If the internet is about communication, then isn't it primarily about how we interact with the audience one person at a time? While we know this intuitively, our tools and approaches often seem to interfere with that basic premise. Today's best practices in design and planning often start with the idea of a persona to prepresent a user in a particular situation. The design process then optimizes against that particular scenario.
From a company perspective this approach is logical, and can yield very usable task oriented web sites. From an audience perspective, none of us are really ever that one dimensional. For any given company we could be a customer, a partner, an investor, a job seeker, a supplier or a prospect. Similarly we might choose to walk into a store, log onto a website, call on a phone or text message a question or complaint. For each different relationship / method of contact pair, our current best practice approaches could concievably yield a unique user experience. The synthesis of these multiple targeted pathways can easily lead to a disjointed experience and message.
As many online users seek "independent" confirmation of claims made by a company, this can be compounded by impressions, and messages gleaned from non-company sponsored sites such as review sites, social media and news outlets. Using the current approaches, the more we attempt to manage across our relationships, the more confusing our overall presentation could become.
If then we really were attempting to be "user-centric" wouldnt we abandon a "push" model for segmentation, where we assume we know what a user is interested in? Why wouldn't segmentation be a "pull" model where users make their preferences known for this visit, task or overall?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A few emails I've cut and pasted here to protect the innocent:
ReplyDeleteThis is more and more how users want to interact with companies. “Don’t tell me what I need or want, I want to decide for myself.” This is why the online retail shopping experience works better – you search/browse, research, and buy. If you’re happy with the transaction you’ll pull the information by signing up for emails, etc…
Some examples of simple and complicated would be a good addition… Facebook has a good way of pushing information to users based on their profiles/comments, but allowing the user to make the decisions. Twitter is another example.
And Another:
I agree, but what you're saying flies in the face of what traditional direct marketers like to think is their specialty -- bombarding the segment with messaging in an effort to control them and wear them down. The old "insurance (for example) is sold and not bought."
'course some of us think traditional direct marketers are maybe a bit wrong in this.
I agree with you; however you have just posed quaetions that I have been wrestling with for months. I have been trying to figure out the right way to use many of the social networking experiences effectively as it relates to my industry. Complicated is complicated for now untill some of the mysteries are unraveled, what have you done so far that has worked for you?
ReplyDeleteI am a coworker of Chris above and he asked me to look at this. While I am not a marketing guy, and more of an IT guy I can say that there is some ambiguity and misunderstanding of what the Internet is.
ReplyDeleteIn your first sentence you state as the Basic Question, that the Internet is about communication.
In one way you're right. It can be used for communication. But communication suggests a two way street where party A speaks, party B listens, process and speaks back, wash rinse repeat until a conversation has been had.
Much like our political system these days, that is not what the internet is by and large. The internet is about information/data, not much else. The only time communication happens is when two or more parties intentionally seek each other out to have a conversation.
The perfect example of this is email. I believe the latest statistics are that over 90% of all emails sent and received are spam. Data/information over communication.
That said, your quandary is a hard one. There is no way in today's global internet age, especially with a business that is global in nature, that you can create a user experience that will appeal to everyone. 10-15 years ago on the web.....knowing what we know now, piece of cake.
I think the lessons that can be learned from sites like facebook and allowing people to create their own user experience are twofold.
The first is that a simple interface is better, and to make it so you can create custom applications and a custom experience to a certain extent is worth its weight in gold.
The other is that you cannot arbitrarily change that interface because you will suffer a backlash. The perfect evidence of this is the 1.5 million or so users who joined the groups on Facebook where they were rebelling against the recent UI change.
Truth be told...those users, while complaining...are still using Facebook!
I believe that the challenge of attempting to be all things to all people is self defeating when it comes to a web interface with customers/clients/partners/etc because you can't please all the people all the time.
What I believe is most important in a web interface is the following:
1. Simple interface
2. Easy to navigate and get to the info you need
3. Logical flow
4. Consistency of brand message
If you can achieve those goals, I think you've created a successful web presence and site to interact with your customers.
Very interesting discussion.
Sorry I just saw your response. I think you have nailed the current state, and described the limits we are seeing in an incremental design effort.
ReplyDeleteOf course, there are certain simple conventions in navigation and usability that seem to be almost universal in thier effectiveness. However, the user experience is still a one to many paradigm. I am suggesting that communication, is really the design standard that should be pursued. As the internet pervades more an more aspects of each individual's life, from your computer, to your phone, to your car, to your kitchen etc. more and more each of us will demand that it "support" what we are doing instead of "be" what we are doing. This will be true regardless of where, or how, or when we are using it. Like with a family member, co-worker or friend, we shouldn't have to re-introduce ourselves each time we want to have a conversation, from "what is the weather going to be?" to I'd like to buy a car, the more effective the internet can be made to "fit in" to a person's life, the more effective it can be for companies to use in a conversation with thier customers.