At the Northern Voice conference I met Markus Frind, founder of Plentyoffish.com. He’s Google’s #1 Adsense user in Canada. His site is pulling in more than $10,000 per day from Google, he told me, and has millions of passionate users. Tens of millions of page views EVERY DAY. Whew!
What’s the secret to his success? Ugly design. I call it “anti-marketing design.”
Huh?
He says that sites that have ugly designs are well known to pull more revenue, be more sticky, build better brands, and generally be more fun to participate in, than sites with beautiful designs.
Ahh, yet another example of anti-marketing marketing.
He joins a good list. Google. Is it pretty? No. Craig’s List? Pretty? No. MySpace? Pretty? No.
He says he designed his site to be easy to use, fast to load, and uncluttered, but he didn’t pick pretty colors or fonts. He did, however, spend a lot of time learning how search engines indexed their contents.
Why does anti-marketing design work? Well, for one, big companies will never do a site that doesn’t look pretty. Why? Cause of the prevailing belief that great brands need to be beautiful. Look at what corporate branding experts study. Apple. Target. BMW. Everything those guys do is beautiful. Aesthetic. Crafted by committees of ad marketing department experts.
But, go deeper: we’re sick of committee-driven marketing. We don’t believe it. If we ever did. We’ve built a bulls**t filter that filters out well-designed things in a commercial context. We trust things more when they look like they were done for the love of it rather than the sheer commercial value of it. That’s why my Channel 9 videos work. What kind of company committee could come up with something like that? Let some goofy guy with a goofy laugh go around with a cheap camcorder, no lights, no makeup, no editing and record conversations? Fire the guy who came up with that! 
Look at Plentyoffish again. It was designed and coded by one guy: Markus. Seriously. One guy did that and is making all that cash. No committees. No experts. Just a guy who wanted to learn to program and did.
Oh, and I love that he picked .NET to code his site. It’s all running in .NET 2.0 and you should hear the praises he has for .NET. I wish I could film him and put him on Channel 9. It’d end all the talk that Windows isn’t scalable, isn’t secure, and can’t keep up a highly trafficed site.
But, back to the anti-marketing design. I think I accidentally fell into this as well. My design is ugly. Anti-marketing. Why? Because I wanted to make it fast. I didn’t choose a pretty font because doing so would have added a little bit of weight to my CSS file. Does this matter? I think it does. I read a LOT of blogs on my cell phone and mine loads WAY faster than many blogs out there.
It’s amazing how few corporate types get that the quality and engineering thought behind your HTML matters more than whether your site is pretty or not.
Maybe MySpace is kicking blogging’s behind because most blogs are simply too pretty!
By the way, his anti-marketing message continues right to his about page.
If it’s ugly is authentic. Not corporate. It is good. No?
How is his site not corporate? He is making money, the site doesn’t look bad and he is not doing it for free. Maddox wasn’t “corporate” until he had a book deal.
I only just found this. It’s a good and valid point. Design by committee, and especially by marketing biased committee always yelds muddy results no matter what area of design you work in. I think it’s a shame the focus has shifted some what to the subject of ‘pretty’ vs ‘ugly’. A hardcore Graphic Design enthusiast knows that making something ‘pretty’ or ‘cool’ or whatever is no where near enough of a brief. There are many, many angles to cover that don’t come close to this.
—
What I personally feel is lacking in a lot of the design you see on these big sites is input from traditionally educated Graphic Designers. All too often design decisions are made by ‘Photoshop Monkeys’ calling themselves Graphic Designers.
I only just found this. It’s a good and valid point. Design by committee, and especially by marketing biased committee always yelds muddy results no matter what area of design you work in. I think it’s a shame the focus has shifted some what to the subject of ‘pretty’ vs ‘ugly’. A hardcore Graphic Design enthusiast knows that making something ‘pretty’ or ‘cool’ or whatever is no where near enough of a brief. There are many, many angles to cover that don’t come close to this.
—
What I personally feel is lacking in a lot of the design you see on these big sites is input from traditionally educated Graphic Designers. All too often design decisions are made by ‘Photoshop Monkeys’ calling themselves Graphic Designers.
Trouble with much design is that it splits attention. (Just like Powerpoint.)
People enjoy sites that (a) offer content that they, personally, can use, learn something deeply desired from (and me a writer), grow, etc. In other words: expansive content. Design that serves that end, adds; design that merely embellishes, detracts.
Content-heavy “ugly” sites that work: Jerry Pournelle’s Chaoes Manor, Joe Henderson’s Running Commentary, Digg, Fark, Arts & Letters Daily, Bloglines, Cool Tools, Desktoplinux.com, etc.
Trouble with much design is that it splits attention. (Just like Powerpoint.)
People enjoy sites that (a) offer content that they, personally, can use, learn something deeply desired from (and me a writer), grow, etc. In other words: expansive content. Design that serves that end, adds; design that merely embellishes, detracts.
