 |
| Does this look high end? Even the fonts are hideous. |
Is anyone who pays attention to fashion and consumer behavior surprised? Not at all.
Even with its own vanity URL, did Google properly legitimize Boutiques with the right creative talent and vision? When you compare it to competitors like Net-a-Porter and Gilt - not to mention the traditional retailers (Saks, Barneys) and upstart, crowd-sourced sites like Polyvore and Fashism, Boutiques looks like a big company trying to be cool. J. Crew, a single brand site, blows it away.
Regrettably, even with its Creative Lab's talent, Google is not cool. And Boutiques is not cool. It might have good UX, but it doesn't feel aspirational. It seems like another shopping cart with paid-for celebrity profiles. Do these paid endorsers really shop at Boutiques.com? Would they ever? No. Consumers realize that it's a sham and are going elsewhere. They smell a fake.
I'd argue that for Boutiques.com to succeed, it properly needs to be set up on its own, with Google's money and maybe preferred search results, but not its influence. It requires a lot of design love to match its sophisticated technology underpinnings, which aren't very sexy anyway.
Time for a reboot, or time to cut bait.
No comments:
Post a Comment