Startups, Teams, and Producers
On the one hand, Runet is very good in terms of information design, as Yaroslav Greshilov wrote earlier .
But if we look at catalogr.ru , then the bulk of the projects are quite low in terms of all moments of implementation. Therefore, let's talk about the reasons that affect a good result.
Teams and Producers
')
Let's start with the studios, which practically do not make their own web 2.0 projects. For example, in terms of resources, Lebedev Studio could easily launch a project like memori.ru, but it releases tabak.ru and opens offline stores as its own. (It is even more curious that the social bookmarking service was never launched on Yandex .) Why?
It speaks about the great specifics of creating social projects. The reason is that hired teams, whether they are studios or created for a project, do not have the concept and experience of the complete process of producing an Internet project. Not ready for the right choice of topics, launch, promotion of projects, recruitment. They are engaged in all this, and they earn it on this, producers: they have the means and experience to connect all stages.
It's interesting to remember the old customers and performers holivar: can the implementing team (studio, or designer) tell the customer how to do the project? In the case of the producer, the answer should be “no”, but rather it is important for him to select those specialists who correctly understand the task (based on their portfolio). And only the producer (and not one of the performers) is aware of the holistic task of creating a product. Therefore, the studios themselves, where there is no such person, are practically helpless.
Studios
Still, let's try to list the studios involved in web 2.0 projects:
artlebedev.ru doing design for Yandex (but not engaged in programming)
Hank (very associated with the inVenture incubator);
The Gorbunov Bureau , which managed to give so many tips on sites over the year, but which has only included Weboram in its portfolio;
908 (recently created audiko , in many of whose works there are social moments).
A very modest list, but I don’t remember the brightest representatives anymore. (Hall help?)
Perhaps the exception is the company Bolotov, with its almost web 2.0 projects Drive.ru and Rorer , which look somewhat different: for example, although the contextual advertising network Rorer was launched before Begun, the market coverage is strongly in favor of the latter due to the fact that Rorer is not adapted to be a platform and sharpened by serious media, while the runner continues to lower the bar entry for sites. Let's see what will be released in the gammagroup , which recently stated that they were reassigned to the development of Internet projects.
Of course, switching to your own projects is waiting for many other teams. But it is not easy, and for studios it is a series of reforms.
Producers' Approach in Choosing a Project Theme
Web 2.0 projects in RuNet are becoming a business like building cottages on the rising land. More and more willing to invest in them. And in business there is not much space for “competition in originality”.
Producers are engaged in market research and identify trends, search for all the necessary conditions for the launch of a successful project. The western market is being studied for successful models ( Go2Web2.0 ). The Runet market is studied in terms of empty and developing niches, the most suitable models “there” are chosen for “here” and implementation begins. That is how classmates, memori.ru, Rutube were launched.
Here it is appropriate to get acquainted with the ideas of the inVenture incubator about the project development .
By the way, recently theorist-analyst inVenture Greshilov wrote that building social services is more profitable, rather than communities (discussing the experience of his former project ). Indeed, on the part of the activities of Futurico , Thematic Media - not so profitable. But their work is much nicer in implementation and for spending time :)
Against this background, studios' attempts to make those projects that are closer to them, based on the command staff, look very weak.
How are the teams going
In fact, production centers are distinguished by the creation of a team for the project. Maxim Spiridonov recently talked about how they put together remote teams , arguing, by saving, the involvement of non-Moscow specialists and the creation of a team from scratch.
Assembling a team, staffing it with the best specialists for a project is not easy. But it is not easy to use a ready-made team, which usually has its own plans and features.
Another thing is that there is no specialized resource for team selection and self-organization: free-lance.ru, as well as habr, is very poorly suited for this, because there are few good specialists, and they are lost on such resources. The inconvenience of creating a team becomes one of the advantages for projects such as the Reuber Production Center or inVenture, who are ready to turn the idea in personnel and money , making it their business.