Content-heavy “ugly” sites that work: Jerry Pournelle’s Chaoes Manor, Joe Henderson’s Running Commentary, Digg, Fark, Arts & Letters Daily, Bloglines, Cool Tools, Desktoplinux.com, etc.
Hey, George I kind of agree with you. Good, ‘sucessful’ design does not ever merely embellish. I think this is an idea that has come out of a lot of ‘Web Designers’ not having a good, solid Graphic Design background.
—
Almost a decade ago when we had the first ‘Dot Com’ boom, designers that knew Photoshop and maybe Flash were in massive demand. I think a lot of people fell into these jobs because they knew how to use these programs, not because they were design experts. So many developers ended up having to work with these ‘designers’ who only knew how to embellish and not how to add real value to a project. This seems to have sadly become the norm for a lot of these ‘ugly’ sites, many of whom, I imagine, are constantly doing their utmost to be rid of these ‘photoshop/flash monkeys’.
Hey, George I kind of agree with you. Good, ‘sucessful’ design does not ever merely embellish. I think this is an idea that has come out of a lot of ‘Web Designers’ not having a good, solid Graphic Design background.
—
Almost a decade ago when we had the first ‘Dot Com’ boom, designers that knew Photoshop and maybe Flash were in massive demand. I think a lot of people fell into these jobs because they knew how to use these programs, not because they were design experts. So many developers ended up having to work with these ‘designers’ who only knew how to embellish and not how to add real value to a project. This seems to have sadly become the norm for a lot of these ‘ugly’ sites, many of whom, I imagine, are constantly doing their utmost to be rid of these ‘photoshop/flash monkeys’.
[...] abbiamo una risposta ma solo qualche riflessione a riguardo: molti hanno parlato, per spiegare il successo di plentyoffish.com, di grande usabilità, di facilità di [...]
[...] web design is not necessarily pretty design. Robert Scoble comments: ugly designs are well known to pull more revenue, be more sticky, build better brands, and [...]
What about vois.com is it the new plentyoffish?
What about vois.com is it the new plentyoffish?
[...] Article on anti-marketing design [...]
[...] & raves,” and personal ads while shirking their day jobs. This is an example of Anti-Marketing Design that grasp public [...]
Great post. Great read. All so so true.
Great post. Great read. All so so true.
Bland looking text ads don’t blend well with 2.0 designs….. why bother with a nice design if it costs bandwidth, cpu, and ad revenue? Go with what works.
Bland looking text ads don’t blend well with 2.0 designs….. why bother with a nice design if it costs bandwidth, cpu, and ad revenue? Go with what works.
This all lies under the argument of design versus efficiency, Sure if we built every building exactly the same in the same shape with the same color, it would be cheaper and faster and of course, more efficient, but who can argue that it would not suck? And why would it suck, because we are not all machines we have things called feelings and emotions. Would you rather have a cheaper crappier looking house?, or a more expansive time invested unique eye pleasing emotional design.
This all lies under the argument of design versus efficiency, Sure if we built every building exactly the same in the same shape with the same color, it would be cheaper and faster and of course, more efficient, but who can argue that it would not suck? And why would it suck, because we are not all machines we have things called feelings and emotions. Would you rather have a cheaper crappier looking house?, or a more expansive time invested unique eye pleasing emotional design.
[...] by Robert Scoble’s post on Anti-Marketing Web Design (found here), the fact that I AGREE with it, and Hugh MacLeod’s little thing about manifestos, I wrote a [...]
Plenty of fish website is the worst moderated site on the net. Bunch of fucking assholes running it. Marcus should clean house!
Plenty of fish website is the worst moderated site on the net. Bunch of fucking assholes running it. Marcus should clean house!
[...] Vitamin has a very interesting article discussing this phenomenon and Robert Scoble has also touched upon this topic. [...]
I have always wondered about this. I often see sites that are just plain ugly but get a lot of hits. I guess functionality comes before beauty. I would still go for a combination though. I just have to.
I have always wondered about this. I often see sites that are just plain ugly but get a lot of hits. I guess functionality comes before beauty. I would still go for a combination though. I just have to.
[...] La publicité entraine une course à l’audience (pour gagner suffisamment il faut faire beaucoup de trafic): on passe alors plus de temps à faire venir du monde qu’à améliorer la qualité de son service. Et pour accueillir tout ce monde il faut limiter la consommation du serveur: baisse de la qualité de service (voir l’exemple américain de plentyoffish.com) [...]
Myspace is popular because any moron can use it and feel accomplished.
This is complete crap. It is the content and usefulness that pulls the users in. Having a great design is not going to deter users.
Myspace is popular because any moron can use it and feel accomplished.
This is complete crap. It is the content and usefulness that pulls the users in. Having a great design is not going to deter users.
[...] latter has been called anti-marketing [...]
my site is also a dating site which i’m growing by my self, the traffic is growing steadily
I’m concidering anti-marketing version as a secondary version for my site
my question is if there is a benefit of creating a simple version of the site along side of the regular design would be equally effective
my site is also a dating site which i’m growing by my self, the traffic is growing steadily
I’m concidering anti-marketing version as a secondary version for my site
my question is if there is a benefit of creating a simple version of the site along side of the regular design would be equally effective
[...] the way, talking about HCI / usability, a good link is: http://scobleizer.com/2006/03/04/the-role-of-anti-marketing-design/ about ugly design =) ( I prefer to have a good looking professional site, even on that free sites [...]
