Gannett launches new kare11.com
Michael Gay December 10th, 2007
KARE-TV’s kare11.com in Minneapolis got a new look today, and again we see another TV station going for a lighter website rather than the dark and TV-like design we saw from the ABC O&O’s last week. A couple of thoughts on the new kare11.com: I like the whiter pages, they are much easier on the eyes. It’s nice to see most popular content on the homepage. I think users appreciate seeing what others are reading. Ok, now the critiques. Anchor pics along the top of every page? Is it 1999? At least they click to bio pages. Above the fold on the homepage I have 3 news stories. Contrast that with 5 ads (3 for sales and 2 for the station) and 7 pictures of talent. What is the goal for this site? News, sales or promotion? Also, I’m not a fan of the blue font in the story pages. I won’t read a long page in blue. I really wanted to like that the site has so many blogs featured at the bottom, so I decided to check them out only to find the first one I clicked on was last updated in February of 2007. The second one I checked was last update in June 2007. Webmasters: Delete blogs that aren’t blogs. It’s embarrassing for your site, and if the person really wants the face space on the website, they should contribute. Not to leave a bad impression of KARE, I watch them about half the time I watch local news. I like them, although this site update isn’t enough of a change for me to stop using startribune.com. But what do you think?
6 Comments Add your own
1. Don Day | December 10th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
I’ve decided that I will instantly NOT like ANY TV website that has anchor talent in the header - regardless of any other redeeming value. Any site that thinks showing the talent is the way to go needs to spend more time on LR!
More seriously - I think Michael hit all the appropriate nails on the heads here - but a few less horizontal breaks and boxes wouldn’t hurt. I do like the weather treatment and the prominent search box. But why is “BUYING HDTV” above news in the navigation? It should ‘where the news comes first’ always — not where the TV station promotion comes first.
2. joe | December 10th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
hmmm, lemme guess, tv people with little web background had a key role in the decision-making on this site.
3. Cory | December 11th, 2007 at 9:42 am
Certainly an improvement over the previous site. Fundamentally, a good TV design. (In fact, it has a similar layout to KING5.com, sans the anchors.) But then again, it’s a TV design, and I get the sense that TV comes first, not online news.
I realize the struggle here, as I live it every day. How do you balance the needs of a large TV organization with the needs of online users who may not even watch your organization on TV? Maybe you don’t.
Imagine, for example, if NBC decided years ago that NBC.com would encompass both network programming and news. Would it have become as successful as MSNBC.com today? No way.
CNN.com and ESPN.com thrive online because their corresponding cable networks are 100% focused on news and sports, respectively. During their formative years, there was no balance to be had. It was simple: cover the news and own sports.
What if NBC went with two sites, NBC.com and NBCNews.com, but didn’t do the joint operated agreement with Microsoft? Would NBCNews be as successful today as MSNBC.com? I doubt it.
The web is not TV. And I’m beginning to believe, like Borrell, that separate is better. Or at least tremendously empowered. Because you can’t and shouldn’t make all the TV stakeholders happy whenever you create something online. At the end of the day, your job isn’t to promote or even reinforce TV — it’s to build audience and revenue online.
4. Nick | December 11th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Blue text? barf. Follow Web conventions!
5. tdc | December 11th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
just another version of circlethewagons.com .
i can’t see any benefit to bleaching out the background either. it was nice on the first few because it was different. now it just looks like a damn newspaper.
6. Ed Kohler | December 11th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
I’m guilty of screwing this one up too, but that won’t stop me from criticizing: How about using different link properties for visited links? That would make it easier to tell what’s new . . . on a news site.
Leave a Comment
(Please keep URLs out of the comment body or the spam filter will block you.)Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed