« Digital Recruits | Main | Stop lurking and join in!! »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Blimey you really do like a good rant don't you Alex! To come back on your comments round awards for planning. I think you're looking at it slightly simplistically. Of course different campaigns for different recruiting companies can't be compared on a like for like basis, that's not the point. Any awards would have to be categorised in some way and judged in context. Yes this still means they are going to be subjective (show me an award ceremony on the planet that isn't) but at least the debate, arguments, rants will be round advertising / planning that has actually worked in some way and that must be a good thing! In my old team we actually managed to get a piece of digital planning work nominated for a proper planning award normally reserved for product agencies. The reason for the nomination was that we had improved the number of hires by 20% in phase two of the campaign compared to phase one. Yes the judging was subjective (it must have been we didn't win!) but at least we were in the hat for something that hugely benefited our client. At the end of day surely that has to be the point of these things!


A truly beautiful article - i just knew the YouTube thing would win as a bunch of people who dont understand social networking (does that include me???)thought they were being interesting by awarding it.
Sorry its late - but congrats on the blog to all of you - and i look forward to reading and clearly stealing all the best bits.


Though i think your criticism of Severn Trent is harsh - looking at the nominations and other work considered under Best Website - i think its a really good looking - user friendly piece of work - credit where its due


You got a new business lead Dom ;-)

Of course everything is subjective when judging any design - just that I found a number of bad links and thought it was more difficult to navigate around than was ideal from a target candidates perspective. Still, a nice site overall though I'd agree, just subjectively I preferred the boldness of the other entries.


I have to agree that I think the Severn Trent piece is a nice piece of work - but nice possibly isn't quite enough.

If you take a look at the Shell piece, you'll see huge complexity, seemless integration and 'relevant' use of new technology - not just putting a game in for th esake of it (I am here refering to the racing a frog across the bath game - not sure about that) and making the site interesting, involving and educational.

As I say, I actually like the Severn Trent site - I myslef can sometimes be overly obsessed with usability as opposed to design, as the purpose of a careers website is to inform, not just to look clever and have clever animation.

In the most part, I think that the winner does this - it's just that navigation that becomes a little frsutrating every time you need to move on a page - that's all really. I don't see the point of the race across the bath game, but maybe that's just me. It bears no real relevance to the purpose of the site - recruiting - or the message, other than it involves water, but I don't think we should run the site down completely because of this. Overall, it's a nice site.

The difference for me is that the Shell site may not be as 'cute' and 'clever' in terms of fun creative, but boy, does it use the available technologies to enhance the experience, bringing the user into the experience more, and creating a truly impressive representation of the section of the business.

It's a nice execution, and certainly moves away from what you'd expect from a company such as Shell, yet still manages to maintain a professional impression of the company, present the facts, give the users insights into the business and what it is really like to work there, see certain projects that they work on, and generally come away much better informed and able to make a decision.

And surely this is what a website is all about. It really is. And I think we forget that at awards time, and instead go for the site that is 'clever' or 'quirky' over and above the one that really does deliver beautifully on the objective.

And no, right now I'm not being paid by JWTSC, I just feel that it was a much more complete site, that's all.

But, as Matt mentions elsewhere, awarding a winner is a subjective matter, and so we will never ever agree on the winner.

At least we get the chance to have a bit of a debate over it here though, rather than just a drunken rant at the bar in the Grosvenor - and maybe generate a little more thought and discussion that could hopefully influence future awards.

At the moment, I think the submissions for best website are generally just those that 'look different' and may appeal to the judging panel, rather than a well-thought out, complex piece of online development that doesn't necessarily do 'lots of clever things' but does deliver the information clearly, cleanly and logically - ensuring that the user can find out what they have come to look for.

I would imagine that, with a lot of the winners we have seen over the years, if you asked the user to 'go and find x, or y' they would struggle, and get frustrated. And that, in my opinion, does not make a good website.

OK - I'll stop now. Like I say, I do really like the Severn Trent site, but based on the above, I'm not sure it's the best our industry has delivered this year - but maybe the fact that I've not ever been on a judging panel means that I am missing the point.

Who knows...

The comments to this entry are closed.