In my previous post about brand transparency, I talked about brand’s dirty little secrets being exposed. In that same line of thinking, transparency has some big implications for companies down the line.
Ultimately, transparency means that companies can’t hide the flaws of their products and services any more. And as a result, I think we’re heading toward a brand meritocracy. Products and services have to actually work, be relevant, and be needed — they need to be well designed. I think this is a good thing both for the people that engage with these products and services as well as for the design discipline. It’s designers that can help companies understand people’s needs and desires, develop appropriate solutions, and facilitate a culture that is human-centered. If you make the right thing in the first place, you’ll minimize the negative feedback. But more importantly, people will begin to demand better products, and that’s going to require a significant philosophical shift for most companies. We’ve already seen online retailers go back pull products that get poor ratings. The big question now is will they put pressure on manufacturers to fix the product sooner.
All of this begs the question: do companies have any clue who their customers are and what they need? More on that later...
Companies are having a real tough time dealing with the uncontrollable exposure they receive at the hands of social media. At Forrester, I cover emerging channels and help companies figure out what’s going on and how they can use these technologies and channels. I constantly get calls from clients asking how to deal with feedback that is outside their control (positive or negative). But control is a big issue for firms, that’s largely what the PR department does — spin messages in the company’s favor and make bad news disappear. Those tactics just don’t work any more. All of this activity is forcing brands to be more transparent. Back in March, Wired published a great article on the subject (The See-through CEO — 15.04).
It boils down to the fact that companies must be more open about their flaws, and that’s really hard for companies to do. But think about it. The exposure is already happening and it’s not going away. Companies that try to hide it and get caught suffer even more ridicule. For example, Wal-Mart was exposed for not properly disclosing (note: full article for subs only) the relationships of the authors of it’s Walmarting Across America blog. Sony suffered a similar problem for it’s attempt at a fake blog authored by teens about the PSP. While companies have a lot to learn, I still give Wal-Mart (and Edelman) some credit for trying to blog. This is just uncharted territory and someone had to make the first mistake. Now we have a better idea where the boundaries are.
From a design thinking perspective, I think there’s a lot of opportunity to use design as the method of communication rather than the marketing approach. Designers create solutions that communicate values all the time. Maybe marketers should work more closely with designers to craft that outreach strategy. Or, what if designers became the new marketers…?
I'll return Pete's serve one more time here. Today he talks about the 3 P's of personal social publishing. He offer's the following:
1. Personal
2. Professional
3. Public
I'm going to take another stab at it. Here's what I suggest:
1. Personified -- To encompass what Pete included with both "Personal" and "Professional," I feel this is more inclusive and flexible. We present outward appearances to different people all the time (family, friends, close work colleagues, work acquaintances, fellow hobbyists, neighbors). These are our personas and we use them to present different appearances in social publishing.
2. Proximal -- Looking forward, as devices increasingly become portable and embedded in the world around us, technology's proximity to us will become more important. This leads to location-aware technology and spatially tagged information. That information can be both the inbound (that which we consume) and outbound (that which we create).
3. Pertinent--This requires a little intelligence on the part of information and technology. The information should be somewhat autonomous and contextually pertinent to our situation. That means that the appropriate media (or metadata) that we consume or create automatically situates itself within the right context.
(Yes, I acknowledge that sticking with P's makes some of these word choices a bit of a stretch, but just focus on the ideas.)
These suggestions add an additional level of complexity to identity management, and I'm not sure that Google, Yahoo!, or Microsoft can accomplish this alone. I think it will manifest itself in an ecosystem of services, device makers, and information brokers--in addition to all of us contributing and direction the information based on our needs.
A few years ago I was working for a design firm that was bidding on a project for a Segway store design. It got me thinking about how unique Segway's problem is, in terms of targeting the average person. Leading up to the original unveiling of the Segway (I think they referred to it as "IT" at the time), there was a lot of talk about how it would revolutionize personal travel. Now don't get me wrong here, Dean Kamen is a genius. His work on radical new concepts in wheelchairs alone gives him all the brownie points he needs. And the Segway is truly revolutionary--but nobody uses them. Why?
