Archives / March 2008

Attendees include 39 CEOs, founders, and presidents; dozens of directors, VPs, and principals; a brewmaster, a cartoon editor, several authors, and a chief storyteller. I'm looking forward to seeing everyone there!

(See full list of attendee titles and organizations.)

P.S. There are a very few full-price simulcast tickets available - contact us if you're interested.

Video of a clever popup book of the alphabet. Worth watching.

(Thanks, Iris)

I can think of only three things users do at a website: connect, transact, and find out.

Many top sites are known best for one of those. Consider Facebook (connect), Amazon (transact), and Wikipedia (find out)... though of course lots of sites include some of all three.

Of the three goals, which is the oldest, in Internet history? Connect, of course. Whether through the fledgling email system from three decades ago, or USENET from two decades ago, or the chat rooms and "online communities" from a decade ago, or today's trend of your choice (Web 2.0, social networking, social graph), connecting has always been a major part of the online experience.

What's funny is that, every few years, the very old idea is branded with a new buzzword, as though it's never been done online before.

Listening to customers can work anywhere. Creative Good recently completed a customer experience project with Prospect Park, New York City's second-largest park, with some dramatic results.

From today's New York Post article covering the project:

[The Prospect Park Alliance] had researchers spend six months observing parkgoers and asking them how they spent their time. The researchers found that many visitors didn't know about all the park's attractions.

Everything we uncovered came through the simple listening lab method. Just listening to customers - in this case, park visitors - in nondirected conversations yielded some extremely valuable insights. I'll try to post a more detailed case study soon.

See also: All Good Experience columns mentioning "listening labs"

Community college libraries in the United States and Canada are seeing a huge demand for information-literacy courses. According to the article, such courses "help students find, communicate, and critically evaluate online information."

What they're calling "information literacy," which is what I'd call "qualifying online sources," I briefly cover in the Media Diet chapter of Bit Literacy. This is indeed an important skill, but it's just a small percentage of what students really need in order to survive in the networked workplace. Students need all the skills of bit literacy, not just qualifying their sources.

(Thanks, Philip B)

If you keep up with the techie world, you'll know the name Michael Arrington. He runs TechCrunch, one of the most popular techie blogs, and so has a good bit of exposure, and influence, in that world. He's made millions of dollars from past entrepreneurial ventures and might serve, for some, as a model of Silicon Valley success.

He also has no idea how to manage his email.

Earlier this week Arrington wrote this in a column:

I routinely declare email bankruptcy and simply delete my entire inbox. But even so, I currently have 2,433 unread emails in my inbox. Plus another 721 in my Facebook inbox. and about thirty skype message windows open with unanswered messages. It goes without saying, of course, that my cell phone voicemail box is also full (I like the fact that new messages can't be left there, so I have little incentive to clear it out).

Declaring "email bankruptcy," if you haven't heard of it, is the act of deleting everything in the inbox so as to get the message count to zero. Voila, no more email overload! What an easy solution. As for everyone who wrote you, hoping for a reply, or perhaps sending you an urgent message, well... if it's important, they'll write back. (Right?)

One benefit of declaring email bankruptcy, I think, is the "proof" that you're plugged in and important. Surely if you have so much email that you can't manage it, lots of people are asking for your time and attention! Work must be a constant adrenaline rush! Wow!

But consider the outcome of this strategy. Arrington effectively has no email, since he's liable to delete anything he receives without reading it first; and he has no voice mail, since he leaves his voice mail box in the full state. Here is a leader of Silicon Valley who is no longer able to use technology. Strange.

I don't mean to pick on Michael Arrington. I've heard friends, colleagues, and luminaries in the industry all say the same thing: I get so much email, I'll just delete it all. They always say it with a sheepish smile, or a blanket apology ("I'm really sorry if I don't get back to you, I really want to, I just can't..."), because they know it's not a sustainable solution. Yet they keep returning to it.

To Arrington's credit, he wrote his column to admit his problem - something most people don't do, in my experience. But the solution he asks for, unfortunately, misses the mark entirely. It's straight out of the Silicon Valley playbook:

The long term answer to all of this isn't that people need to try harder to respond to communication requests. The long term answer is that someone needs to create a new technology that allows us to enjoy our life but not miss important messages.

