need? Nah, next week the pipes may leak and you discover you need a wrench instead.
- ...good scotch.ETM
- great Scotch!!lambsy
- did i stumble into a plumbing forum?iCanHasQBN
- Meeklo0
excellent thread btw
- Meeklo0
I think it's not entirely dead, but if you are working with the big clients agency you have probably been in the situation of putting the "microsite" project on the side and instead develop a "facebook page".
I believe this to be a phase, while FB is popular, a year maybe 2 from now, some other site will take its place and FB will become lame and obsolete just like myspace is now.
In the meantime, its fun to see the possibilities FB offers, and the immense feedback you get from its users.
- For whatever reason, FB seems to have a lot more resilience than MS did.Continuity
- in what context you mean? graphically?Meeklo
- In terms of audience and overall relevance.Continuity
- Peter0
Personal sites, dudes, not corporate ones.
I think everyone here see the many points that gets everyone on facebook (and in a way, blogs too) instead of going through the trouble of making a personal site. And notifying everyone you had one.
But aren't they personal?
Geocities evolved into Myspace and the likes.
Myspace (and the likes) eased up the part of letting friends/people follow you. And that evolved into Facebook. Sure, you can't really tweak the look that much as Geocities (and then (but less so) Myspace. But the whole purpose of having those pages are pretty much the same. And 15 years later just as superficial.However, because ones personal "touch" designwise dimmed doesn't mean those pages aren't personal any more:
Design might distinguish your site a bit but thoughts and ramblings like these are unique (well, not this rambling) and personal to oneself. Who cares about the bgcolor they're typed on besides us?
- had - have
...and a shitload of other misses. My excuse is that it is 5:53 am and I'm still up.Peter - They are personal in terms of content, not so much in design, that's why myspace went down, too much pollutionMeeklo
- I dont want to sound like a nazi, but I think I just did hahaMeeklo
- but I agree btwMeeklo
- hear hearBattleAxe
- had - have
- identity0
we're all going to die eventually
- Continuity0
^^
It's all about perceptions, much as many people don't have the same contacts on FB as they do on LinkedIn. They perceive FB as being recreational, and LinkedIn to be strictly professional.
- lambsy0
most of the clients i've dealt with said they would be embarrassed to have a facebook page for their business.
they have also suggested that having to manage comments and "business friends" and updates is very juvenile and ultimately hurts your image if it's not constantly updated.
- boobs0
But sticking out is what gets one noticed in the marketplace.
- And sticking out is platform independent, IMHO. No matter what platform you use, if the idea isn't good, you're dead in the water.Continuity
- ... water.Continuity
- Continuity0
This debate of social networking vs traditional website vs campaign microsite, et cetera, really is kind of moot.
It all comes down to the client's marketing objectives; our responsibilities as designers, ADs and concepters is to work with the strategy people and clients to come up with the best solutions, based on those objectives.
No one platform will supplant the others for the forseeable future; it just means we have more channels at our disposal to offer to clients.
- yep, I find myself talking about
'new media' marketing objectives more than anything.doesnotexist - theres nothing you can do on a website that you cant do on FB. om the other hand FB has infinite additional possibilitiesfxone
- FB can't be themed or skinned to a companies IDBattleAxe
- yep, I find myself talking about
- boobs0
Yeah, I think Facebook and Twitter are good, in large measure for drawing more traffic to the website. Yeah, I can see a DJ not needing a website, or a local band. They can do a lot with Twitter and FB. And they're only really marketing to their friends and acquaintances anyway.
But, you know, would you hire an architect off what he had on Facebook? Would you hire an accountant because of his tweets? I mean, in a lot of fields, one has to eventually show the reality of one's training, background, experience. Web is a good platform for that.
I might spend $1.50 on a bottle of flavored water off something shown on Facebook, but I doubt I'd contract a $20k addition on my house with someone who didn't have a website.
- Kiggen0
on a corporate level they will always need a website.
- fxone0
there seem to be a trend on this board of web designers being in complete denial when challenged with the realities of evolving technology, ie. Flash, FB vs. website etc.
- BattleAxe0
so who needs a website