Robert Scoble posted some thoughts on what he calls “anti-marketing design.” Scoble contends that ugly designs make better websites: more sticky, better brands, more fun, and more revenue. He cites Google, Craig’s List, and MySpace as ugly successes.

I disagree with Scoble that ugliness drives the success of these sites (which is an idea he reinforces more in the comments).

Two factors attribute heavily to the success of these sites. This clearer if you divide the sites into two categories: functional and community.

The Functional

The functional sites are Google/Gmail and Flickr (but Flickr is also a community!, you say. I know, but its a task-oriented community). These sites improve on a function. Searching. Emailing. Organizing and sharing photos.

It’s true that these sites have low ornamentation. Is that absence of ornamentation due to a lack of design, or evidence of it?

The design, as I see it, is in the simplicity and ease/speed they let me get things done.

The Community

The community sites are MySpace and Craig’s List.

Criag’s List is clean and easy (once you get past the over-stuffed homepage).

MySpace is “ornamented” with ads, and I think it only overcomes this through communal opportunities for vanity (in web lingo, we call that stickiness).

No, really. What holds these sites together isn’t necessarily their usability. And that’s okay, it’s an important factor but they’re not failing miserably. These two sites are successful because they build communities. You can overcome lots with that (see Metcalfe’s Law).

To argue that these sites are just created for the love of whatever is pushing it. Their goal is stakeholder value, and that’s okay.

To say that these sites succeed just because we perceive them as being “authentic” (in the sense that their built by only one person), and that appeals to us because nobody is real with us in our committee-design driven world, is pushing it. That’s not the only, or even primary reason we use these sites. It’s appreciated, but in the postmodern state, we don’t expect that.

To say they succeed because they make something a little faster, simpler, and easier, or because they connect us to people – that makes more sense.

And in doing so, they’ve acheived good design.