In other words, if we have a problem of too much technology, then the answer is - you guessed it - MORE technology. Perhaps an email program that allows us to assign tags, integrate with our social network, and display everything in an innovative Web 2.0 interface. (So what if it's one more overdesigned tool we'll ignore; at least it includes all of today's buzzwords!)

I agree that some new technology is needed, but it's probably not a snazzy thing that Silicon Valley geeks would drool over. Whatever it is, Arrington really wants it:

If I knew what that solution was, I'd quit this blog and go do it. Someone out there, though, has the beginning of an idea on how we can better manage our electronic communications. And he or she may someday turn that into a product and save us.

The thing is, the solution is here. And it's easy. And the tool does exist. All it would take is a slight change in his email behavior (yes, users do actually need to change how they work in a dramatically new technology environment), and a new todo list. If Michael Arrington used the inbox method from Bit Literacy in concert with a Gootodo account, he'd solve his problem - permanently - within minutes.

But I don't expect him, or many other Silicon Valley luminaries, to come running. Bit literacy is, after all, a user-centered method - not a high-flying Web app with lots of press - and Gootodo.com is devoid of hype, buzzwords, and unnecessary features. The whole package is shockingly simple. For the Michael Arringtons out there, I'm not sure that's appealing... even if it would solve their problem.

forming two separate publicly traded companies after months of agitation from frustrated investors. ... The cell phone unit has seen its sales and stock price plummet with the company unable to produce [a] second act to the once-popular Razr phone.

Comparing food products with their package photos. (thanks, bb)

It's a nice followup to truth in fast-food advertising from last month.

Wisconsin monks run a $4.5 million ink-and-toner business... and give away 100% of the profits.

"When you're in the corporate world, you're using your mind to think of ways you can help your company so the stock price can go up, etcetera. But with this business, our bottom line really is charity, so you're using your mind to think about creative ways you can help other groups and nonprofits instead of thinking, 'We just need to make money to make money.'"

This is an extreme example of doing work with a purpose, even if it includes profit - something more and more people are pursuing these days. Nice to see it gaining exposure and momentum.

From a perspective of customer experience, the reason the monks' online toner business is succeeding is because it creates a good experience .... primarily on the meaning strand, though the other two are present. Try it yourself: evaluate the LaserMonks.com site on the three strands - aesthetics, utility, and meaning.

(via Daily Good)

See also: Three strands of good experience

Just about a dozen tickets left to Gel 2008.

Going, going,...

(sign up here)

I recommend taking a listen to the recent feature on Doug's work in the public radio show "To the Best of Our Knowledge." Just go to the program page, then click the little Listen link (which streams Real Audio, unfortunately). Doug starts at 36 minutes in.

(Doug will again lead the Central Park Sound Walk at Gel 2008 next month - if you want to be at Gel, sign up soon.)

Flip's design offers none of the bloated features customers don't need (which are commonplace in most camcorders) and instead focuses on the few things that customers do need.

The result? In one year, the Flip has gone from launch to capturing 13% of the camcorder market.

A brief article caught my eye recently, saying something interesting about customer experience.

The article (read it here) reports that PepsiCo is launching a new sugary drink and has retained the services of a "brand experience" agency to help get the word out.

This made me think: Can you really create a sugar-water "experience"?

I have a hard time believing so, with a few exceptions I'll get to.

A good experience needs to deliver on at least one, preferably more than one, of these "three strands": meaning, aesthetics, and utility (see Three strands of good experience). Let's consider Pepsi's new fizzy drink...

• meaning: does fizzy sugar water mean, or stand for, something significant or authentic?

• aesthetics: is the taste remarkably better or different from other carbonated sugar drinks?

• utility: does the drink help you accomplish something?

Again, it's hard to say yes to any of these. Soft drinks are essentially just expensive substitutes for water - which has plenty of all three qualities above, and at a much lower price point. (I think this is why soft drinks need a lot of advertising to "wow" customers into paying up.)

Now for the exceptions. Yes, some drinks have tried to deliver on one or more strands in the past, in various ways...

• meaning: organic ingredients, fair-trade certified, some percentage of profits going to worthy causes, etc.

• aesthetics: unusual packaging (i.e., shape of the bottle), special or limited-availability label designs, etc.

