May 24

Make It Real

By: Cris big ideas Add Comment (1 so far) »

Time and again I’ve been in usability testing and focus groups, with very different types of users, and they’ve all asked for the same thing — get rid of the marketing “fluff” and make the approach real.

I’ve seen attorneys, baby boomers, moms and Millennials, with different incomes and interests, all ask for the same thing–images they can relate to and text that tells it to them straight. In fact, I was recently in usability testing where the headline “Looking for Straight Talk” ended up drawing a lot of eyes, even though it was in a low place of prominence on the page, because yes, in fact, they were looking for straight talk.

So how can we make things real? There are a few common elements.

Give More than Pretty Pictures

People like to see themselves in images on a site, which can often be a challenge. That’s why one person in an image usually doesn’t work, because it limits the site’s ability to reach to a diverse audience. Most designers have mastered representing diversity so well that consumers have come to expect this.

But the other part of helping people see themselves is by keeping the models in the picture doing something the user can relate to. Usually this isn’t perfectly posed and smiling models, or a far reaching fantasy of how they’re using the company’s product or service. For example, if a company is selling a beach vacation, a perfect couple smiling for the camera and walking along a private beach doesn’t seem as real as a couple snorkeling with a small group–wearing goggles, big fins and all.

No ‘Marketese’

When marketing a product or service, marketers naturally want to spin the text to make it sound great. But this often means diluting the meaning and leaving the user with nothing but “fluff”. Rather than hearing how great a product or service is, users value how it works and why it works much more.  They’re rather figure out if it’s great themselves.

Here is a comparison with text from two music sites:

From the “About Us” page on MyPlay: “When you shop at store.MyPlay.com, you will not only find your favorite SONY BMG artists and titles but you’ll also have access to special offers such as autographed merchandise from your favorite artists, limited edition gifts with purchase, electronics, video, books and much more. Whether you’re searching for the latest releases, trying to track down an old favorite song, or looking to discover something new, you’ll find the largest collection of SONY BMG titles online right here at store.MyPlay.com.”

From the first page on iTunes: “Shop for music, movies, TV shows, audiobooks, podcasts, and games. For Mac + PC.”

Not only does the MyPlay example contain a lot of fluff while the iTunes example gets straight to the point, iTunes also does a much better job of informing users what the site is from the first page of their site, while MyPlay doesn’t even mention what the site is until you dig deeper by finding the “About Us” link in the footer on the site.

Converse with Users

When a customer calls customer service, hopefully he will get a live person (eventually), voice his concern, and get resolution to his problem. But the new customer complaint is often posting a blog, a message board, or a video for all to see.

No matter if the content is posted on the company’s Web site or on a neutral third party site, the worst things a company can do is not be aware of the post, ignore it, or try to discredit it. The best thing is to address it with a straightforward response. Even if it is “Thank you for alerting Company Y to this problem. We’re going to work toward improving this.” can turn a critic into an advocate when the company does improve it.

Another way that companies can discredit themselves is by dismissing public criticism, and not addressing the issues head on. For example, after the recent media scare about BHA in plastic products for babies, I visited several sites. The best treatment was from companies that put a link on their home page, with FAQs and straight information on their sites. The worst treatment was from a company that didn’t address the issue on their site, and when contacted dismissed it because the FDA approves of BHA in plastics.

I’d like to know more, what are other ways marketers can be real for their customers?

Apr 11

Design and Architecture of Social Web Experiences

By: Jeff best practices, big ideas, questions, social networks Add Comment (1 so far) »

During today’s Design and Architecture of Social Web Experiences workshop, I took 5 pages of notes and designed a very simple, yet very cool social website. So, yeah, I’d say it was a good session.

Here are some of the highlights from my perspective…

The Webb/Butterfield/Smith Model

This is an illustration that shows 7 aspects of social networks in a way that makes it easy to describe the functionality of a social web site.

Webb Butterfield Smith Model for Social Software

It’s not like this diagram does anything, so to speak, it just gives you a way of describing social features, and it serves as a reminder of the social network attributes you should consider when designing social software. Wodtke created an expanded version that includes some attributes she considers missing from this honeycomb, which hopefully I’ll be able to share later, along with an expanded description of the attributes.

Open design patterns

One of the presenters (Wodtke, I think) made a point about how, when you’re designing a social network, you don’t need to “own” the content your users create — you just need to aggregate it in a way that’s useful. For example, if your users already have blogs, maybe you just want to search that content for certain tags and aggregate the posts in a way that’s useful.

