Jeffrey Rosenberg

AT&T radically simplifies top navigation menu

AT&T just announed its website redesign, and I am instantly struck by the fact that there are only three top navigation selections: Shop, myAT&T, and Support. It's a rather significant move given that top navigation typically includes five - seven options (across sites and industries). My initial reaction (based on experience, not data) is that this re-architecture will yield positive results most notably because it reduces choice, which is scientifically proven to increase action.

Digital's elegant role in a...steakhouse

I had dinner recently at a classic, traditional steakhouse. Anyone who has been to one of these types of places (Morton's, Ruth's Chris, Del Frisco's, etc.) knows that they are elegant and somewhat formal. So I was (pleasantly) surprised when the wine list appeared, loaded on an iPad. I like wine, but I'm certainly not a connoisseur, which means every time a wine list appears in a restaurant I start breaking out in hives over the pressure of having to comb through pages and pages of options. With the iPad, however, the experience was much more intuitive since I could browse by a host of criteria and learn a little bit about each of the wine options I was considering. It was a case of not using technology for technology's sake. They didn't present the food menu on an iPad - salad is salad and steak is steak. Not a lot of complexity there. But wine is different story, and the steakhouse made it much less intimidating.

It also served to make the steakhouse seem more modern without disturbing its old-school feel. Definitely a case where the technology added to the brand experience, but the absence of it wouldn't have detracted from the experience. (An "Excitement Attribute" in Kano Model vernacular.)

Is there a role for users in innovation?

Not according to Jens Martin Skibsted and Rasmus Bech Hansen who wrote a piece for Co.Design entitled "User-Led Innovation Can't Create Breakthroughs; Just Ask Apple and Ikea" (Brought to my attention by the good folks at UserInsight, who wrote their own opposing post.)

The article's title says it all. If you passionately subscribe to the school of thought that users are essential to the design and development process it's a must-read (unless you anger easily) because this mode of thinking is quite common. But I think it's absurd and off-base. Here are the authors' four main points, with my corresponding counterpoints:

• Point: Users insights can’t predict future demand. Even the users themselves have no idea if they will like an entirely product before they start using it.
• Counterpoint: It is true that no one - users nor the brand - can predict with accuracy the demand for an innovative offering. So is it better to create the offering in a vacuum and then see what happens? Or is it better to iteratively learn at key development points (or throughout the process) what is working and what isn't? It doesn't mean you take what users say completely at face value. It means that you give them a voice, a seat at the table. It's one of many inputs. The investment in conceptualizing, developing, marketing, distributing and servicing offerings is enormous. Why take the risk of being on the wrong trajectory?

 

• Point: User-centered processes stifles creativity. Creative people will feel limited and bored, not inspired, if they have to start out a creative process with a lot of user knowledge.
• Counterpoint: I have worked with some incredibly inspired, mad scientist ideators and creative innovators. None of them - not a single time - have ever walked into a room and started banging out ideas. They all want to know: Who we are targeting? What are their profiles? What are their motivations? What are their habits? Then from there: Who are their competitors and what are they doing? What are the business goals? Where is the brand going? The answers form the platform for innovation.

 

• Point: User focus makes companies miss out on disruptive innovations. If a company bases their decisions on user studies, they will conclude that most radically new innovations are not rational to pursue. 
• Counterpoint: Correct. If you conduct user research and you do what users say you will probably suffer from incrementalism. But that's not how you use research. You use research to gain insights that you then synthesize with other key inputs, such as competitive intelligence, business strategies, and brand strategies to generate ideas and concepts that are breakthrough, transformative, innovative. (Although if you structure and moderate the research properly you will get some of that from users as well.) User insights should be used as an input, not as the answer.

 

• Point: User-led design leads to sameness. Even if user insights were useful, it isn’t a competitive advantage.
• Counterpoint: Competitive advantage doesn't come from insights that no one else has. It comes from unique products, experiences, services, or distribution models that are partially informed by user insights. Sameness is typically a result of focusing disproportionately on what the competition is doing. It's a brand's unique take on opportunities that leads to differentiation. And user insights can help uncover those opportunities.

Apple and IKEA do leverage insights, just not in a systematic way. Even the Walkman was created from real consumer need. A clear vision driven by a dynamic leader is critical, but that vision comes from a need, a marketplace gap, whitespace. That gap cannot be identified in the absence of user insights.

I have seen what happens when users aren't involved as sources of insight or as collaborators. It's dysfunctional and sub-optimized and always leads to big money being left on the table. Sure, some companies can pull it off. But even they can stumble badly. Remember the 1990's, Apple?

Countering top arguments against the social web

Well, we're 1/12th of the way through 2011 and I still find myself having to passionately (sometimes too passionately) espouse the virtues of the social web. (I try my best not to get defensive, which is a challenge, but that's neither here nor there.)

