Thanks for responding to my post, you’ve raised some good points.

Projects that harness what I described as a “productive synthesis” between client and agency are best-case scenarios. In the worst cases, this synthesis is far from productive and the end result doesn’t work for anyone – agency, client or (most importantly) the customer who has to interact with the result.

I’ve got to admit that I myself have, at times, decided to take the easy option and not challenge the client hard enough on projects where I’ve led the design process. But those days are behind me – those of us on the agency side need to assert ourselves.

One positive trend I’ve noticed in the last few years is that clients are increasingly willing to see agencies as ‘advisers’ and not just practitioners. The best clients expect to be challenged and are disappointed when agencies kow-tow too much.

The key to success in any client/agency relationship is for it to foster impassioned, creative discussions that don’t become fractious or personalised. Ideally the client/agency distinction should only be a contractual one, and people working on a project should view themselves as a single team with a common goal, that shares the credit when things go well—but also shares responsibility when things go badly…

Brendan

You raise a very interesting point, the final website is very much a joint responsibility between the client and the agency.

To further clarify the point I was making about agencies ‘focusing too much on design or non-essential technical features’, I’m refereeing to some agencies taking the easier route of designing the website for their client, not their client’s customers.

It’s an agency’s job to challenge the client, let them know that the websites goal is to drive business, designing it for their customers, not them directly. What the client thinks is great design or a must have technical feature, isn’t necessary great for the end user or usability.

The easy route is to just take on all the feedback from the client which may or may not improve the look of the site, but it may impact the usability, something a client may not have a huge amount of experience in. How many times has a client said ‘make my logo bigger’? They say it all the time, that’s a classic example of designing for the client, and not necessary for the users of the website.

Another classic example, a client may ask ‘I want all text above the fold, if there’s too much, add a scrollbar so that my logo and contact details are always on screen’. Maybe this ‘could’ looks nice, but bad usability.

So yes, Clients are indeed ultimately responsible for a website’s success, but it’s the agency’s role to reign in the client if required. While they may understand their brand and clients better – the agency will have much more experience in usability. That’s what they’re buying, the added value of an agency’s experience.

I guess to summarize, companies are losing out on potential business because their web agency hasn’t challenged their ideas enough – focused too much on pleasing the client, which in some cases is not always delivering the best solution.

Adam