• utility: vitamin-enriched, less sugar, extra caffeine (for possible short-term productivity boost), better packaging for opening, pouring, or carrying, etc.

A good experience has to be substantial, or real, in some way - preferably multiple ways. Simply brewing up a new sugary flavor and slapping a label on it does not an experience make.

And yet that's what Pepsi seems to be doing. (I will note that the new drink has no caffeine, so perhaps there's an element of utility, but there are lots of carbonated caffeine-free products in the marketplace already.)

Indeed, Pepsi's strategy is striking in how traditional it appears: identify target consumers, invent a name and flavor that is palatable to them, and launch... which is, I suppose, how sugar water has always been marketed.

What's new is that Pepsi calls this a "brand experience" and is seeking to get the product into the hands of influentials - employees of Apple, Google, and MTV; Sundance attendees; etc... all in the hopes that the strategy will, in the words of one executive, "have people experience the product on their own terms and turn them into brand ambassadors."

Would a smart 20- or 30-something become a "brand ambassador" after their "experience" of drinking a carbonated fruity drink? I mean... really? Hold that thought.

Brands succeed today because of good experiences. I've seen people recommend JetBlue (on competing airline flights) - because of the inflight experience. I've seen people recommend Zappos.com, because of their online customer experience. Google. Apple. Whole Foods. Trader Joe's. I've seen people voluntarily recommend them all, because of a meaningful, fun, helpful, or otherwise significantly good experience that they've had with the brand.

Good experience drives the success of companies, whole industries even, but I'm not sure that fizzy sugar water is part of that movement. Generally speaking, there's just not enough substance to recommend it.

- - -

P.S. This column may also bring to mind the famous quote, which I'll paraphrase: "Do you want to spend the rest of your career selling sugar water, or do you want to change the world?"

This is roughly what Steve Jobs is supposed to have said to John Sculley when he recruited him to Apple Computer in the 80s (see my column Customer experience and the next 20 years).

- - -

See also: Defining "branding"

Clay Shirky
Author, Here Comes Everybody
Faculty at NYU's ITP

Note that this is the last week to buy tickets at regular price. If you want to be at Gel this year, sign up soon. (Price jumps after Monday, March 24.)

See also: shirky.com

Number one: the e-commerce business is built by repeat customers. (And you know what drives repeat customers: a good customer experience.)

Zappos is on track to hit a billion dollars in sales this year. Nice to see yet another case study proving that a good experience is the most effective lever in business today.

See also this textual recap of his talk at SxSW. (thanks, 37sigs)

See also: Zappos.com and customer experience

From the latest review of Bit Literacy on the Amazon page:

The most helpful concept for me is the ability to let go of worrying about keeping up with all the data. Seeing an empty inbox creates some anxiety, but the real benefit is that the tasks at hand are now the only thing to focus on. By following the simple methodologies in the book and using the gootodo.com system, I am getting more done and actually getting to a state of being "done" at the end of the day. I haven't had this feeling since elementary school.

Given that over 40% of surveyed workers feel they are nearing the "breaking point", consider how many millions of people could benefit from these simple skills.

Neiman Marcus Group Inc. and Saks Inc. are beefing up their men's sections and tweaking their sites to make it easier -- and faster -- for men to shop. Brooks Brothers, for instance, halved the time it takes for images to pop up to fractions of a second. And neimanmarcus.com now gives shoppers a way to view 52 ties at once in its new Tie Shop, instead of having to look at them nine at a time.

The article is positioned as a gender-difference piece, but in my experience with customers, the message applies equally well to every kind of user: the faster and easier it is to use an e-commerce site, the more money it makes. The faster and easier it is to use a media site, the more people use it. And so on.

Here at Good Experience, and at Creative Good, we've been preaching this common-sense concept for over a decade, so it's nice to see it starting to take root. It wasn't always a popular message, though. At the peak of the dotcom boom, sites like the comically overdesigned Boo.com seemed to pride themselves on how slow and hard to use they were. Of course, they're no longer in business.

[T]echnology is playing a trick on us. We are programmed for scarcity and can't dial back when something is abundant. The same happens with food: Because at one time we never knew when the next saber-toothed tiger might come along for food, it made sense to pack on the calories whenever we chanced upon them. That's not much help in today's world of snack aisles and super sizes.

