Do pack makers have a lock on the worst designed websites?

Or is it web sites created by people who would rather be designing and sewing packs instead of improving web sites?

I’ve built plenty of crappy web sites since the very earliest days, but they got the job done. If people are buying packs from these companies in spite of poor design and lack of information, why should they change?

If they get a lot bigger, these companies will probably improve their web sites, to reduce customer support calls and emails, and boost sales. Breath holding not recommended.

— Rex

If people are buying packs from these companies in spite of poor design and lack of information, why should they change?

Cuz they would get more sales?

Sales are not just a source of profit but an engine that funds further R&D. For a pack maker like Aarn, for instance, who is continually tweaking the design, more sales would generate more user feedback and greater revenue that would accelerate, perhaps, the design process.

McHale has gone through a lot of iterations to get where he is now, which is relatively stable. Also he arguably got a lot of key things right the first time.

I was never put off by McHale’s web site—in fact I wanted one of his packs and didn’t care if he had a polished website or not.  If all I had was a cursory interest and only wanted to do web surfing then sure his website might be confusing.

This link alone makes his website invaluable—

http://www.mchalepacks.com/gallery/detail/Red%20Helmut%20Whitney.htm

And prominently displayed on his main page is Ordering Information—the only thing really worth looking at.  Once you send in your specs he’ll figure out the rest.

http://www.mchalepacks.com/ordering/index.htm

I wasn’t put off it by it either, nor by Aarn’s or by KS ultralight’s.

But almost every time I see somebody recommend one of these packs to somebody, the recommendation invariably comes with a caveat or joke about navigating the website. That says it all.

Quality control would invariably go down due to the increased unnecessary load from all the lookyloose

Google’s website in the beginning was practically bare text. The best websites in my opinion reflect the personality of the company.

But ideally a small company that sells exclusively over the web should aim have a site that is easy to use and easy to order from. But that costs $.

Cheers

Cuz they would get more sales?

maybe they’re content with their sales as is and would rather not have a stressful 13 week wait list like swd (which, btw, would also drive away customers and lose sales). sometimes things are good enough and it’s best to leave well enough alone

As far as smaller companies go, I think ULA’s site works in both design and function.  I have ordered 2 packs from Chris and had zero issues with special instructions for customizations on a pack.  Plan to order a third pack for all my desert trips with zero hesitation.

Yes, there are some poor sites. And then there are some really, really poor sites. Now if a company only sells directly to the public, as most cottage industry pack makers do, then it could hurt sales. On the flip side, some don’t make enough money to hire a competent web designer.

McHale’s site was difficult for me in the beginning. After I talked to Dan with the intent of possible purchasing a pack, he walked me through the site and it made sense. There is a lot of fantastic information on how a well designed pack should work and how his solutions do the job. You just have to figure out where they are.

Dan built his site many, many years ago. He was an early adopter and it works more like a blog. But Dan doesn’t sell anything online. You have to call or email him, since everything is custom built. So, now, we can see he has moved from early adopter to genius . . . because you have to contact him :-)

I thought Chris Zimmer’s website was pretty good.  I imagine McHale has been around long enough he doesn’t need to boost sales, probably got all he can handle.

All that said I knew immediately who the prime suspects would be when I saw this thread.

I agree. As someone who studied website design a bit it amazes me how bad some of these sites are.

Another gripe I have about other companies is, if you’re only selling online, would it kill you to put views of your pack from a variety of angles? Cilogear, Aarn come to mind. Yes, ULA, for example. does a much better job of this.

I love digging into the details of McHale packs on his site. I admire what he does. I seriously doubt I’d ever buy one (too expensive). But his website is a mess. As mentioned, he probably has all the business he wants so he’s not suffering from a bad site. But it’s clearly a raggedy accumulation of deadends and such.

Zimmerbuilt has lots of good photos but very little explanation of how he works. Like McHale he just wants to give you enough to call him to start the process.

“From Aarn to KS Ultralight and McHale, there are some honkin’ poorly designed websites among pack makers in the outdoor gear world. Information and photos are either non-existent or buried among a haphazard maze of pages and scroll downs.”

Hi Jon

Out of curiosity, have you bought anything from KS Ultralight?  I keep looking at the Z35 ….

I have a KS50 in Liteskin 07. Really cool pack, very well made. Easy communication.

Thanks, I’m tempted …

Don’t know when I’ll next get back to Japan but at least I can order stuff.

The pack is most important, but having an idea of what features do/where’ll they’ll be located is ideal for a completely custom pack.

Some of the companies offering only simpler designs (roll top, luxury items limited to adding a belt) can have nice pictures of sweat-free hikers almost floating over the landscape.

I don’t think they have the market cornered on bad websites – there are a lot of them out there. But if they respond to email like real humans, and interact with me like a real human, I’ll forgive their lack of desire to spend time and possibly $$$ to hire a web designer for their FOH. I dealt with Loose Goose Down Supply, and their website is not flashy, but gets the job done – I just contacted them, and it was as if they really cared about my business. The same for RBTR. Their site is a bit clunky as well (the organization, the shopping cart, and the seeming disconnect between their helpdesk/FAQ site and their shop site), but they are usually good about getting back to me within a day about my questions.

Michael’s absolutely right. There’s no correlation between website aesthetics and communication / customer service.

I have had nothing but good experiences and excellent communication with the pack makers I’ve contacted over the years, regardless of their website.