Why do startup websites look like startups?
I run into them all the time. Most startups seem to follow the herd mentality when it comes to designing launch pages, or landing pages etc. They all look somewhat customized cookie-cutter templates. Why not differentiate yourself?
7 comments
It takes time for a startup to develop and refine the message and brand that it wants to communicate.
While that unique brand and vision is unclear and unrefined, the closet substitute likely to be "right" is the average of what everyone else is doing.
While that unique brand and vision is unclear and unrefined, the closet substitute likely to be "right" is the average of what everyone else is doing.
Weird, I've noticed the exact same thing. Many follow the site and logo design.
Do you have any examples of a startup that does not follow this standard format?
Do you have any examples of a startup that does not follow this standard format?
I guess my post was triggered by looking through some companies on the recently launched "Made In New York Digital Map" website that showcases New York's startup scene. After clicking through to some sites, I was greeted by the same boilter-plate templates with large image backgrounds with bold headlines and "signup with Facebook/Twitter/Email" call-to-action. I see this trend becoming ever more prevalent with everyone jumping on the twitter bootstrap bandwagon, but not taking the time to tailor their offering or adding a unique twist.
This is being said without knowing exactly which web sites you're talking about. You'd have to give examples to get a more precise answer.
Don't equate using something that works with following herd mentality. The reason something like Bootstrap by Twitter is used so often is because it "just works". If you are a start up with limited keystrokes before you burn out of money, then you focus on other value-generation parts of the business. I would rather get a halfway decent Bootstrap looking site (with tweaks) than spend money on a designer or time creating something that is different but I have no idea if it will convert well. In the meantime, I'll spend my time and energy on building new features. If the idea proves out, we'll loop back on the launch pages and do some A/B testing after the fact.
Don't equate using something that works with following herd mentality. The reason something like Bootstrap by Twitter is used so often is because it "just works". If you are a start up with limited keystrokes before you burn out of money, then you focus on other value-generation parts of the business. I would rather get a halfway decent Bootstrap looking site (with tweaks) than spend money on a designer or time creating something that is different but I have no idea if it will convert well. In the meantime, I'll spend my time and energy on building new features. If the idea proves out, we'll loop back on the launch pages and do some A/B testing after the fact.
I wouldn't call it herd mentality. They're being practical. It's an implementation of best practices. You'll increase conversions if you put things where users expect them to be. If you build something that differentiates itself at the cost of usability and expectations, you'll most likely hurt your bottom line.
Think about cars for a minute. Don't they all look and function the same? Where's the steering wheel? Where's the radio? Where's the motor? Gas pedal? Brake pedal? Seat adjusters? Cup holders? A/C and heat controls? Doors?
Most cars are pretty much the same. The differentiation is in the paint colors offered, the design of the body, wheels, and rims. The visual aspects, per se.
You see, the same thing could be said for start up sites. Everything is where you expect it to be. What's different are the logos and color schemes used.
Think about cars for a minute. Don't they all look and function the same? Where's the steering wheel? Where's the radio? Where's the motor? Gas pedal? Brake pedal? Seat adjusters? Cup holders? A/C and heat controls? Doors?
Most cars are pretty much the same. The differentiation is in the paint colors offered, the design of the body, wheels, and rims. The visual aspects, per se.
You see, the same thing could be said for start up sites. Everything is where you expect it to be. What's different are the logos and color schemes used.
Maybe a better question is, why do long-established websites tend to look like long-established websites?
Maybe websites that have been around for a while tend to fall into certain design patterns, which may be a reflection of bureaucracy or other patterns that structured orgs fall into.
What looks like a startup website is merely the lack of that. Just a thought anyway.
Maybe websites that have been around for a while tend to fall into certain design patterns, which may be a reflection of bureaucracy or other patterns that structured orgs fall into.
What looks like a startup website is merely the lack of that. Just a thought anyway.
They all look the same to us, but not necessarily to the startup's users. Startups of all types are brought to HN which is why we notice the similarities. From the user's perspective a startup is just another website in the sea of existing sites that cater to their niche. Because of that dilution I'd bet that "normal people" (aka non-startup people) don't even notice.