The Marketplace is under renovation. Thank you for your patience.
Behind The Firm List Blog
What are We Awarding?
I followed a link over to the SXSW 2004 Web Awards Finalist list. Some amazing sites on
there, quite amazing. And then there are some which aren't all that amazing. And of both
types, I've seen so many sites on the web which are just as good if not better, so it makes
me wonder what awards like those are all about.
Perhaps it's similar to the Oscars, where there's been a lot of talk about how smaller
studios can't compete with the larger studios. A matter of money. A matter of promotion.
A matter of how many eyeballs a particular movie can reach. And the right eyeballs at
that.
There will certainly always be those movies which start out in relative obscurity and
somehow burst out as underground phenomena and get an amazing amount of press and
awareness and manage to take on the big-budget productions. But these are few and
far between.
I think this Oscar analogy is very similar to other awards, particular web awards. There
are countless sites out there, yet you often see the same ones referenced and awarded
again and again. And if not the same sites, then sites from the same smaller pool of
designers/developers.
Sure, you have to get your site known to be considered, but do some sites have an
advantage over others? Do some designers/developers have a leg up on everyone else?
I think so. I've been doing this long enough to see the same names, same sites appear
again and again.
And as I said, I think they are all quite good, but I know of many others just as
good if not better.
Another factor I think needs to be examined is how awards like the SXSW Web Awards all
seem to focus on new sites, or sites with some new feature in that calendar year. Sure,
I think this approach has merits. People want to know what is hot, what is new. But
what about the merits of sites which have been around for a long time and continue to
grow and get better? Where the focus has been on sitewide improvements, upgrades to
the user interface and site experience which make an already valuable site even better.
There is no chance of recognition for improvements like that when you're judging new
sites. There's nothing defineably new about it. But it's a noticeably better site.
Perhaps a much improved site that is just as good as any of the sites launched this
particular year that's up for an award, yet it was also just as good as any of the sites
launched last year, and the year before, and so on.
Shouldn't there be some sort awards set up to honor and reward sites that have grown
and evolved and are stronger today than could be summed up in any one calendar year.
I know enough sites, including those who won awards for a particular year, which have
stagnated or disappeared completely. And I know sites which keep getting better and
better after 2, 3, 4, 5 even 8 years and more. Where's the award for them?
Do we want to encourage the immediate, possibly short-lived side of the web or do we want
to support the ongoing improvements and institutions that get it. That get that the web
is not a short-lived thing but something which lasts. That the web doesn't live in a
single edition, but is enhanced every day and every year by hard work and talent. That
if the web was filled entirely with sites of the year for 199X and 200X that we'd have
a lot more frozen, decaying and dead sites on the web.
And the winner of the 5-Year Award of Continued Merit goes to...
