It doesn’t have Nike.com’s impact, nor does it have a unique layout like Nike or Adidas.
In fact, it’s about as bad as Foot Locker’s website.
When you have millions in funding, a global consumer brand, and countless products (thus, promotional opportunities) your website better be jaw-dropping, otherwise you end up looking cheap.
I was compared this with the Nike site a bit and there were only a few things I favored on the Nike site more, but the differences are drastic.
The type styles on the product images towards the footer have a lot of variance, Nike does a better job of product focus with the black/white UI and the color and vibrance/impact if you will coming from their product images. Also the consistent typography treatments for the product titles definitely assist with a more pleasurable browsing.
Some areas on the Puma site seem very overdone (again, product images with text overlay on the bottom, with multiple type styles and different background colors) while some seem to have been neglected.
Overall I prefer the clean, simple, tailored look of Nike. I think Puma could have done a better job with this site by utilizing the hero area and horizontal nav effect (bold large product images, simple tailored navigation), as opposed to big hero shot and burdening content.
Thank you Rich. I was just about to reply to Tyler and mention the small details that make a difference, but you summed it up: few elements, but the differences are drastic.
If anything, after looking at this site again, I can only come up with two conclusions: either Puma tried to cut costs and went with a cheaper (and less experienced designer(s), or they didn’t give the designer(s) enough time, hence the rough, unpolished feel.
Adidas changed their site from the last time I checked, and I’m not liking it as much, but at the very least, it doesn’t feel like a generic e-commerce template like this one does.
I don’t think this a bad looking website at all. I do however think its a case of the design doesn’t necessarily = the implementation. As in, once the CMS is in there, and the client get’s their hands it, it becomes it’s own animal.
In relation to other consumer/product websites, it sure as hell beats 90% of mobile phone, electronics or car websites.
It’s not necessarily a bad looking site, but when your competitors, like dudey said, are adidas, nike, etc, your site has to compete with them just like your products compete with them, and this just not seem to be on par.
15 Comments
For such a large company, this is pretty rubbish.
It doesn’t have Nike.com’s impact, nor does it have a unique layout like Nike or Adidas.
In fact, it’s about as bad as Foot Locker’s website.
When you have millions in funding, a global consumer brand, and countless products (thus, promotional opportunities) your website better be jaw-dropping, otherwise you end up looking cheap.
Looks pretty nice to me…
Nike inspiration?
Of all the Puma micro sites, I prefer this one the most.
Dude, if you thought this one looked cheap, did you see the golf micro site! – I was almost sick.
Viget Labs?
@Geoff
I gagged as well. I’ve seen better websites for mom n’ pop bakeries.
Or maybe Puma’s doing a retro thing… circa 2004.
Clear, functional, usable, stylish. Nice site!
A nice improvement from there previous site.
Don’t know what’s cheap about it and see nothing special or unique in the nike or adidas sites compared to this.
I was compared this with the Nike site a bit and there were only a few things I favored on the Nike site more, but the differences are drastic.
The type styles on the product images towards the footer have a lot of variance, Nike does a better job of product focus with the black/white UI and the color and vibrance/impact if you will coming from their product images. Also the consistent typography treatments for the product titles definitely assist with a more pleasurable browsing.
Some areas on the Puma site seem very overdone (again, product images with text overlay on the bottom, with multiple type styles and different background colors) while some seem to have been neglected.
Overall I prefer the clean, simple, tailored look of Nike. I think Puma could have done a better job with this site by utilizing the hero area and horizontal nav effect (bold large product images, simple tailored navigation), as opposed to big hero shot and burdening content.
Compared = comparing.
Thank you Rich. I was just about to reply to Tyler and mention the small details that make a difference, but you summed it up: few elements, but the differences are drastic.
If anything, after looking at this site again, I can only come up with two conclusions: either Puma tried to cut costs and went with a cheaper (and less experienced designer(s), or they didn’t give the designer(s) enough time, hence the rough, unpolished feel.
Adidas changed their site from the last time I checked, and I’m not liking it as much, but at the very least, it doesn’t feel like a generic e-commerce template like this one does.
No flash. Good point. Eyecandy.
I don’t think this a bad looking website at all. I do however think its a case of the design doesn’t necessarily = the implementation. As in, once the CMS is in there, and the client get’s their hands it, it becomes it’s own animal.
In relation to other consumer/product websites, it sure as hell beats 90% of mobile phone, electronics or car websites.
It’s not necessarily a bad looking site, but when your competitors, like dudey said, are adidas, nike, etc, your site has to compete with them just like your products compete with them, and this just not seem to be on par.
hi guys i found a great get paid survey website where you can make cash quickly. visit goo.gl/hqcR