The technical part of the teams in the web 2.0
The well-known fact that Internet projects is a constant beta and changes (for example, Habr, again preparing a new version). But most of the teams that take on the project, even if they guessed the niche (which is also not at all easy), are not ready for permanent changes - the composition of technologists does not allow them.
For example, the iLoveCinema project was discussed not so long ago; its team implemented only 40% of the conceived functionality, although it can be seen that at the launch stage they were not deprived of funds. Consequently, they are seriously mistaken in predicting development costs. And not only they.
At the same time, we know about purely technical projects, with no special design, like Odnoklassniki, created by Albert Popkov; "My Circle", "World Tessen", two of whose authors, Samokhvalov and Zolotukhin, recently gave Intevryu ; as well as Quintura - these projects were created by technologists, and very successfully.
Designers
As for designers, most of them live in the world of type sites of 2005, produced by Lebedev Studio and the first works of Stepan Burlakov .
Not that this is bad in and of itself, but information designers who are well able to work with web 2.0 are very few. These are the ones that are heard to some degree:
- Voronezh, Fedorov and Loginov from SAL (at the same time, as a Yandex user, Voronezh lynches himself, that yandex.ru is a boring page , and this is an absolute minus of information design of the Studio)
- Artyom Gorbunov , who, together with Voronezhsky, has already had a formative influence on the Runet thanks to all the same Yandex (and without the first search engine, the Studio's web portfolio would be much easier)
- Jovan Savovich ( works by Futurico are just vividly distinguished by a very pleasant design - this is rare)
- Vladimir Lipka , recently updated his portfolio
- Philip Smirnov ( motka.ru )
- Evgeny Luchinin , who is very good at Tasty
- Max Bogatyrev , whose success was memori.ru
- Igor Starkov - however, I did not have to see well-known working projects with his design, while there are a lot of mock-ups.
Again a very short list.
There are about a dozen people who do not advertise themselves (you can look at some freelancers in the category of web interfaces and on the bestwebdevs in the web 2.0 section ).
As a result, it turns out that the nuances in choosing a topic, creating the right team, financing and carrying out projects lead to a shortage of startups. And the market is still emerging. What well :)
But if we look at catalogr.ru , then the bulk of the projects are quite low in terms of all moments of implementation. Therefore, let's talk about the reasons that affect a good result.
Teams and Producers
')
Let's start with the studios, which practically do not make their own web 2.0 projects. For example, in terms of resources, Lebedev Studio could easily launch a project like memori.ru, but it releases tabak.ru and opens offline stores as its own. (It is even more curious that the social bookmarking service was never launched on Yandex .) Why?
It speaks about the great specifics of creating social projects. The reason is that hired teams, whether they are studios or created for a project, do not have the concept and experience of the complete process of producing an Internet project. Not ready for the right choice of topics, launch, promotion of projects, recruitment. They are engaged in all this, and they earn it on this, producers: they have the means and experience to connect all stages.
It's interesting to remember the old customers and performers holivar: can the implementing team (studio, or designer) tell the customer how to do the project? In the case of the producer, the answer should be “no”, but rather it is important for him to select those specialists who correctly understand the task (based on their portfolio). And only the producer (and not one of the performers) is aware of the holistic task of creating a product. Therefore, the studios themselves, where there is no such person, are practically helpless.
Studios
Still, let's try to list the studios involved in web 2.0 projects:
artlebedev.ru doing design for Yandex (but not engaged in programming)
Hank (very associated with the inVenture incubator);
The Gorbunov Bureau , which managed to give so many tips on sites over the year, but which has only included Weboram in its portfolio;
908 (recently created audiko , in many of whose works there are social moments).
A very modest list, but I don’t remember the brightest representatives anymore. (Hall help?)
Perhaps the exception is the company Bolotov, with its almost web 2.0 projects Drive.ru and Rorer , which look somewhat different: for example, although the contextual advertising network Rorer was launched before Begun, the market coverage is strongly in favor of the latter due to the fact that Rorer is not adapted to be a platform and sharpened by serious media, while the runner continues to lower the bar entry for sites. Let's see what will be released in the gammagroup , which recently stated that they were reassigned to the development of Internet projects.
