I'm reading Chris Edwards post on the feud between Shel Israel (who I know) and Loren Feldman (who I don't know. I start searching around for Loren and Shel through Google and other search engines and really don't find anything about the feud, but then I run across this piece by Israel a little over a year ago on why static websites are still valuable. I think I passed an entire tuna sandwich through my nose on point 5.
1. Environmental purposes. The web site replaces the tripfold, full-bleed corporate broachure that no one ever read. Entire forests have been saved by the move to websites. Now no one can read what companies have written in a much more eco friendly way,
2. Historic Value. Now you can take a trip down memory lane and see the state of last decade's internet technology from the comfort of your home without visiting the Computer History Museum.
3. To see opportunities you missed. Most enterprise site seem to list job opportunities that were filled in time to face the Y2K crisis. But there they remain, frozen in time, sort of like Hemingway's leopard on the top of Mt. Kilimanjaro.
4. To lower unemployment. We writers already know we are a low-cost commodity because the supply exceeds the demand. The use of the least talented of us to write websites at least keeps the price above one dime per dozen, which is what most CMOs think writers are worth.
5. To eliminate differentiation. It almost as much fun as reading a train schedule to examine the websites of competing companies. They use the same color and cliches, art from the same stock supplier, design to look like the other guys. Then each site tells you that they are the leaders.
Like I said. It's a funny place.