It’s time I bust this thing wiiiiiiide open.
“Content is King” is HORRIBLE advice.
Question is why?
Content is how you get traffic.
Content is also how you keep loyal readers and customers happy.
So, what’s the problem?
The “Real King” Unmasked
Online, you only have a second to grab someone’s attention.
And during that second, people make snap judgments about you, your business, and your website.
Before. They. Read. Your. Content.
Not convinced?
How Web Design Torpedos Trust
Elizabeth Sillence, and her team, conducted a study where they asked a bunch of people to find websites about hypertension.
Then she asked people to record whether they trusted or distrusted the websites they found, and why.
And guess what?
When she reviewed the reasons why people distrusted a website, 94% cited DESIGN problems.
Yes, you read that right.
Your design can TRIGGER immediate DISTRUST.
The funny thing is, people didn’t just cite aesthetic problems like “that site is ugly.”
The culprits are much more tangible. They are the “red flags” of web design, and there are 10.
The 10 “Red Flags” of Web Design
1. Clever site names
(clever is confusing)
2. Cluttered, busy layouts
(Less options, higher conversions)
3. Navigation Problems
(See the header removal test)
4. Boring web design
(Yes, this one is aesthetic)
5. Pop-up ads
(Don’t mistake subscription boxes for ads)
6. Slow load times
7. Small fonts
(Size 14 is the new size 12, after all)
8. Too much text
(Take this with a grain of salt. Big blocks of text is probably what they meant)
9. Corporate Look and Feel
(Another aesthetic comment. Corporations have it tough, eh?)
10. Poor search functions.
(Again, if people can’t find your content, your site failed)
Now I’m passing it to you.
Do you have any “red flags” on your site?
P.S. If you have a second, sharing this article with your twitter followers would be a huge help.
I know, I’m shamelessly asking you to tweet my article, but it’s easy. Thank you 
Want to read the study? It’s called “Trust and Mistrust of Online Health Sites.”
{ 220 comments… read them below or add one }
As a marketer who started my career as a web designer, I’ve believed this for a long time! Thanks for putting it so simply and powerfully. I totally agree.
I’m betting a lot of people will disagree, though. Will be interesting to watch.
As a graphic/web designer, I’m in the “totally agree” camp. I think the visual is what captures attention. Content must also be there and must be good content that is easily readable to keep the attention. And please, no auto-anything. Getting music or a video slapped in my face the minute I hit a site is sure to make me leave it without even considering design or content. Oh and by the way, please don’t judge my current site – it’s in the process of being re-designed
Thanks for a great post!
Here I am!
I think that the biggest issue here is the testing Explicit data like this, where the users express their feelings, are notoriously fallacious.
Websites which work are seldom the ones which fix in a user’s mind and we all have a very different opinion of our behaviour than what is shown to be the case by implicit user testing.
I am not suggesting that the presentation of content is not important, merely that it comes second to the content itself.
Sure, blogs posts and award ceremonies will fawn over your design concept, but if it is present shoddy information then, sooner or later, people will get bored with ‘Wow!’ and move on.
And take it from me, it won’t be later.
Hi LordManley,
Sorry if this reply comes extremely late. As there are no dates attached to posts on this blog, my reply may be completely irrelevant to you, sorry!
I’d still like to post a comment though, for the sake of future readers: I believe Derek’s intention was simply to emphasize that design takes CHRONOLOGICAL precedence over content. Since you only have a few seconds to catch someone’s attention, the initial design is thus extremely important.
I understand your argument for content, and I wholeheartedly agree with you. In fact, in the study discussed (link is already at the bottom of the article), the second half moves on to discuss the importance of content in those trusted sites: 17% attributed importance to design factors while content gathered 83%.
Point is, 94% will completely miss your content-rich blog if they get turned away from initial bad design. It’s like housing a world class chef (content) in a run down back-alley deli (design).
But of course, we are agreed that a fantastic looking restaurant with a poor chef will not last long.
I don’t think that was Derek’s intention though, right?
Great article because it reminds me of the importance of design. But “busy” and “boring” can’t be measured, so I’m left without a lot of tangible take-aways. The same goes for “corporate.” When does one cross the line into a corporate vs professional aesthetic?