Of course, switching to your own projects is waiting for many other teams. But it is not easy, and for studios it is a series of reforms.
Producers' Approach in Choosing a Project Theme
Web 2.0 projects in RuNet are becoming a business like building cottages on the rising land. More and more willing to invest in them. And in business there is not much space for “competition in originality”.
Producers are engaged in market research and identify trends, search for all the necessary conditions for the launch of a successful project. The western market is being studied for successful models ( Go2Web2.0 ). The Runet market is studied in terms of empty and developing niches, the most suitable models “there” are chosen for “here” and implementation begins. That is how classmates, memori.ru, Rutube were launched.
Here it is appropriate to get acquainted with the ideas of the inVenture incubator about the project development .
By the way, recently theorist-analyst inVenture Greshilov wrote that building social services is more profitable, rather than communities (discussing the experience of his former project ). Indeed, on the part of the activities of Futurico , Thematic Media - not so profitable. But their work is much nicer in implementation and for spending time :)
Against this background, studios' attempts to make those projects that are closer to them, based on the command staff, look very weak.
How are the teams going
In fact, production centers are distinguished by the creation of a team for the project. Maxim Spiridonov recently talked about how they put together remote teams , arguing, by saving, the involvement of non-Moscow specialists and the creation of a team from scratch.
Assembling a team, staffing it with the best specialists for a project is not easy. But it is not easy to use a ready-made team, which usually has its own plans and features.
Another thing is that there is no specialized resource for team selection and self-organization: free-lance.ru, as well as habr, is very poorly suited for this, because there are few good specialists, and they are lost on such resources. The inconvenience of creating a team becomes one of the advantages for projects such as the Reuber Production Center or inVenture, who are ready to turn the idea in personnel and money , making it their business.
The technical part of the teams in the web 2.0
The well-known fact that Internet projects is a constant beta and changes (for example, Habr, again preparing a new version). But most of the teams that take on the project, even if they guessed the niche (which is also not at all easy), are not ready for permanent changes - the composition of technologists does not allow them.
For example, the iLoveCinema project was discussed not so long ago; its team implemented only 40% of the conceived functionality, although it can be seen that at the launch stage they were not deprived of funds. Consequently, they are seriously mistaken in predicting development costs. And not only they.
At the same time, we know about purely technical projects, with no special design, like Odnoklassniki, created by Albert Popkov; "My Circle", "World Tessen", two of whose authors, Samokhvalov and Zolotukhin, recently gave Intevryu ; as well as Quintura - these projects were created by technologists, and very successfully.
Designers
As for designers, most of them live in the world of type sites of 2005, produced by Lebedev Studio and the first works of Stepan Burlakov .
Not that this is bad in and of itself, but information designers who are well able to work with web 2.0 are very few. These are the ones that are heard to some degree:
- Voronezh, Fedorov and Loginov from SAL (at the same time, as a Yandex user, Voronezh lynches himself, that yandex.ru is a boring page , and this is an absolute minus of information design of the Studio)
- Artyom Gorbunov , who, together with Voronezhsky, has already had a formative influence on the Runet thanks to all the same Yandex (and without the first search engine, the Studio's web portfolio would be much easier)
- Jovan Savovich ( works by Futurico are just vividly distinguished by a very pleasant design - this is rare)
- Vladimir Lipka , recently updated his portfolio
- Philip Smirnov ( motka.ru )
- Evgeny Luchinin , who is very good at Tasty
- Max Bogatyrev , whose success was memori.ru
- Igor Starkov - however, I did not have to see well-known working projects with his design, while there are a lot of mock-ups.
Again a very short list.
There are about a dozen people who do not advertise themselves (you can look at some freelancers in the category of web interfaces and on the bestwebdevs in the web 2.0 section ).
As a result, it turns out that the nuances in choosing a topic, creating the right team, financing and carrying out projects lead to a shortage of startups. And the market is still emerging. What well :)
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/23463/
All Articles