BEST

The one common factor of all these websites is that they should make you excited about the programming for that network. As usual, the more innovative, usable and aesthetically pleasing along the way the better. I think these are the best:

FX Network

FX has a unique layout while clearly highlighting their unique programming.

ESPN

ESPN is one of the rare cases of being equally dominant on air and on the tubes. Their recent redesign keeps them on top.

FOX

Say what you want about them but their website is clean, sticks out from the other big 5 networks and highlights their shows well.

Discovery Network

They manage to make educational programming look… sexy. At least better than PBS.

TNT

Easy to digest and I love the transitions on the sliding hero graphic. They took a tried and true user pattern and made it work well for them.

Food Network

Similar to ESPN they are big players in the culinary resources available online.

CBS

When a channel goes out to promote a popular show… might as well go all in. I don’t even watch Survivor but I wanted to after visiting,

Bravo

Bravo did a good job of developing a simple, yet unique look. It went a long way in helping their content look fresh to their target demographics.

CNN

CNN is one of the cornerstone news websites on the web.

Cinemax

Cinemax opted to do a fresh layout with interesting typography choices while highlighting popular features — like highlighting current programming on the homepage.

AVERAGE

These networks offer compelling content yet their websites present the programming in a generic way. I’m not very excited by what I see on the homepage and the actual website features are not very compelling considering the content.

PBS

A network with so much history and who us so beloved by their viewers has a very unassuming website. Granted, their demographic may skew mature but I think this is a competent if not generic design.

NBC

I don’t understand the organic swirl background and what the heck it has to do with NBC. This reminds me of a late 1990s portal search engine website.

HBO

This is the BMW of TV networks. All I see is text text text. They couldn’t find a way to bring some of the glitz, glam, guns, sin and sex people love about HBO into the home?

Travel Channel

Travel Channel. Not as popular as the rest of the TV channels but they have a built in excuse and unique programming subject matter to go nuts but they don’t. Let the genie out of the bottle!

WORST

What stuck out the most to me as being “worst” is that channels who have distinct content that can naturally translate to the web don’t stand out.

VH1

VH1 manages to be loud but quiet, bold yet shy… the design could stand to be “chunked out” a little to help visually distinguish sections from each other. All I see is text, text, girl, girl, pink, pink and it feels very chaotic.

MTV

Their contribution to the internet is a huge form field and a Javascript randomizer for their style sheets?

BET

It feels like they’re trying to fill up space. Regardless, very uninspired for a TV network with their cache in youth culture.

ABC

This is the best ABC can come up with? I logged on to your website to watch commercials, get a clue. Those little thumbnails and middling hero graphic are very uninspiring compared to what FX does.

NICK

Another website that can use some “chunking”. It feels like content soup which may not be a great idea considering the demographic for some of the content.

TBS

Going along with their tagline — “very funny”, it looks like a very happy website but the lack of contrast is very glaring. If they had just a bit more white on this website (especially as a background for text) they could be in the “best” category.

Articles you may also like:

En Fuego! Best & Worst NBA Websites
10 Shockingly Beautiful US Government Websites!
Comparing Websites of Rival Companies

Agree? Disagree? Let me hear it in the comments?

This is NOT a in-depth design review of the websites. Judging based on usability, creativity and overall impression based actual task performance on the websites — I choose a “victor”.

Adidas vs. Nike

Usability: Nike.
Both cutting edge — but Nike is more organized and is more consistent moving between their content.
Creativity: Nike.
Adidas’s website may be more “innovative” but Nike is actually doing more with sports community like with their “Ballers Network” social network. To me, that’s being more creative than fancy Flash graphics.
Overall: Nike.
Adidas’s website would actually annoy me if I had to visit it on a regular basis.

Fender vs. Gibson

Usability: Gibson.
Their website utilizes white space better. Scanning the content is easier when there are contrasting sections of positive and negative space.
Creativity: Gibson.
They both show their beautiful guitars well but Gibson is more web savvy in attempting to build a community behind their products by allowing a ranking system and comments for the products.
Overall: Gibson.
Fender’s website feels like it’s on the cusp of being out dated especially compared to their rival.

Apple vs. Microsoft

Usability: Apple.
Microsoft just completely overloads you with options and is overwhelming. Apple does a better job of moving you closer to where you want to be.
Creativity: Apple.
Apple is superior aesthetically in a functional way but also makes you feel excited about the products they sell.
Overall: Apple.
Microsoft is a bigger company and serves a bigger market and my impression is that they do a good job trying to figure out how to serve their viewers. However, no excuses — the Apple experience extends to the website.

Canon vs. Nikon

Usability: Nikon.
Nikon is much easier to use, find products and to surf in general. Canon is confusing, glitch-ey and unimpressive.
Creativity: Nikon.
Your first impression of Canon is that it’s not that dated but the more you use it, the more it feels like they are a website generation behind Nikon.
Overall: Nikon.
Canon is a international brand and although it must be difficult and expensive for them to operate, much less update — your competition is blowing you out of the water.

Google vs. Yahoo

Usability: Google.
My personal preference for a utility website that I frequently visit is for it to be as singularly focused on that specific function as possible without the fluff. When I’m doing a search at work it just doesn’t feel professional to perform that task on a homepage with cheesy Yahoo Travel images of beach goers holding hands.
Creativity: Google.
Neither could be accused of being “creative” in a aesthetic sense but Google did pioneer the sparse, minimalistic look we often see in other websites. Yahoo appears almost… dated.
Overall: Google.
You can argue whether who has better search results but I personally prefer Google.

What can we take away from this?

A website user’s impression of usability, creativity and overall impression is not mutually exclusive. They are factors that come together as a package deal in a good website. I’ve never heard of this in a usability test but if your company is hiring impartial volunteers in a blind test — set up a test for your competition’s website as well. Then you will know how you stack up in a direct website to website comparison.

Which websites did you prefer? Give me your picks in the comments!