This is just the beginning. I’m breaking this down into more actionable steps over the next few weeks
Fantastic! I’m looking forward to that. Thanks for sharing this.
You can measure boring and busy. Maybe not by multi-variate testing tools. Your laptop, a wi-fi connection and meeting strangers on the street, and asking them for their impressions of different designs will give you an idea of what people are looking for. I used to do stuff like that when I worked as a market researcher. (the lackey, not the decision-maker)
Thanks for sharing this research Derek. I just hope my designer is reading this…
I wonder if sites that are run by an individual, where the individual’s name, photo, background, are prominently displayed and/or easily accessed by site visitors, are more trustworthy than sites run by corporations.
I’d love to read more about this. Can you provide a reference?
Thanks again.
With regards to photos, that’s a good question. People trust people they can see. On the flip side, when people feel like they’re being watched, even by “eyes,” they tend to act more cautious and suspicious. I do have some research on eye gazing, and I’ll talk about that soon, too.
Not gonna lie, my first opinion of this article based off title was “Oh great another one of these things” but Derek being Derek I gave it a read.
I’m not agreeing with the title because Content is still my king and I like him but I do agree with everything listed.
Ultimately if you boiled everything down and could pick only one asset to have, I’d pick great content 10 time out of 10.
Long live the King.
I’m not saying people don’t need content. Content is vitally important. However, people focus heavily on content, and forget that people judge their stuff before they even read the content. So, get the design aesthetic in order, and then create good content. Easy formula
Derek, I decided to reply in context: you nailed the issue right here in this comment, by saying “people focus heavily on content…”
When I look around the web, I find myself attracted to the three-panel home page. You know the ones that have three calls to action, either for three audiences or for three topics. Flickr.com (above the fold, anyway) is a good example of this design.
The real issue is not whether content is king, but whether the king is properly dressed.
Essentially, I believe that design is part of this package we call content. A can of Coca-cola doesn’t TASTE like the signature beverage. For that, you have to open the thing. However, one can reasonably expect that, when encountering a can of Coca-cola, that signature beverage – and not orange juice – will be inside.
Therefore, your design should have the function of describing the insides of your website. The analogy is a little weak, because we’re talking about branding on one hand and what amounts to advertising on the other. But, in both cases, if the labeling is unclear, not too many people are going to venture inside to the goods.
Cheers,
Mitch
I am reading down the list of answers. This is the first one that hit the point. The issue is how it is addressed. No doubt. In fact, the article is way off. The research, though is may be accurate for one isolated variable, does not implicate anything more than a small band of reasoning. It does not address multiple concerns. This note attempts to explain complicated phenomena with one simple solution. That never works.
Mitch,
Dynamite addition to Derek’s article.
Kat
Chandler and Kathy, thanks for your support
Cheers,
Mitch
This is the first comment that I think mentioned ‘brand’. I agree with Mitch. Is this content vs design a nature vs nurture argument? Personally, I’m sick of the ‘precious’ sites designed by design-first, talk later designers. The fact is that you can’t shoot a movie without a script. A good script should make a better movie. Good content will inspire better design. Most important is the brand promise of the company which sets the tone which then gives direction to design. Most people here have been writing about design in the abstract which is why templates are viewed as designs by the great unwashed.
“The fact is that you can’t shoot a movie without a script. A good script should make a better movie.”
You also can’t shoot a movie without the location scouts having FIRST found the correct “look” in which to film the script! Nowhere does does Derek say content is unimportant… (well, except maybe in the title…); but if the cover of the book (to switch metaphors) does NOT lead you to lift it and look? It doesn’t matter how good your content is! Of course you have to have great content… but if no one is ‘cracking the cover’ of your site? All the great content in the world is useless.
Really useful information here on how website design – and even font sizes – can create distrust, Derek. There’s been so much noise around content that the “how” of the content being displayed has been overlooked.
From personal experience, many of the factors your research cites can put me off on a website – plus the website not being either mobile-literate or being able to be viewed in “column” mode so it’s viewable on a phone’s small screen.
Great rundown, thanks!
