I'm plugging in to day 3 of CES. The first day was a bit overwhelming. This show is so massive and it can be a bit confusing wandering around trying to figure out where things are. Additionally, wayfinding is a BIG problem here. I'm surprised after all these years that conference organizers haven't found a better way to help people navigate the spaces and events. I had to rip an ADA map out of a catalog just to get a single overview page of the facilities here at the Las Vegas convention center.
On a separate note, one big take away from the show is that there really aren't any innivative new things to see. Surprisingly, virtually every firm is showing off it's incremental improvement of last year's product. I mean come on, is one plasma TV really that different than the next. And all they really have is a few more inches than last year -- they must have been responding to all those spam emails we get for "getting bigger."
I'm just surprised that I'm walking through throusands of booths with virtually every major company in the world showing off their best stuff and I'm actually a little bored. That coupled with the fact that nobody can tell a story using their booth designs as a support for their communication, it feels like somewhat of a wasted opportunity.
Attention Design Schools: Assign wayfinding design projects and contact conference organizers to see if they'll let you take a stab at it -- they need the help bad. And, imagine the attention you would get or nailing the wayfinding for a conference as big ass CES...
I just landed in Las Vegas for the 2008 Consumer Electronics Show (CES). Pete and I are hitting the floor to see the latest and (possibly) greatest technology from all of your favorite engineers.
[Thanks to goynang for the pic.]
I’ll be curious to see if there’s anything actually useful there, or if it’s just a bunch of technological bullshit. My big question that I’ll ask all of the vendors is “why this.” I’m seeking any insight into how they ended up with the product solution they’re presenting. I’ll bet it’s all driven by engineers with some neat idea rather than a thorough research process to unearth core needs and deliver a relevant solution. But who know, maybe I’ll be amazed.
I’ll post pix and commentary over the next few days. Hopefully I won’t loose too much cash.
I recently published a Forrester report titled Marketing's New Key Metric: Engagement (more detail here on the Forrester Marketing blog). One interesting aspect of this research was presenting the idea that the marketing funnel is more complex than we may think. I initially presented to my fellow marketing analysts an idea that suggest the funnel was dead. That didn't go over so well, which demonstrates how sacrosanct the funnel is to marketers. However, they also presented a good point that the current funnel (awareness, consideration, preference, purchase, loyalty) is meant to provide a framework for marketers to understand all buying decisions at a meta level. With that, I proposed, and published, that the funnel is more complex, not necessarily dead. The point here (see graphic below) is that the center of the funnel is a lot more complex now. There are a lot of addition factors impact a person's decision making process.
[Click to view the full size image.]
Another insight here is that we need to think differently about what a 'valued customer' is. Traditionally, we think a person that buys a lot from us (at a profitable price point and not necessarily at discount) is a good customer. We through in other factors like frequency and dollar value of purchase, but overall it's about buying. However, one of the ideas I present about engagement is that someone that contributes content that influences others to buy (even if that creator doesn't actually spend much with you) could be extremely valuable. If someone only buys from you once a month, but every time they buy they write an extensive product review that increases the likelihood that readers of that review will buy — that's a valuable person too.
[Thanks to Critical Massers Scott Weisbrod and David Armano as well as Blake Cahill from Visible Technologies for helping carry on the conversation. I'll come back to this idea here very soon.]
So, I caught wind of the interesting article Activity is the goods for true satisfaction from Rob, who cited our buddy Neema as the person bringing this article into our collective mental space.
It's basically about reasearch conducted by psychologists (and the article opens with a great dig on economists) that shows that people actually garner more satisfaction from buying services than material artifacts. Experiences make us happier than stuff.
It's interesting on a number of levels. Personally, I would tend to agree, yet I still seem to be accumulating crap--but I tend to purge every time I move, which isn't the best way to handle things but that's my reality for now. Plus I don't have time to consume services while I'm still in grad school, but that's another story.
I'm particularaly interested in this as it relates to my thesis essay. I'm looking on to people who engage with products and make changes to them that were not intended or expected by the original designers, specifically these activities that happen on a larger scale so as to cause people to gather in groups to support the activity. This article makes is sound like perhaps what I'm talking about in my thesis is people creating an experience around a product. Perhpas this research will support my argument... or contradict it. I guess I have some reading to do.
Oh, one other thing, this is the first time I've pinged someone else with their trackback URL. Congratulations, Rob, you've taken my trackback virginity... but will you call in the morning?
Ian and I are working on our thesis project together as a team. We're focusing on the process of academic inquiry as it relates to Ph.D. students in the Arts & Humanities. It's a tough problem to solve, but our solution should be interesting.
As we were brainstorming this weekend, we made some interesting connections. We already had realized that our thesis essays were related, but we hadn't really analyzed how. Not only did we find that connection, we also realized that our project relates to both of our essays.
Ian's essay is on Dynamic Commonalities--how artifacts exhibit life is the bare bones 'not-doing-it-justice' summary. As for the whole connection between our topics, I had an insight (or clarification) come to me later that evening. My insight is that products, for the most part, fail to follow through and exhibit our expectations of life. We are surrounded by, operate in, and exist as adaptive systems. Products are present in the world as static artifacts--once previously other materials shaped by the designer and adapted to another form to achieve a goal--but by the time they reach their intended audience, they are essentially dead. Those individuals with the means to do so engage with these products to bring them back to life. At first this activity is personal, but in many cases it advances in demand, seeking interactions with others--to share this life and perpetuate its growth. Is there a desire for all things around us to breathe life as we do? To possess the ability to change through our active engagement? To support our activity through social interaction?
Well, I'm off to finish up the latest draft of my essay. Wish me luck.
After reading a little Malinowski for my Theory and Practice in Anthropoly class, I stumbled across a paragraph that stopped me dead in my tracks. Specifically it related to my thesis essay. In general, Malinowski briefly discusses (The Group and the Individual in Functional Analysis from Argonauts of the Western Pacific) the early discovery of an environmental factor (fire, use of a stick or stone) and how it becomes part of a culture, integrated into collective use and transmitted through tradition to later generations. This resonates because it addresses some of the foundational aspects of my thesis, an area I haven't had a chance to explore deeply and articulate in my essay.
As for my thesis essay specifically (here in the Interaction Design graduate program at CMU we do both a thesis essay and thesis project), I am looking at participation--in the context of individuals that engage with products (artifacts, services, systems, environments--products in the broader definition of the term) and use those products in ways that were not intended or expected by the original designers. Further, I'm interested in the shift in that behavior that causes many people to engage in the same basic activity and seek out a community that will encourage and support the efforts of the individuals, and give them a forum to share their knowledge. This particular section of the article provides some great foundation to the background section of my essay that supports some basic human behaviors that help explain why people might be motivated to initiate more meaningful interactions with products and seek communities with which to share their endeavors.
This sparked an interest after I received an inspirational response from my advisor, Craig Vogel, about the relationship of my topic to these original behaviors.