Hmm.
Realy strange. You are right, but what could be the problem. I mean I really prefer beautiful design, but at the same time functional. Because really there are some designs with bad functionality and there are others with good functionality and bad design.
May be people really prefer information than fancy stuff.
Cheers!
http://www.goaddsite.com/
Hmm.
Realy strange. You are right, but what could be the problem. I mean I really prefer beautiful design, but at the same time functional. Because really there are some designs with bad functionality and there are others with good functionality and bad design.
May be people really prefer information than fancy stuff.
Cheers!
http://www.goaddsite.com/
One of the few people I agree with is Larry … (search for him somewhere in this list ..
) ..
Scobleizer, I’ve read this post today and it has been bothering me that you’re hyping this ‘anti-marketing, ugly design’ concept. I think your being too 1-sided in this. It’s just not so …
I’ve worked in many corporate projects where design has really been a key player in the success of a project. Also, I’ve worked with MANY people (designers AND marketing experts) who wanted to develop something beautiful because they were passionate about the projects that they were involved in…
The reason for the success of plentyofffish doesn’t have to do with ‘how ugly the design is’… the design is functional, but if it were to be just as functional and great looking, would it be succeeding less ? I don’t think so … it’s kind of 1-sided to attribute this everything good about plenty off fish to ‘an ugly web design’ ….
Mind you … I am not trying to attack your opinion here but I need to speak out on behalf of all people (including myself) that have dedicated years of study and have worked very hard to bring everyone beautiful looking designs…. Just imagine that everything would be ugly looking
wouldn’t you then just want to have the best ‘ugly looking design ?’ … Sorry … I really and I mean REALLY have to disagree with you here…
- Lex G
One of the few people I agree with is Larry … (search for him somewhere in this list ..
) ..
Scobleizer, I’ve read this post today and it has been bothering me that you’re hyping this ‘anti-marketing, ugly design’ concept. I think your being too 1-sided in this. It’s just not so …
I’ve worked in many corporate projects where design has really been a key player in the success of a project. Also, I’ve worked with MANY people (designers AND marketing experts) who wanted to develop something beautiful because they were passionate about the projects that they were involved in…
The reason for the success of plentyofffish doesn’t have to do with ‘how ugly the design is’… the design is functional, but if it were to be just as functional and great looking, would it be succeeding less ? I don’t think so … it’s kind of 1-sided to attribute this everything good about plenty off fish to ‘an ugly web design’ ….
Mind you … I am not trying to attack your opinion here but I need to speak out on behalf of all people (including myself) that have dedicated years of study and have worked very hard to bring everyone beautiful looking designs…. Just imagine that everything would be ugly looking
wouldn’t you then just want to have the best ‘ugly looking design ?’ … Sorry … I really and I mean REALLY have to disagree with you here…
- Lex G
[...] reads and monitors streams of information fanatically – think of him as an Internet Sauron – and he admits his blog is ugly. But it works, simply because of the nature of his content. Fiction, on the other hand, makes for [...]
i would say the popularity of the site has nothing to do with design or antimarketing..
he was just lucky what else could be said…
i would say the popularity of the site has nothing to do with design or antimarketing..
he was just lucky what else could be said…
[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]
The reason for the success of plentyofffish doesn’t have to do with ‘how ugly the design is’… the design is functional, but if it were to be just as functional and great looking, would it be succeeding less ? I don’t think so … it’s kind of 1-sided to attribute this everything good about plenty off fish to ‘an ugly web design’ ….
The reason for the success of plentyofffish doesn’t have to do with ‘how ugly the design is’… the design is functional, but if it were to be just as functional and great looking, would it be succeeding less ? I don’t think so … it’s kind of 1-sided to attribute this everything good about plenty off fish to ‘an ugly web design’ ….
[...] Frind and his ugly Web site that’s making him $10 million a year! Of course, readers here knew about Markus way back in 2006. Nice to be ahead of the [...]
[...] übrigens auch Robert Scoble über Non-Marketing und die ebenso ertragreiche wie hässliche Dating-Seite Plenty of Fish mit ihren skurillen [...]
Wow, thanks for the excellent information!
Wow, thanks for the excellent information!
[...] blog theme and web design Unlike what Scobleizer once said, having a balanced out blog theme design, and maintaining the visual aspects of it while [...]
[...] design, or what some call ugly-design (more on this later), had been of much debate since scobleizer wrote about anti-marketing design back in March of 2006. Raking up about 300 comments, it caused [...]
[...] A few weeks ago i found an interesting post about “Anti marketing design“. [...]
[...] decision? Maybe. I don’t mean to dive again in the polemic after Soble published his famous post on anti-marketing designn, but yes I think Google’s raw design looks unbreakable, more or [...]