Glad you liked it Jessica. I’m of two minds when it comes to mobile sites. A lot of people think specific mobile sites are important. However, for most businesses, you hit the nail on the head. A mobile friendly site is just fine. (if you’re getting lots of pageviews and lots of business, a mobile specific site is ideal, but for most bloggers, not so much. mobile friendly all the way).
Great list Derek! I have one to add: It always makes me uncomfortable when the site name in the url and the site name on the header don’t match. To me, it diminishes my trust in the site right away.
I was happy to see the mention of “corporate” looking sites. I don’t care for them – but always thought I was probably the only one.
Thanks for a great post!
You know what Piper? That annoys me too. I’d love to see some test results on that, for sure.
Hmmm Piper, I’d honestly never thought of that one either but I think you’re spot-on. Now that I think about it, I feel the exact same–and change in the url to site name is certainly a bad idea.
Marcus
I agree with both. Content is searchable. That’s why it is King.
But now that Google has the little magnifying glass next to the search results, we can get a quick look at the design of the site. If a site’s design looks good, I’ll go there. If it looks like an ad site or a portal site just designed to sell junk, I’ll skip it and go to something that looks interesting.
So, to me Design is Queen. I’m more likely to read the content if I’m “invited in” by the good design.
And, yes, I hate small fonts and white type on black backgrounds. So hard to read that, especially at 3am when I’m doing research. I just skip those automatically.
I’m shocked that people still use light text on dark backgrounds. People who test results have proved that it’s dumb to do that… 50 years ago. And yet, some people haven’t learned yet.
Ya I’m shocked too. But photographers (my market) do it a lot on their blogs because they think it makes their photos look better.
I agree there, though. Photos on dark backgrounds do look better. However, they need their text to appear on a light background still.
Derek,
I think you hit it dead on. Design, the looking and feel of your site, is of equal importance to the content in my opinion.
I have a “Shallow Hal” type approach when browsing blogs and sites. If it looks attractive or cool, I’ll almost automatically read a few posts. If not then I’m GONE!!!
The #1 thing for me though, simplicity. I wins me over every time.
Thanks for the post,
You must love my design here then, eh?
I do actually! Keeping things simple just makes everything look clean and doesn’t bombard the reader. Kudos!
Being a writer, I always thought, “It doesn’t matter how ‘pretty’ my site is, as long as the content delivers, I’m golden.” Recently, I did a site overhaul and the results from cosmetic changes where shocking.
I went from a 70% bounce rate to 42% by adding a more vibrant, “cool” looking header. Then I got that 42% down to 15% by adding a feature box (if you don’t have Thesis, betta recognize son!)
I’m a believer now…
Love that you just used the word son, in a blog comment. ha
Yes I agree, all valid points and helpful. Now to put them into practice. Thanks again.
Sorry. Wrong. Drudge report is horrible. Andrew Sullivan’s blog is sparse. Design might, just might get a very few to look and stay but content is what drives long lasting large traffic. Once more, just to make a point. Drudge report.
I didn’t say you didn’t need content. I reiterate in the beginning that you need content for long lasting traffic.
However, Drudge Report is a horrible example, despite their design being lackluster. That site built the loyal audience back when the internet was new. There’s no way a site like that would gain traction today.
You don’t think that a site wouldn’t gain traction today? You so sure? Sites that are built over time with comment that is interesting to people, that is discussed and linked to will create a huge audience. No one give a rat’s arse that the design is good or bad with those sorts of sites. I really do think that the argument about good design with those sort of sites has gone. Broadcast sites which are design and leave sites, then yes. But community sites, blogs, engagement sites that build over time. Design mattering? No.
I do think a site with good content can gain traction today. However, with the advancement of web technology, a site with no brand, will have a hard time establishing a brand without a design that’s easy to read and navigate.
Twitter!
HuffingtonPost.com? Far from easy to navigate. The design is pretty awful, in fact. But it’s only a few years old and wildly successful.
I might argue that there are multiple ways to engender trust and the initial aesthetic impression is just one of them.
Your key takeaway, however, that in many cases first impressions can matter a lot, is right on. But without great content, nobody is going to stick around.