Think about it. The last time you saw someone riding one, what went through your head? Probably something like this: "Wow, that's really cool. But man, that guy is a nerd. I'd like to try it, but I'd never use it because I'd look like a nerd." And there you have it, it's the coolest thing you'd never be caught dead riding. Fundamentally, it's so revolutionary and ahead of it's time, people are afraid of using it. And the name is perfect--Segway implies both that it moves you from one place to another like changing topics in a conversation as well as implying a transition in the way we think about transportation from old methods to new. I suppose the price point is a bit steep (I've seen them range from $3k to $4k) which could hold people back, but I don't think that's as big of an issue.
So this begs the question, how could Segway get around this. I have a idea. I think people feel odd being the only person to be riding one, kind of a catch 22 that means that no one will get the ball rolling. Segway should invade one city at a time. Find 300-400 people in Boston for example, all that work in the downtown area (or some other concentrated, high population area). Select people that work in the area and live within a reasonable distance that they could ride the Segway to work. Let them use it for free from Memorial Day to Labor Day on the condition that they are seen riding it every weekday (morning, noon, and evening). Pay people if you have to. I'm thinking that a concentrated area swarmed by Segways for three months (and a sales office conveniently located in the area) might help dislodge the stigma since it wouldn't be embarrassing to be seen on one, because everyone has one.
I realize that Segway would need to be careful that this tactic doesn't come across as some type of staged, deceptive viral campaign. However, I think that people might be more receptive to the device if they were rinding with dozens of other people.
My 2¢.
My colleague, Josh Bernoff, kicked off a great discussion yesterday about the use of the word "user" to describe people, customer, etc. I've been thinking about this as well for some time, and I completely agree with Josh and many of the people who commented. But there are other problems with the lingo.
Two commonly used terms to describe people expose the problematic perspective of both business and design. First, and most offensive, is the term consumer, commonly used by business practitioners. Second is the user, commonly used by designers and technologists, but business folks have recently jumped on the bandwagon. They both suffer from a perspective problem: they focus on the consumption or use of the product or service--from the creators perspective. A bit self-centered, eh?
A better approach is to focus on the action taken by the individual rather than place the center of attention on that which is being used. People are "doers", not users or consumers (this came from a great conversation I had with and old friend, John Rheinfrank). It may seem like a trivial semantic issue, but it exposes what the creators deem most important--what they created, not the need being fulfilled. Designers, technologists, and business practitioners should consider abandoning these terms to force themselves to focus on the needs and actions people take, which should inevitably lead to better products and services.
Naturally, there's a tough obstacle. Using a word like "doers" just doesn't roll off the tongue. So, the trick is coming up with a more humanistic replacement. I haven't found anything yet, in fact I'm still guilty of using users and consumers in my research. I've been weaning myself off those words and hope to be rid of them both in the near future, but writing to business people means taking baby steps most of the time.
I've noticed a breakdown between the image some brands project and what they actually deliver. Take Apple for example. When I see their ads on TV and in print, then I visit their stores or use their products, it all feels consistent. The look, feel, and layout of the store all resonate with that marketing campaign, and it all ties in to the products they make. The employees are knowledgeable and pleasant, and the creativity exhibited in their communications matches their products.
Now consider Target. The ads I see on TV and print paint a very specific (modern) aesthetic about that brand. In many ways it feels similar to Apple. But when I go into the store it's just doesn't deliver. It's messy, lacks a modern aesthetic, the employees are often rude or are not knowledgeable--the experience they project through brand messaging is not consistent with the experience when you walk though the door. Sure, there are products here and there that fit with the marketing style. Method soap and Philippe Starck's beautiful yet relatively un-usable products come to mind (have you seen the Starck keyboard and mouse -- puh-lease). But the rest looks the same as what I see at Kmart or Walmart (products, layout, employees), yet I have a much higher expectation when I walk through the doors.
