Since I read this post on countersignalling, I have been bothered by a feeling that there was a good example I could not bring to the front of my mind. I just realised what it was: ugly websites.
Last year, there was a flurry of interest in the success of ugly web-sites. There are two explanations for this:
- Ugly websites are simple ones, which are easy to use.
- Ugly websites signal that they are run by people with a personal interest in the content, rather than by marketing departments.
The latter has been called anti-marketing design.
Given that it is perfectly possible to have an aesthetically pleasing website that is usable, the first effect does not seem likely to be the complete explanation. There does seem to be a signal here, that an ugly website signals care about users and usability, rather than aesthetic and branding, and the design does not need to be good, because the content is.
While a concern for aesthetics may seem to benefit visitors to a site, in practice sites are made pretty to please those running them.
The most successful of my sites has been the ugliest: maybe I should simplify and redesign the others.