Yin and yang. The whole “king” metaphor is off.
I am surprised that I got this far down the extensive comment list before I found someone that shared my opinion.
Derek you are right in that a well designed first impression will lower bounce rates and improve initial impressions but to me it doesn’t change the fact that content is still king on the web. This is because cash is still king everywhere else on the world and content drives repeat business to a site and repeat business is the core of a successful web community. Without repeat business (which is always based on content) there is no money to be made.
If there is no money to be made then there is no point in investing into that top notch design anyway
Well guys, I am “Old School”
I do love my King Content and Queen Design no doubt!
…I remember the days when people built websites not because there was money to be made, but because there was something they were passionate about telling the world. *Sigh*
Back in the olden days (ha), a truly successful website provided a service first, building trust over time, and THEN went on to generate revenue. Most of the top authoritative sites today still operate in this manner. Google, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, CNN etc. Talk about money eh?
Building trust takes time as well folks! A lot of us can detect a cheesy “get rich quick” online scheme in a jiffy. Provide a valuable service first!
I wonder when you’ll get some cash outta me Derek! We’re in the trust-building phase at this time, but I like what I am reading.
Cheers,
L
Agreed. The only content that rules is what gets read and this list will help our content get read.
Makes me think of Malcolm Gladwell’s book Blink where he uncovers the importance & amazing accuracy of our snap, first second judgments.
Great list. I’m forwarding it to my designer RIGHT NOW.
Nice to see you made the connection. I’m using snap judgments, precisely because Gladlwell made that a popular term with his book Blink. ha ha.
Is this the same Gladwell who said that Social Media doesn’t help revolutions. His ready of how community works online is wrong. Ask the Egyptians who are naming their children Facebook. Where I live and work we have a fantastically beautiful design company I really admire. They make great sites and are the lead locally. Until we came along. We started 6 months ago around the idea of creating community around brands. We are taking client after client. We don’t concentrate on numbers, visits, bounce rate. Nothing. We concentrate on how much money does your online presence make them. Each time we have shown a large increase. Our sites look OK. Our design skills are pedestrian but the communities we have created are buzzing. We now have clients lined up, nearly all from this same design company. Design is important to designers which on this post there are many. To everyone else? Nah. Not much. PS Is this the same Gladwell that does presentations with no slides and on first impression looks like a school child that’s put his finger in a plug socket?
Wo King, I’ve rather enjoyed your comments here, not that I fully agree or disagree, but they’re ballsy, and you’re passionate, which is cool.
I think for general ‘blogs’–personal ones like ‘social triggers’ we’ll say, design can be very important because we quickly (most of us) thin-slice our opinions and can bounce off within seconds. This is why my personal blog, The Sales Lion, follows Derek’s advice in the article almost to a T.
At the same rate, I also own a swimming pool company, and I have formed the most popular swimming pool blog in the world in terms of traffic. Anyone that goes there though, isn’t going to be blown away with the design. My goal has always been great content that’s SEO friendly—more leads—more sales. And it has worked incredibly well, despite being ‘average’ in appearance.
I guess what I’m trying to say here is that is very much depends on the industry, and not one size fits all.
Either way, there were some very legitimate points in the article.
So the fact that Gladwell looks funny means we should disregard what he says about snap impressions?
Come on. Buck up your logic.
Ian
Hmmmmm great post, but I’m not sure I like the site design – a bit corporatey for me, but I’ll stick around for the content
I kinda agree and disagree I still think content is king – there’s a big difference between a study asking people to look for something they have no real interest in and providing people with stuff they really want to read about stuff they’re really interested in.
There’s no replacement for good content. But, your design can impede people from reading it. So, if you lose people before they even start, what’s the point of the content?
You know, I think you’ve done it again.
This is the second post of yours this week that has shaken up my views on blogging. Thank you for that.
So many bloggers are well established, and they forget that new bloggers still need to build a reputation. Once you have people tweeting and Facebooking your articles to your friends, and you’re getting guest features and tons of backlinks, it becomes more about content.
New bloggers need to get their prospective readers attention though, as you outline very clearly.
Great list, by the way.
Derek Halpern is “King”.
Thank you !