So who's problem is it? The company's? The agency responsible for the marketing? Probably a little of both. Props to the agency that can make Target look much better than it actually is, but doesn't Target have a responsibility to live up to the expectation? Is marketing so disconnected from reality that they'll position any brand in any way regardless of what they can deliver?
So this breakdown between the brand promise and the actual experience begs the question--does the company understand what an experience really is? I would argue no. Maybe Target should hire some design strategists to help the company live up to it's image. Imagine if Target felt like an Apple store--smart, enthusiastic employees, organized store design, clean product presentation, product demonstrations--a much different experience than what you see today.
So, I arrived in Boston 3 weeks ago and started working at Catapult Thinking. I'm a senior design strategist of sorts on the design research team. It's a small company with really cool, smart, and talented people. I know I'll learn a lot, and hopefully teach a lot as well.
I haven't settled in to a permanent residence yet. I'm staying with Kelly and Paul out in Medway which is, shall I say, a wicked commute. I don't know how Kelly does it day in and day out. This will be my home until early September. Kerry and I have dibs on an awesome loft in South End. We're just waiting on the current owners/residents to buy a new place. We're really excited about it.
Kerry's still in Pittsburgh finishing up school. She should be done in mid-late September and hopefully we'll get to take control of our new pad by then.
It is with great sorrow that I write these words. John Rheinfrank, a design visionary, passed away early Sunday morning in his Pittsburgh home after a valiant fight against cancer. I met John about a year ago through his wife, Shelley Evenson. Shelly had just started teaching at the School of Design at Carnegie Mellon University.
Shelley became my thesis project advisor and John helped me considerably with my thesis essay. I spent many occasions at their home for social events as well as some of the most invigorating and exciting intellectual discussions with John while discussing my thesis work. The prowess of his thinking was inspiring as was his friendliness and openness.
I was looking forward to continuing the growth of our friendship until his time was cut short. His passing is a severe loss to the design community, as I am sure many of the people who have known him much longer than I already know. I will take with me all that I learned from him in such a short time and I am certain that his contributions as a visionary thinker and simply a wonderful man will linger with us for a very long time.
Goodbye, John. You will be missed.
Well, effective this weekend, I am a Master of Design. I realize that may seem a bit arrogant, but in reality, I just completed the graduate degree program for the Master of Design in Interaction Design at Carnegie Mellon University. Now it's time for me to find a job again.
I had a great interview with Catapult Thinking in Boston, I'm flying out to Redmond tomorrow to interview with Microsoft for a Product Designer position, and I'm still waiting to hear back after initial interviews from a few firms including Motorola, SBI Razorfish, and possibly something related to this at IDEO.
Wish me luck, those debt payments are going to kick in soon...
I've been reading Peter M. Snege's The Fifth Discipline for my Design, Management, and Organizational Behavior class taught by Dick Buchanan.
At the end of the book there is a citation of a poem written by a Lebanese poet named Kahlil Gibran that captures the idea of leaders feelings toward their vision through his story of parents and children. I just thought is was somewhat inspiring:
Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of life's longing for itself.
They come through you, not from you.
And though they are with you, they belong not to you.
You may give them your love but not your thoughts,
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them, but strive not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.
You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth.
The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite, and he bends you with his might that the arrows may go swift and far.
Let your bending in the archer's hand be for gladness;
For even as he loves the arrow that flies, so he loves the bow that is stable.
Khalil Gibran, The Prophet (New York: Alfred A. Knopf), 1923.
I've been super busy the past couple of weeks. Lot's of reading, writing, and project work building up for the last week before spring break. There are a number of things I want to talk about but it will have to wait a week. Some thing's I intend on talking about are some lectures that I've attended in the past couple of weeks including Natalie Jeremijenko, Wendy Kellogg of IMB Research, Bill Gates of Microsoft, and John Rheinfrank.
My original plan was to get this redesigned and up and running at the beginning of the new year. As with most resolutions, that simply didn't happen. But I forced my self to get it done by today--an appropriate birth day for my new site--my actual birthday. I hope to comment here often and share my thoughts, especially as today marks another year in my life and I'm not getting any younger. It is a task far larger than it seems, but I shall do my best.