Sure, you have the Big Guns (Fender, Gibson, etc.) that have sites that look like they live in the current decade (although Gibson's ain't all that great), but the little guys? Wow. It's like WWW Time Machine. And not only from a design perspective (which is obviously a big problem), but content as well. Case in point: Lakland. Their page for the Hollowbody 30 (which I'm interested in) has nothing but the most basic of specs. No description. No history. No "selling points." And here's the kicker: THE SPECS AREN'T EVEN RIGHT! "Nut Type: Flat sawn Maple." Huh? "Fret Size: Bound Rosewood." Say what??? I feel no compulsion to buy this product based on the way it's presented to me on the site. Now go to Basses > Reviews. The latest review listed is from 2003??? Not just to pick on Lakland, of course. G&L's is bad. Carvin's is bad. Rickenbacker's: bad. On and on. It's like the world moved on and the non-Fender non-Gibson-owned guitar manufacturers collectively decided to stay behind. Man, you can pick up a nice Wordpress template for 50 bucks these days and build a new site around it in no time. Yeah, I get it, these are smaller companies that aren't focused on high-tech. Profitability is a challenge. Dollars don't flow in excess. But this is your public image! Sorry, had to get it off my chest. It felt...therapeutic.