Mark
Agree, great post Derek. I remember we had a funny saying we’d use while I was in the military, “you can’t polish a turd”….that applies when people overload with content and bad design that looks like crap. I totally agree with the pop ups, way too many people are doing pop ups to subscribe. If there is a clear design with a subscribe box I don’t need it to pop up in my face. Great post.
I made the distinction between pop up ads and pop up subscribe boxes. For a lot of people, pop up subscribe boxes work, and they work well. This specific research study was referring to pop up ads, which are no friend of the people.
I agree with all but one. “Clever Site Names”
Clearly you know the million examples of successful companies with clever site names. You could even say this site falls in that category. From a branding perspective, generic site names are easy to forget and you could easily lose customers by not having a clever site name. Seems like a catch-22 either way you look at it.
I wonder what the sample size/confidence level of that study was.
I agree. Clever site names work. What I should have said, was, Clever site names that confuse people. The example they used in the research paper was “Net Doctor.” It was for a guy who was a doctor on the internet, and people assumed he fixed internet connections.
Ahh, that makes sense now. Clever AND confusing site names. And yes, I would think “Net Doctor” would be internet repair.
Hi Derek I agree and really like the 10 flags, although I’ll also agree with Neal , content for us as a Design company is key, but I fully understand that , as we stress on our site, you basically have 6 seconds to gain attention so therefore it’s key that your site is elegant, elequant and most of all effective. So perhaps Design is King and content comes in as ‘Prince Charming ‘ ? Will tweet the article as ‘The Word’ should be spread as wide as possible…thanks Geoff
Seems to me that lots of great content can overcome unappealing design (i.e. Craig’s List & the Drudge Report).
That said, poor design adds an extra hurdle to overcome when trying to build traffic to a site. Makes sense to do what it takes to remove that barrier to attracting more traffic.
I knew people would bring up craigslist and drudge report en masse. The problem is, those sites were created in a different time period. They still have their loyal audiences from that time period, and they get bigger because of that loyal audience they built during a different time. Today, thinking a site could become that big, with a design like that, is laughable.
Craigslist and Drudgereport give me a headache when I visit. Yeah, they are still usable and can get the job done. But I don’t have a good unconscious feeling about those sites – that is, they don’t make a strong impression on me in terms of brand.
I would like to see a redesign done and a case study of before and after traffic + impressions..then we can talk
Excellent points Derek.
I will disagree with the hating of the Drudge Report site. Jason Fried of 37 Signals has some great analysis around that topic
http://37signals.com/svn/posts/1407-why-the-drudge-report-is-one-of-the-best-designed-sites-on-the-web
I work on corporate sites every day an it’s a losing battle. They all continue to look at competitors and believe they need to implement needless crap.
They poll internally about what should be included on important pages and each department wants their chunk of space.
The result is a site overloaded with options and confusion.
I actually agree with much of that article, but I still don’t think a new site, with a cluttered look like that, could work. You can’t out Drudge, Drudge.
Good post. Provocative, makes you think, good advice.
But I disagree.
“Content Is King” doesn’t mean “Content Is Everything”, it means “Content Is Where You Start”. And that, too, is good advice, because a lot of projects don’t start with content, they start with design, or they start with technology, and put off content till the last 6 weeks of a 6 month project. (Yes, I’m looking at you, Client X.)
The reason you should start with content, even though design is also important, is that your design is will be much better if it’s informed by the content. For example, your navigation will be better if your taxonomy grows out of the implicit structure (I almost want to say “inner needs”) of the content. Your look and feel will be better if it reflects the character of the content. The opposite approach, starting with design and writing the content to fit, is less likely to work, IMO.
“Content Is King” is a corrective to the idea that “Design Is King”, but you can criticize it from other points of view. For example, you could say “Business Drivers are the Kings” (assuming you have more than one king at a time, as in ancient Sparta), or you could say “The User Is King”. And these would be reasonable slogans, on the day we start overemphasizing the role of content. That day is a long way off.
I tend to agree with this approach:
http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Why-IA-Should-Focus-on-22206.S.53608201?
Content is king, IA is queen, and design, I’m afraid, is only crown prince.
