Spot the difference: mobile phone websites
Browsing a range of mobile phone websites, I was struck by the incredible similarities of the way different phones are showcased.
Yes there are microsites and flash animations and loads of 360 degree spinning devices, but at their heart, they look the same.
How did we get to this? And what does it truly take – not just to look different – but to be different?
Love to get your thoughts and ideas.
Spot the difference
View more presentations from madebymany.
See also:
- No similar posts
About the author
Justin is a digital thinker and strategist deeply suspicious of people who call themselves "digital strategists". Passionate about good coffee and discussing ideas, preferably together.
-
Comments (11)
-
Responses (0)
They’re all done by Ad agencies, that’s why they’re crap.
You can almost feel the soft hand of the ‘account director’ guiding the brand through the troubled waters. And by ‘troubled waters’ I mean ‘destroying innovative work because they’re cowards and client lapdogs’
Zorro
October 31, 2009
at 1:46 pm
Is that true Zorro? You sound angry…
Tim Malbon
November 1, 2009
at 11:40 pm
If I were designing or concepting these sites, especially in the case of touchscreen phones, I would work hard to simulate the interactive experience of using the phone itself, whether it be multitouch, pinching, swiping, etc….so a user can experience firsthand what it feels like….not just more angles and 360 degree swoop-arounds.
Also, simulate for me how I can use the device to share with friends and family, whether it’s photos, video, or just sms or tweets….open up peoples imaginations as to what they can use the phone for and, if you’re really smart, make it fun, entertaining….possibly even a game!
My two-cents….
Toby Past
October 31, 2009
at 2:36 pm
Interesting Toby. I have seen some efforts to simulate the ‘phone experience’ online, however generally they come off just as badly. I’m not convinced that the web is great as a simulation environment for actual products. But it is at least an alternative to the ’sameness’ you see here (it seems to be the same with car ads too). Maybe I’m too cynical and these bland efforts to ‘hero’ devices are exactly what people want (ie to feed an aspiration). And I know these products are becoming increasingly commoditised, but if ‘marketing’ (urrgh) fails to help differentiate a product, it’s failed, hasn’t it?
Justin McMurray
November 2, 2009
at 10:01 am
Yes, Zorro has been burnt at the stove of advertising….
But regardless, I still have a point, Ad agencies take it up the chocolate starfish.
Zorro
November 2, 2009
at 4:06 pm
I reckon handsets mobile just find it difficult to forget. I mean forget what they were a few years ago, when smartphones (and generically all the top line mobiles) were made for the tech-savvy (yes, we can call them geeks) group. What do you need to catch their attention? Almost nothing: simple image of the product (design was not really important – http://www.bluejackq.com/ProductImages2/nokia-9110.jpg ), a few top features and a clear link to the tech specifications.
Nowadays the tech savvy group doesn’t represent 95% of their buyers anymore, but handsets producers are still finding it difficult to open their minds and engage the rest of the market with experience-based promotion pages (at least on their websites – ATL is probably doing better). And if I may say, female target is definitely the forgotten one: when companies will stop presenting their products with specifications, and will include some real life-borrowed emotions or experiences, those slides will hopefully change.
Niccolo
November 9, 2009
at 11:57 am
Very interesting thinking Niccolo…. the idea that while products don’t change that much, the audience does… and somehow the marketing has become stuck with the product, not the new buyers with their different needs/motivations.
Justin McMurray
November 18, 2009
at 4:08 pm
Too many planners and strategists these days promising clients a magic forumla to success eg, ‘tick these boxes and your campaign with produce xyz results’, – rather than letting people’s instinct for what is visually good, entertaining or useful to be the judge.
Terry Yaki
November 12, 2009
at 9:35 am
How un-inspiring! Of course there are going to be similarities, at the end of the day its a phone they are selling, you must show the product which is the recoignisable factor in each design and as they are aimed at a mass commercial audience there is the web interface that must be accesible and universally standardised to a certain extent.
Have we got to a stage in web design where there are standard ways to appeal to the mass markets or are we suffering from a real lack of creative freedom and innovation?
I found this quite interesting, slow but visually engaging: http://www.nokia.com/urgent-redirects-folder/emailwithease
@stephen_iuvo
November 13, 2009
at 10:53 am
I feel that the web currently has been pushed to it’s limits in terms of what can be portrayed for mobile phones. mobile phones have their own technology such as touchscreens etc. which can not be easily simulated on general computer hardware. The differentiation comes in the marketing phase which is where lifestyle choices are attributed to the model of phone from then on in the consumer wants the internet to provide information on the phone’s tech specs and just what it looks like. In store differentiation and experiential marketing play a more important role in engaging the consumer.
Dave Edwards
November 17, 2009
at 4:19 pm
Agree with this Dave. Comparing individual mobile sites is a bit unfair when actually there are many brand touch-points at various times/places. And for something so tactile as a mobile phone, the real world (retail, experience, unboxing) moments will possibly be more important. That leaves web/digital needing a complementary role. And maybe it is more about a brand experience (or preferably utility) as opposed to a product profile. Or at least, in the absence of online tactile-ness, bringing the product as ‘close’ as possible to being touched, if that makes sense.
Justin McMurray
November 18, 2009
at 4:17 pm