1: A good web designer will be ALL about the brand (though I would argue that’s not brand at all, but rather corporate/product identity, but that’s another argument). Issues with brand considerations are no more a problem for a good web designer than they are a good print designer, and a bad print designer will have just as much likelihood to have problems as a bad web designer.

2: Same here. When I work with or talk with other designers, one of the top questions they’ll ask is who the site is targeting and why, and if it’s desired to attract others and how to do all that. Audiences are enormously important to us, and I’ve worked with more than a couple print designers that haven’t even given it a second thought.

3: Every good web writer (because really, content strategy isn’t the responsibility of the designer), and I mean EVERY, will tell you less is more. People don’t read web sites, they scan. The less there is to scan, the more likely they are to see what you want them to. This is a well established principle in web.

4: I don’t get one of your examples here. The fireworks ad looks like a dandelion, that’s the first thing I thought of, not a sucker. And ever after being told a it’s a sucker, I don’t buy it. That’s not clever, it’s confusing. It goes to show that being clever isn’t always a component of the designer, but can be driven by ideas from other members of your team, but that requires you to have a robust team, print, web, regardless. And it’s hard to be clever all the time. I’d never say either web or print people are more creative or clever than the other.

And the rest of the points go on exactly this same way. Reading the post, it feels more like you’ve never worked with a real web design team, but rather the kid in the basement next door that did a site for your cousin once. The issues addressed here aren’t “things web should learn from print,” they are things good designers and marketers of all trades should know, and frequently do, if they are good at what they do. Treating it otherwise feels disingenuous, as if you’re saying print doesn’t have problems with these things, when it absolutely DOES and that web is inferior to print in these areas, which it’s definitely NOT. The main reason that this is perceived as a web problem is because there are more amateurs in web than there are in print. We can’t change that. We’re also quick to say that web isn’t print, and many people don’t get that, and attempt to push print principles (a couple noted in comments above) to the web without much consideration. They are completely different disciplines, that share some terminology. It’s hard to say “web should learn how to do better at this from print.” What should be said is “web should learn how to do better at this.” No qualifier.

I’d almost go so far as to say you need to reverse this article, and make it about what print can learn from web. The student has quickly become the teacher, and the print medium (especially advertising) is one that is in the beginnings of a number of crises that ultimately threaten its livelihood, as it’s abandoned for the web.

And why do you recommend taking your own shots? Do you assume that just because you’re a designer, you’re a good photographer? I think this whole “good enough” attitude we take toward photography (and copywriting) is a bit hypocritical as designers, when we shun amateurs with Photoshop who think they are designers.

Instead of taking the photo yourself or heading over to Flickr or some stock site, pay an actual photographer to take a good, unique photo if the budget allows. Too many people fancy themselves photographers these days just because digital is cheap and cameras have easy-to-use auto settings. And do you really want the same stock photo used by countless others?

Sure, hiring a good photographer can be expensive, but if your design is relying on one image, isn’t important that it’s a great one?