Christopher I like your train of thought, and go along with what you’re saying..Yes although I suggested ‘Design is king’ really ”the User should be king” …clarity of thought and well written.great style !
We want to believe we make our decisions based on conscious criteria. We don’t – it is our unconscious, our emotions that determine if we like or trust a site or a person.
I agree, design is King..
I’m not about to say Design is King either… But yes, design is vital.
re: #1 Clever Website names… I work with many local businesses. One of the rules I follow is that a site name must be able to pass the “Phone Test”, as in, can I give someone a website name over the phone and they’ll be able to remember it?
Clever typically doesn’t help pass the phone test.
I’d say your spot on with automated pop ups. Yes, even the stupid ass subscription boxes. The UX is fully lacking when we are accosted by those damn things.
I’m honestly still surprised by the number of pop ups I see on websites. Using pop ups is the EASIEST way to get me to leave your site. You should never interrupt the user experience.
Thanks for this great list and also for the research aspect. Clients love to hear about research and your article gives me plenty of proof for cutting out much of what they’re currently doing on their sites (how anyone could have had the chutzpah to provide them with those mistakes and charge for it is beyond me).
I agree with all 10 red flags and yet still believe content is king. Design, or rather Not Bad Design, grabs readers in the first few. But don’t forget the headline! That’s immediately viewable and is part of both design and content. In a way, it’s perceived as 2 things–what you see and what you think about.
And if you’ve got good content, that’ll take it from there, as you said.
I was thinking you were going to say that the headline is King. The ten points makes sense though. If only people understood that. I’ve seen some horrendous websites people got paid to design.
Try this experiment.
1) Build a beautiful website that follows all the right design conventions but leave the content blank. Totally, no content.
2) Then build an ugly website with outstanding content and great calls to action.
See which one makes you more money.
The winner is the king.
I agree. If you read the introduction here, I say very clearly that content is essential. However, why limit the power of the content by making these design mistakes?
That is true, but a very different proposition to your title, which is incorrect.
It is, however, clearly excellent link bait, but I wonder how many readers will go away with this fallacy in their mind.
Derek, I certainly agree that design is important. And I agree with your 10 red flags, though a couple could use a little more clarification. But it’s clear that design without content is like a candy wrapper without candy. Sure, you might make a beautiful presentation, but what good is it without substance?
I don’t build beautiful websites by any stretch, but they aren’t exactly ugly either. What I do well, however, is write content that sparks action. It’s been the song of advertising professionals for at least a century.
Content sells. Design puts it in a box. Sometimes a pretty box.
That’s why I love the thesis theme. It enables me to hit the ground running focused on content without being overly concerned about design. I can come back (not too much) later and flesh out design ideas based upon the content. And the vanilla (bean) thesis theme is there as an effective palette for me to not loose focus on the content, but still address design requirements for effective presentation.
Then again, as an experiment, I would love to someday use thesis to make a site of nothing but fantastic eye candy that stroked the subconscious mind with little if any substance.
Bet it will be hit.
Yep. You win.
Derek – I found your article and list very helpful and agree with your points. What gets me to comment is Allen Taylor’s experiment.
Try this experiment too Allen – build a beautiful website with stunning design and awesome content.
See which if the 3 websites will earn the most money.
The winner is king!
That isn’t really a fair comparison. If you want to know whether good design makes a difference, try this.
Take an “ugly site” and put it into a great looking design. Monitor the changes in page views, bounce rate and traffic. I can guarantee all of those will improve.
But the question should never arise as to which is best, or more important. They are both parts of the same thing. One compliments the other.
I am a staff writer at a small startup. My boss wants 100 pages of content for an “authoritative” site.
I tell him that I think this could backfire. I get told STFU and go write more content. I know in my heart this is a bad idea, but can’t stop the freight train.
I am trying to reason with him, but my words are falling on deaf ears.
the phrase “Content is king” doesn’t mean you need 100 pages of content for a website to be great, it means the content should be the main consideration when creating the site as the message your site communicates is the most important factor.
Nancy, your words could easily be the words of an entrepreneur. Maybe I’m just projecting. Then again, maybe not. However it comes down with your “boss