FWIW, here are four random arguments I hear daily against the social web, along with my counterarguments:

1. Online social networking will destroy old-fashioned in-person contact. I believe the social web expands both depth and breadth of relationships, and I don't think it's a replacement for in-person contact for the vast majority. My perspective is that it's pure enrichment: I know more interesting things about more people that I ever would have without social media. It strengthens the connective tissue among my relationships.
2. Twitter doesn't have staying power. So what? Twitter is merely a property / platform. The behaviors it has created will only solidify. Twitter may pass, but only because something bigger and better has expanded on its foundation. The behaviors it has created are becoming part of what we as people do.
3. "Checking in" is a waste of time. Checking in (via location-sharing mobile applications like Loopt, Gowalla, Facebook Places or Foursquare) means different things to different people. To some it's a way of enabling serendipity (my friend is having lunch near me so I'll go say hello), and to some it's a way of sharing something about themselves (I want to let my friends know I'm at the Statue of Liberty). Did we live just fine before location-sharing became possible? Sure. But now we get to share more things with more people and enable even more in-person interaction.
4. I don't care what my friend is eating for lunch. Some content will always be uninteresting to some people across all media. That said, it takes me less time to read what my friend is eating than it does to read the subject line of a junk email, so really, what's the downside? Plus I think it can a) spark conversation and b) lead you to be exposed to something new.

There will always be battles to fight (I'm still fighting battles with Fortune 500 clients about why they should care about their websites); all we can do as digital champions is keep plugging away and picking off the naysayers one by one. Onward.

Defending social media. Again.

Our human RSS feed at Goodman&Company circulated an interesting article in the NY Times by Peggy Orenstein on how social media has influenced how we construct our identities. The article discusses how posting status updates puts packaging our thoughts (to play to our audience) above capturing the essence of that which we are sharing. The impact of this "packaged self" is that a) time typically spent on introspection is being replaced by time distilling experiences into status updates and b) empathy is eroding because we are too focused on self-promotion.

While I take all of the points and do not dismiss the arguments, my immediate perspective after reading the article is as follows: (Note: These apply to non-business use of social media)

• I don't think what one chooses to share with others defines the moment nor the memory. I look at status updates as something I choose to share. Five years ago I may have shared that thought with three people by phone. Today I share it with hundreds on Facebook.
• I don't think anyone reflexively posts each feeling. People share a tiny fraction of their total thoughts or feelings - and sometimes not immediately. There is still plenty of time for insight.
• I look at posts as sharing, not self-promotion. Self-promotion may be the outcome, but I don't think it's the focus of status updates.
• I'm certain most people don't put much thought into most status updates. Some may take some thought to create, but most are quick bursts.

As I've written about before (here and here), I think social media is a net-positive. I like sharing interesting bits and pieces of my life, and I enjoy reading about my friends' experiences. In a few minutes I can learn more about what's going on with my friends than I would ever know otherwise. No doubt social media will continue to impact people's behaviors, expectations and attitudes. Some negatively? Maybe. For me it's all progress right now. That perspective may change. We'll see.

Twitter + GPS = no control over privacy

I have several friends and colleagues who are reluctant to fully embrace the power of social platforms like Twitter because they are concerned about their personal privacy, and understandably so: User-provided status updates have the ability to reveal more than you might intend to the general public. A quick example: Search Twitter for an airport code, for instance, LGA and you can learn an awful lot about where people live. Pair that with a tweet about buying a 50" plasma TV, and you expose yourself considerably: It would take someone five minutes to a) find out you have something expensive in your house, b) find out you are out of town, c) find your zip code from Localtweeps, and d) find your address in the local Yellow Pages.

How can one avoid this risk? After much consideration it turns out there is only one thing you can do, and that is to drop out of society. Seriously. Because although you can control what you say on Twitter (I never tweet about travelling), and whether you join Twitter at all, you cannot control what your friends say on Twitter, and with millions of users in the U.S. alone, chances are your friends are on Twitter.

So say one of your friends uses Tweetie on her GPS-enabled iPhone and tweets that she is at your house watching the baseball game on your new big screen TV. And shares a Twitpic of the big screen meticulously placed between two really nice pieces of art. Assuming your friend is on Twitter's public timline, anyone can now pinpoint the location of the big screen and the art. And that's all the motivation and information some people need to take undesireable action.

Paranoid? In my opinion, no. To me it's a real threat of which people need to be aware. (Especially Millennials who have grown up sharing everything online - their thoughts, their location, their photos, etc.) Until we see how social platforms will be used against people we should all apply some level of self-defined filtering to make sure we (and our families) are protected.