Spine3D's Website Copycat

[EddieLeon]

what you just said makes me wonder if it would be worth having more than 1 version of a site...1 for the old fogies that dont like seeing glamor and glitz and 1 for those that expect it.

 

It's a good idea to have 2 versions, but it could be confusing. How about a "microsite". This could be a flashy portfolio that pops up.

[Brian Smith]

Why would you do that? Web sites are for the user to get in and get out with what need, all the rest is just ego for the owner of the site.

 

Websites are one of the most important tools you have available to sell your services. So what I'm saying is send different web addresses to different people...even if it requires two sets of business cards, brochures, etc....that stuff is pocket change. Our clients are EXTREMELY varied in their tastes. Half of them would be turned off on things that would excite the other half...and vice versa. Why wouldn't you want to have two sites is what I'm thinking. None of them would ever know the other version existed.

[innerdream]

Websites are one of the most important tools you have available to sell your services. So what I'm saying is send different web addresses to different people...even if it requires two sets of business cards, brochures, etc....that stuff is pocket change. Our clients are EXTREMELY varied in their tastes. Half of them would be turned off on things that would excite the other half...and vice versa. Why wouldn't you want to have two sites is what I'm thinking. None of them would ever know the other version existed.

 

You would be better off having a flashy video download than two web sites. If you want an example in how a web site should work take a look at the heavy hitters, Apple Computer's for example is simple elegant and above all functions great. As a former web designer I can tell you less is more. I think it's about branding a single idea not multiple ideas e.g. Spine3d - that is their brand.

Edited October 24, 2008 by innerdream

[EddieLeon]

Our clients are EXTREMELY varied in their tastes. Half of them would be turned off on things that would excite the other half...and vice versa. Why wouldn't you want to have two sites is what I'm thinking. None of them would ever know the other version existed.

 

I agree. Different strokes for different folks. The only technical problem with this idea is that we would end up with at least 10 different websites(Arch., Developer, R.E. Agency, Commercial Agency, Interior Designer, Broker, Engineer, etc.). It might be difficult to manage so many (unless you had some heavy duty programming and backend).

 

Our current solution is to customize materials for specific clients when they inquire.

 

I think it's about branding a single idea not multiple ideas...

 

I agree that managing different brands is a nightmare and it's inefficient. I kinda tried that already with RenderUp and it was confusing. In that case, I was targeting a lower price point market. It ended up distracting time and resources from the brand that we had that was already working.

 

In this case though, I think Brian is referring to different sites in terms of their composition, navigation, portfolio, etc. The brand, logo and colors would remain the same.

[brianzajac]

I agree. Different strokes for different folks. The only technical problem with this idea is that we would end up with at least 10 different websites(Arch., Developer, R.E. Agency, Commercial Agency, Interior Designer, Broker, Engineer, etc.). It might be difficult to manage so many (unless you had some heavy duty programming and backend).

 

Our current solution is to customize materials for specific clients when they inquire.

 

...and...

 

 

In this case though, I think Brian is referring to different sites in terms of their composition, navigation, portfolio, etc. The brand, logo and colors would remain the same.

 

Overall, this is the best idea when you have many different categories that can wrap into "3D Architectural Visualization". However, if your target market is vastly different, making other micro/regular sites are a good way to go and can compliment each other. For example, our production company is 3DAS (similar to Spine's services). But, our training and consulting goes with 3DATS. Dividing the two has been very beneficial since the target audience is totally different (3DAS - architects/developers, 3DATS - students/architects/universities).

 

On a promotion/marketing side (you could call these micro-based with lots of traffic), the social networks have done most of the technical work for us. Video-based sites, MySpace, Squidoo, press releases, and other sites compliment the main site. So, in the case of Spine, having one major site as a catch-all is good as long as their audience is going to the right web page on their site.

[kbotnen]

Back then, the source code had to be 90% identical.

 

Use it as a rule-of-thumb

 

With many of todays modern sites being running common dynamic php, asp, etc frameworks I think that 90% match will be more common that not.

 

For an typical Joomla/Mambo/Wordpress/VBulletin/phpBB/Nuke/etc site the only code that will differ is the css-name of the imagelinks describing the logo and background image, and even those will often all be labeled logo.png and backgr.png.

 

To be sure no one is ripping you off, design with frames, animated gifs, horrible green theme and midi files playing in the background

 

-K-