
By a web design engineer, former concert photographer, and avid concertgoer.
I’ve gone to a lot of concerts. I used to photograph them too, which means I spent a lot of time in venues and even more time figuring out what was happening at venues. I also happen to work in web design as a Staff Engineer. So when I visit a venue website, it’s a little hard to just browse casually. I’m immediately noticing what about the site makes me excited to visit and what quietly pushes me away. Here’s the top three things I’m looking for:
What actually makes me most want to visit a venue is pretty self-explanatory: the events. Therefore, on a venue website, I want to see those events as soon as possible. When I land there, I’m hoping the shows are already visible.
I’m not really taking a ton of time to look at the giant splash image or a marketing paragraph, only enough to grasp the ambiance. When I do get to the events, I don’t want to hunt through confusing calendars. I want to scroll, scan, and quickly understand what they have to offer right away.
Really, having a simple list available works incredibly well. Artist name, date, and a thumbnail image. Lists communicate a lot with very little friction, and a simple image helps too because you can instantly recognize a band or the vibe of an event. That’s enough for me to decide whether I want to click into more detail.
The second very important piece is the call to action. The more clicks it takes to get to the ticket page, the less likely I am to finish the process. A clear CTA button that says “Tickets” is an easy and accessible option.
This is something ticketing systems forget all the time. The entire goal should be helping someone buy a ticket quickly while they’re excited about the show. But a lot of sites accidentally introduce friction. You click the event, then another page, then a ticketing page, then a redirect, then a verification step…then a queue.
At some point you just think, I’ll do this later. Especially on mobile.
Ironically, a lot of that friction is meant to stop bots. But bots don’t get annoyed. People do. Adding hurdles to slow down bots often just punishes the real audience. If a venue has to choose who to prioritize, it should be the person who actually wants to attend the show.
Clear calls to action also matter more than people realize. The word people are looking for is usually “Tickets.” When language is consistent across the site, it becomes easy to scan and act quickly.
This gets harder for venues that host lots of different types of programming. Concerts, talks, community events, rentals. Suddenly the site has to explain a lot more. That’s where clear, accessible copywriting matters even more. Consistency helps visitors understand the structure without thinking too hard about it.
My biggest pet peeve, however, is when a venue stops updating the website.
I’ve seen events and cancellations announced only on Instagram. The official site stays frozen while the real information is scattered across different platforms, and even though social media has become an undeniable part of our lives, there’s still a lot of people who don’t use these platforms or are not logged in all the time. This creates a bunch of friction for users. If I’m trying to decide whether to go somewhere, the venue website should still be the source of truth.
Because ultimately the site isn’t just a list of events. It’s about communicating the experience of the venue itself. The challenge is balancing that storytelling with clarity.
But if I had to pick the single thing that determines whether I stick around on a venue website, it’s this: how fast can I see what’s playing and buy a ticket.
Everything else? I can take it or leave it.

Case Study: Red Rocks Amphitheater


Case Study: Northwestern Bienen School of Music


Case Study: Constellation
Web design is the process of planning and creating the visual layout, user interface, and overall experience of websites. It encompasses visual design (colors, typography, imagery), user experience design (navigation, interactions, user flows), information architecture (content organization), and responsive design (mobile/tablet/desktop optimization). Web design focuses on how a site looks and how users interact with it, distinct from web development (the coding/programming).
The typical web design process includes: 1) Discovery and research (2-3 weeks), 2) Information architecture and sitemap (1-2 weeks), 3) Wireframing and UX design (2-3 weeks), 4) Visual design and mockups (2-4 weeks), 5) Development and coding (4-8 weeks), 6) Testing and QA (1-2 weeks), and 7) Launch and post-launch optimization (ongoing). Total timeline ranges from 12-24 weeks for most projects depending on scope and complexity.
For a typical mid-sized website redesign: Discovery (2-3 weeks), Strategy and IA (1-2 weeks), Wireframing (2-3 weeks), Visual Design (3-4 weeks), Development (6-8 weeks), Testing (2 weeks), and Launch preparation (1 week). Enterprise projects with complex integrations can extend development to 12-16 weeks. Rush projects compressing these timelines often sacrifice quality and strategic thinking.
The discovery phase includes: stakeholder interviews to understand business goals, competitive analysis of 5-10 similar organizations, user research (surveys, analytics review, user interviews), technical audit of existing site, content inventory and gap analysis, and defining success metrics. This phase establishes project foundation and typically takes 2-3 weeks, resulting in a strategy document that guides all subsequent work.
Web design focuses on visual appearance, user experience, and interface design—creating mockups, choosing colors/typography, and planning user interactions. Web development involves coding these designs into functional websites using HTML, CSS, JavaScript, and backend programming. Modern projects require both disciplines working collaboratively, with designers considering technical feasibility and developers ensuring designs translate accurately to live sites.
Successful projects require consistent client involvement: weekly status meetings, feedback rounds at each phase completion (typically 3-5 business days per round), stakeholder availability for discovery interviews, content provision according to schedule, and timely decision-making on design options. Projects with engaged clients that respond within agreed timeframes complete 30-40% faster than those with delayed feedback cycles.
Agencies offer full teams (designers, developers, strategists, PMs), diverse expertise across disciplines, redundancy if someone is unavailable, established processes and project management, long-term support capabilities, and larger project capacity. Freelancers offer lower costs, direct communication, flexibility, and speed for smaller projects. Choose agencies for: projects over $50K, complex integrations, need for strategy + design + development, or ongoing support requirements. Choose freelancers for: budgets under $25K, simple sites, or when you have internal expertise to fill gaps.