Because there are too many Vice Presidents using old school marketing methods at the company in question. That is usually the reason large companies have poor sites in my experience.

(By the way ... send me a sticky with the company name because we sell lots of pumps and I am curious as to who you are referring to.)

In our case it seems like the manufacturers think it's a "good idea" to put up a website but don't really know where to start. So then they rely on what might be internal people to tell them what would be good or a firm who also tells them what would be good. Rather then going to the end user first and saying "Hey, what would you like to see or what would you expect the site to do?", they just seem to do they're own thing. I've dealt with this also for almost 4 years and it gets frustrating especially when they say "That's a great idea, we'll get that in the works" and of course nothing gets done. Help us make money so you can make more money - a concept some can't grasp.

Wlauzon. Agree, but they're getting better. Most early corp sites--outside the tech field-- were designed primarily to be kewl, especially to impress competitors.

Better question is why the even more important corp phone system is so atrocious. Answer in large part is that top officers never go thru their ridiculous phone trees: "press one for English, two for Spanish" or "spell the employee's Last and First name"--and the guy you're calling is Polish!.

My theory is a simple one.... nepotism.

In my 6 years of Web Developing I have had so many people come to because their site ...looks crappy... works crappy... is just plain broken... or they can't "get a hold" of the original designer... sometimes the hosting company just goes away without a word to them and one day their site and all files are just gone. (thank god for archived sites in this case)

The one true constant is the story of who they got to do the site originally. It usually starts off like this....

"My wife's cousin was taking a course"
"My son's best friend said he knew this stuff"

I think only twice out of more then a dozen times they actually went to a professional who's services they just weren't happy with.

I bet all these sites you have come across have someone who works there who "knows someone" who can make them a website.

As one who has worked inside a corporate structure, and has worked externally with corporate structured companies, I've found a site goes south because of compartmentalization combined with diffusion of responsibility.

All the various managers want different things out of a website, these often conflict. The developers see this organizational mess and set up boundaries, it's not my job to make decisions, I do what I'm told and collect my check. The consequence is stuff doesn't get done, and no one cares.

I am approaching a local company in the same mess. A valid XHTML doctype, but nothing validates, there are table layouts throughout, and even FONT TAGS are used - this is just the main page. Broken links, Javascript-dependent shopping, an organizational mess, how does anyone sell anytihng?

I do what I'm told and collect my check. The consequence is stuff doesn't get done, and no one cares.

I think that - and the nepotism mentioned earlier might be the two main reasons.

I worked in the corporate world for a while (never again), and have seen same kind of attitude. And sometimes with good reason - if you don't make waves you don't get anyone upset and fired. That coupled with the fact that when everyone is responsible, nobody is responsible probably adds to it. The lack of initiative in the work force is pretty appalling - and it seems that most of us that have it start their own business :D

But the whole idea that some seem to have that advertising their website in Playboy, and then having a totally borked website seems really counterproductive - but I see it all the time.

And of course the fact that it is very difficult to find really good devs - or rather to tell who is good BEFORE the site is done does not help.

IMHO - Corporations have site mostly for informational purposes and a web presence. If it was an e-commerce site or one that provided some service, i.e. a directory, social network, or as a promotional tool for a small company, I am sure more effort would be made to make it nicer.

Marshall

i work for a religious charity and i have to depend upon the designer who has been working here for more no of years.

and the designer creative sense sucks.

still we cant throw him out and as a result the website sucks.

though we have 27000 visitors perday , the design standard is far below than international standards

A number of factors here.

One is to regard the website as a "project". Create it, launch it, finish. The information it contains gradually becomes out of date and nobody is responsible for maintaining it. Eventually it becomes such an embarassment that a lot of money is spent on a total replacement and the whole cycle starts again.

Another, particularly in small organisations or voluntary bodies, is one individual with zero design sense grabbing responsibility. Internal politics make it difficult or impossible to replace him.

Worse still is where domain name or hosting is in the name of an individual who walks away. A serious issue for small organisations using low cost service providers who want on-line payment up front by credit card.

For any organisation, own your site, own your domain name and give somebody clear responsibility and targets for keeping it up to date.

piatkow,

You make a good point. One of my hosting customers is primarily a volunteer organization and it seems every six to nine months I get an email for help as someone new took over the site, despite the fact the "paid" people have all the necessary site information. And from one "designer" to another, no one knows what the previous ones did.

Marshall

i m tired of looking at pathetic designs and i jus pray better things shd happen soon to make my founder happy

Because, the implementors, yes, the "designers" and "programmers" are:

1) unqualified
2) inexperienced
3) lazy

or all 3,

despite HR having checked that their resumes contained all the requisite en vogue search terms.

A website crosses too many organizational structure boundaries. Makes for extremely tedious decision making, and a difficult and time comsuming development process.

Put an old school marketer, a print graphic designer and someone versed in web usability and accessibility in the same room and there is surprisingly little meeting of the minds.

Throw a programmer in and it gets worse.

Then politics take over as each player tries to push their agenda in front of the decision maker.

Under such circumstances, seniority often wins. That is often the old school marketer - the one that could care less about the website to begin with.

One is to regard the website as a "project". Create it, launch it, finish. The information it contains gradually becomes out of date and nobody is responsible for maintaining it. Eventually it becomes such an embarassment that a lot of money is spent on a total replacement and the whole cycle starts again.

I think that is the most common "plan", even for large organizations. But even some mega-corps seem to have real problems: try to find any info on how to set up your email account in the new Vista Windows Mail on Qwest, Earthlink, or any other major ISP....

It is obvious that many companies have no internal structure to take care of website or internet issues, and often even those that do seem to have a lot of internal employee churn, which leaves a lot of partly done updates.

As previously touched on... I think there's still a lot of people controlling businesses that aren't part of the internet generation. Those people will be gone someday, but they're still around in large numbers for now. They simply don't understand and don't care to understand the internet. But people that work for them tell them they need a site or whatever, so they write a check. With no real oversight from a person that cares, the sites take on the life of the employee or firms that built them... So they often lack the personal touch that only a core person in the company can offer. Then you've got the 'bigger is better' mentality with the large corps, where there's never enough consultants, marketing people, managers and study groups. In the end you get some abomination that an overpriced agency talks somebody into, which accomplishes very little. On top of that, even when the site is functioning, there will often be no end support setup for any business derived from the site. The people who build the site can only do so much... At some point the business itself has to take charge, and that's where they fail. I have a business where I have to search for fasteners and other parts online... I'd say maybe 1 out of 5 emails I send to a manufacturer gets returned. I could be looking to purchase ten truckloads of stuff for all these guys know, but no response.

I work in commercial production, and it never ceases to amaze me what corporations can be talked into. The advertising industry is the only industry I know that funds it's own "studies" that tell everyone they need them. I think there's also a lot of the... 'well, these guys charge a lot, so they must be good' mentality. It's unfortunate, because there's guys making sites from their bedrooms that could do a great job... But no large organization is ever going to trust them without a 10k a month office space a 50 employees.

Dave

I think there's still a lot of people controlling businesses that aren't part of the internet generation....

I am 62 years old.

So where does that put me?

I have a 71 year old cousin that has played Everquest for 7+ years. I guess she missed out too :D

I don't think it has that much to do with "generations", I think it has to do with a lack of awareness of how the world is changing.

[edited by: Wlauzon at 11:40 pm (utc) on July 8, 2007]