The presenters often hit on a similar idea: when designing social networks, open is good. Users are tired of entering in all their personal information, building their network of friends, and then having all that data locked inside your application. We need to build networks that allow data portability (through RSS, APIs, microformats, etc.) if we want to provide a product that’s easy to use from beginning to end and integrates with users’ whole digital life.

Trust and monitor

The phrase “trust and monitor” describes a good approach to maintaining editorial control over a social network. “Trust” means you assume your users are not criminals who all want to break the rules or game the system. “Monitor” means you still do your due diligence to make sure offensive content doesn’t crop up.

This stands as a recommendation for our corporate clients who often want to keep an iron fist around anything social on their websites.

The problem of the Cold Start

Near the end of the session, we talked about the problem of the “cold start”, which is when you build a social network, but nobody’s there. And nobody’s going to come until there are people there. Catch-22.

We talked about 2 ways of overcoming that problem. First is having content or functionality that’s valuable even if nobody is there. But in cases where the site isn’t meant to have its own content, the only real solution is to start the group yourself. You join the social network and get your friends to come, and get them to bring their friends. Or, if not you, then a chosen community manager. The idea is you have to start at home. 

Group size

There was an interesting conversation about the right size for a group online. We talked about Dunbar’s number, and how that doesn’t directly apply to web experiences because the social information you would normally need to keep in your head can instead be kept on the computer. But we also talked about how “scale kills conversation”, meaning as groups get larger, the conversation becomes less meaningful.

At work, we’ve been discussing this issue for an upcoming social network, but I’m not sure today’s session really helped me figure out an answer. Does anyone really think there’s a “right” size for online groups? Or does it depend on the situation?
Apr 08

Viva la Revolution: Or, Why It Takes So F*cking Long to Put Up a Great Site*

By: Michelle best practices, big ideas Add Comment (3 so far) »

One thing that I like to hear when I first dig in on a project at Bridge:

“We used to be able to do this type of website in a month. Now it takes seven.”

There are a few things that have changed in the three years that I have been with Bridge–all of which run through my mind and, as most who know me know… if it is on my mind, you’ve got a 78 percent chance of hearing it. Things like: We’ve instituted rigorous process; we’ve added subject matter experts from several disciplines; we’ve made large, complex websites the focus of most of our engagements.

But, mostly I think that 1) it never took a month, it took six, 2) those six months made a lot of people run away (and by run away, I mean cry, yell, or quit–and sometimes I wanted to run far, far away), and 3) the hours ran away. They really ran away.

Not that I want to start a trend or anything, but Jeff sent an email a little while ago w/the subj line: AdAge on becoming a TRUE interactive agency. The story went something like this: One firebrand initiates a digital revolution at his agency. Agency adopts senior technology leadership to shape direction, begins a deep love affair with IA, and reengineers process to become a TRUE interactive agency. Agency successfully becomes TRULY digital. (I’m not sure what’s with the TRUE, that might be Jeff making a pt or AdAge.)

Well, Bridge is on that very same road. When I started at Bridge in April of 2005, there were three centers of excellence that drove client work: Account, Creative, Research, and Technology (let me make this clear: that was in alpha order). And we were nutty. Technology was… I don’t know, either Flash or the support desk. Anyone could do a site map. Sometimes, it was the client. Often it was creative. Sometimes it was technology. As for process… well, we had process?

And then Uncle Chally came. I don’t know if he knows this. Frankly, I don’t know if anyone else realizes it either–but I’m blown away by CH and Bridge. Overnight we went from, “User experience is like … uh, usability and junks right?” to “Hey, this is not the optimal experience for the user. How can we fix it?” We went from designing for the client and what made sense to us to… well, designing for the user.

We adopted a complex and rigorous process. If I could digitally snap my fingers to show you how fast, I would. But, it was an intensely different philosophy and approach to the work, and everyone jumped on the 5D process.

And finally, IA. Well, I’m a senior experience planner. There weren’t any XPs walking around, loving on IA 2 years ago.

We even have SEM guys–three of them.

Yes, all of this takes time. But, it adds focus, thinking, strategy, tactical and executional excellence, risk mitigation, and outstanding results.

This is not the agency I started at. Thank god.

Viva la Revolution!

* Are we allowed to swear on this blog?