Designing a counter-argument
Though it happens with less frequency, we are sometimes challenged by a prospect to explain exactly what they are getting when they pay good money for 'design'. "I need online sales," they say, "so I'm willing to pay for a sophisticated shopping cart, search engine optimization programs, even advertising. But I think I can get away with discount design."
Over the years, our answers to this challenge have evolved. Originally, we were nervous that we had no statistics to back up the effect of excellent design on a site's R.O.I. We appealed to a prospect's instincts and customer feedback that design was worth the investment.
Then, the analytics came rolling in. Industry yakkers like Jakob Nielsen, Don Norman, and others too numerous to mention began arguing that design was the foundation of user experience; in possible fact, that it was the single greatest determinant of whether an online visitor becomes an online buyer. Focus groups, site redesign projects at major corporations (with the improved ROI to show for it), and many other case studies have confirmed what designers have been advocating all along: bad design discourages sales.
One interesting development however is that 'good design' which used to be seen as more quantitative, measured against a set of 'best practice' standards, is now more often seen as shifting toward a more customer-centric view of what designs work best - creating a more horizontal bar graph of various good designs rather than a vertical one showing good and bad - all based on what target audience the retailer had in mind.
The latest and greatest contribution to the 'design is worth every penny' school and 'there are many ways to judge it', comes from Internet Retailer, (You'll have to enter 'Designs on Success' into the search area) Designs on Success in its March 2007 issue.