In the five years I’ve been at VML, I’ve been fortunate enough to work with global brands on large-scale projects. From FedEx and Keurig to Strategy& and Xerox, I’ve led teams do more than reimagine sites; together, we’ve reshaped how these corporate giants communicate with their consumers. But for all the past celebrations, there’s always an equal challenge ahead. Which begs the question: what’s next?
Back when the Internet was a fledgling medium, it borrowed its rules of language from the printed press, using heavy drop shadows for images and gif titles in lieu of proper typefaces. Then, when it became evident that the rules of a static medium were too limiting, attention shifted to the world of motion via TV and movies. Though the Internet adapted to the rules of more dynamic media, the result was still a complicated mix of static images and motion pictures that didn’t quite suit the new technology.
It was only by necessity that the vocabulary of the web formed. It’s evolved from a strange dialect into a completely new language—with one caveat: even today, not many people speak it. With new rules forming and new abilities developing every moment, keeping up with such advances has become a challenge for even the most seasoned developers and designers, let alone entire companies. But of all digital assets, arguably the most challenging sites to build and manage are those that start content-heavy as newspapers and magazines. Many have adapted, but not many have adapted well.
Despite a voiced downsizing of their newsroom that looms early next year, one media outlet that’s nearing success is the digital edition of The New York Times. Rather than simply acquiesce to the new rules of the web, they are embracing its challenges, and in doing so, became an organism separate from the printed version whose destiny seemed written – all this while courageously defending their identity. They understood the necessity to fight rather than flee, to evolve rather than remain as-is. And as a result, they have better chances to survive. Other media outlets have gone in different directions. They created “listicles,” or replaced pictures with slideshows or movies, or slipped into (and gotten stuck in) the social media ooze rather than transform the genetic structure of the page layout itself. However, it’s only by changing that structure and reorganizing the content in a more personal way that you create an intimate user experience and speak directly to an audience of one, which is what Internet is all about. It might sound far off, but we already have the technology. The algorithms are here. We just need to use them.
Intelligent design (the Bauhaus concept, not the theological argument) must take over and face the challenges posed by digital evolution. The cost of losing: extinction. The prize for survival: a voice. What could be more exciting? What could be more rewarding?