As museums expand, they need more paying customers to cover ever-increasing costs. And they’re competing for those customers with local shopping malls, movie theaters, even grocery stores. ...

Now, besides the reliable techniques - focus groups, exit surveys and mail-in questionnaires - museums are exploring new ways to learn what visitors want. In Detroit, which is spending $158 million on a renovation and gallery reinstallation project to be finished this fall, researchers visited local mothers in their homes to determine how to attract more families to the museum.

A major question is how to use this data: should it impact just functional elements of the experience, like opening hours and traffic flow? Or should it reach into editorial decisions, like which exhibitions to run? If the museum wants to bring in the crowds, for example, it can run an exhibit on Monet or motorcycles.

In other words, focusing on the customer requires two things:

• listening well (i.e., using an appropriate research method)

• and using that knowledge in the right way.

For a museum, "the customer is always right" in functional areas - it doesn't matter how meaningful the art is if visitors can't find it - but the aesthetics of the experience shouldn't necessarily be left up to the crowds. So the customer isn't necessarily always right, depending on the context.

A related article states the difficulties faced by several museums after hiring "starchitects" for a glitzy, possibly overblown redesign:

The one million visitors expected the first year after the Denver Art Museum’s $110 million expansion by Daniel Libeskind amounted to only 650,000, feeding talk about over-building. ... Among [the director's] many irksome duties: laying off 14 percent of the staff (there had been a 29 percent increase to handle the doubling of space) and fielding criticisms about Mr. Libeskind’s vertigo-inducing design.

The "good experience" way to respond to customers is to meet their key unmet needs while still remaining faithful to the long-term vision of the organization. In my experience, ego-driven starchitecture is usually indifferent or even hostile to the users of a space. One exception in the museum world is the new MoMA space, which brings the visitors easily to the art, while still maintaining an elegant, modernist aesthetic.

More generally, though, anyone who creates an experience - a designer, product manager, user experience practitioner, etc. - can learn from the museum world. Choosing the right research method is one task; deciding what to do with the feedback is quite another.

- - -

See also: Three strands of good experience

(via Information Nation)

Charlie will be running an event at Gel 2008 on Day 1. (If you want to be at Gel this year, sign up soon - there aren't many tickets left.)

Notes on the redesign:

• The major change is that everything is now on the goodexperience.com homepage: blog, newsletter signup, and project list. (Previously the blog was on a separate page, requiring an extra click from the homepage.)
• Some posts will appear without a title. This cuts down on clutter: when the post is just one sentence long, there's really no need for a redundant post title.
• The Jobs Board is also redesigned, and it allows easy sorting and filtering by location. The two most recent listings are also displayed in the upper right of Good Experience's homepage.
• Related bitstreams, such as additions to Games and Jobs, and others I'm planning, will show up as quick reminders in the blog. (They won't, however, show up in the RSS feed, to cut down on clutter.)
• On all redesigned pages there's (obviously) a new layout, color scheme, style sheet, and - one of my favorite elements - a new Good Experience logo.

(via kottke's entertaining piece on English pronunciation)

Interesting art: balloon panzer. Click links up top to see the slideshow of what happened next.

(thanks, bb)

Mark Bittman, whose food writing I've enjoyed for some time in the New York Times, admits that he has a problem: too much information and no way to deal with it.

His solution? Declare a digital "sabbath": no e-mails, no Blackberry, no electronic media of any kind, for one day a week.

After several months, it's beginning to pay dividends. As Bittman says, "nothing bad has happened while I’ve been offline; the e-mail and phone messages, RSS feeds, are all there waiting for me when I return to them."

This would be a good first step for many people - after all, over 40% of surveyed workers feel they are nearing the "breaking point" from their information overload.

And yet.

Even with a digital sabbath, people are still overloaded and stressed six days out of seven. Wouldn't it be better to solve one's overload permanently? Especially as information overload increases, people will be looking for a better solution than a temporary respite, once a week.

They may not know it now, but millions of people are in dire need of the basic skills of managing information - what I write about in Bit Literacy, though there will surely be other books soon on this same topic.

A sabbath is good and healthy, but people really need help on the other six days of the week.