You can’t make a customer buy. But you can get him to visualize change.

I find it ironic that we often talk about customer buying cycles as if it's just a step-by-step process like assembling furniture, but we don't often try to understand why someone would want to buy anything in the first place. We never really talk about someone's motivation to start the sales process, which I think is the key element to making a sale.

There are two main reasons why people buy something:

  1. They want change
  2. They want a replacement to keep things the same way

(Gift buying is a different beast that I'll address in another post.)

Any customer has one of these two reasons in mind, consciously or subconsciously, when he starts the process. Frankly, unless the customer is open to change, there isn't much that can change his mind as to what he wants to do. If he wants a replacement – he'll get a replacement. If he can't find a replacement, he will change. A bit. Maybe. Or let it go. It depends.

Yes, purchases can be influenced to happen, but it is the customer who determines if it really will happen at all. The customer chooses to enter the process and chooses to exit when he wants.

 

Usually, all I need to hear from a sales person to get me to buy is: "This is the last one I have in stock."

Sure, that doesn't work for goods over $250. But for anything under that amount, it will encourage me to buy. I'll only do that because I'm open to a change in some way – getting a new item that will change my look in some way (and changing my look will somehow change my attitude and perspective on life).

If for some reason I don't have that $250 available, I won't buy no matter how much I want something and how much I want change. I'll just let it go. This is true of some friends as well – we won't buy something because something prevents us – money, fear of change, etc. – even if we want the object. We just aren't ready for everything that comes with that change (the bill, the maintenance, etc.). We can visualize all aspects of the change, and we discover during that visualization process that it's not right for us at that time.

A purchase experience doesn't really have much to do with you or your product. It has to do with how the customer feels about himself with the product. I know, this sounds like dating advice. And it is – buying anything is a lot like dating.  

 

So how does buying work for a customer?

  • Looking for something new or a replacement. Someone may be looking for a change in how they do things or what they do. He may want to start a new hobby. Or invest more in a hobby. Or change his approach to laundry. In any case, someone wants something new. And he is looking for a change in himself in some minor or major way. If he wants just a replacement, there may be some opportunity for change, but don't bet on it.
  • Exploring feelings about the new – painting a picture of what a new life would feel like. How do I feel with this new thing? How will it change my life? People need to have a picture painted for them about what life will be like with this new object/approach/piece of clothing – whatever it is. This phase can last minutes or weeks, usually depending on the cost or how desperate someone is in need of a replacement. The higher the cost, the more someone needs to visualize themselves with this new item and change. And if there is a higher cost, what will life look like while financing the object? (That's probably the biggest hurdle for high-ticket items – will someone now need to live on a budget? Or cut out other expenses?) What will life look like maintaining the object? Will that be expensive and require time?
  • Buying it once. Most companies don't like to hear that one purchase doesn't necessarily mean a customer converted. I had a client long ago that didn't consider a customer converted unless he completed 2 purchases with them. The first purchase was a trial; the second was a customer conversion because he repeated the process and most likely, would buy again. I agreed with them. And I see it with myself. I may buy a shirt from a store, but I may not buy anything again because I liked only that one shirt in there – I didn't like anything else. I'm not converted.
  • Buying again and again. A customer does this this because he likes the products. Or the store is convenient. Or the products are at the right price point. Whatever the reason, he converts to being a customer and regular shopper.

 

If the person doesn't think he has a true need, he won't buy. Same if he doesn't have money. Or if he isn't ready for whatever reason. He can be influenced, but he won't budget if he doesn't feel it.

Sure, in marketing and advertising we create needs and try to present a better, different way to do something. But this only works if someone is open to seeing what that need is and considering himself in that position. If the person isn't open minded and looking for change, then it won't be adopted.

For example, Bernays was hired by Lucky Strike to get women to smoke. Rather than having only an ad campaign, he hired suffregettes to smoke during a parade. The women watching the parade could visualize themselves participating in the parade, with these other "free" women. He associated freedom with smoking – helping the women visualize how they may feel if they smoked. However, women at that time took on smoking only because they were were looking for new ways of being and a change. Most women were desperately seeking freedom at the time. Freedom was the trend – so associating smoking with freedom was an easy visualization and sale. But if the women weren't looking for change, and suffrage wasn't embraced, this wouldn't have worked.

Change and purchases only happen when a customer is ready and open to it. And once he is open to it – he needs to see how his life will be different. If that doesn't happen – neither will the sale. 

More on this next post.

You can’t make a customer buy. But you can get him to visualize change.

5 Elements of Discoverable Functionality

The other day I went to watch a movie on Netflix and I got this screen:

I’m not sure why I got this screen. I am the only user on this account. I have maybe watched 1-2 children’s movies (Babe is a classic). Ok, I lied. I watched at least 5 – including Ella Enchanted. But that’s not enough to merit me seeing a kids option given that I watch so much SciFi. All I kept thinking: What’s this Kids option? Why is that appearing?

Every time I open the Netflix app, I have to choose which account I want to use. I’m not sure why the system can’t remember which account I chose and leave it selected. Or maybe the app should ask me first if I share my device or account with others, so I understand why this screen is appearing. All. The. Time.

I wanted to remove this extra Kids account since I don’t have any. I can’t manage my account at the Netflix app (a disappointment unto itself. Even Hulu allows some minimal account access), so I went to my profile page on netflix.com to get this:

All I had to ask myself on this screen is, again: why is a Kids channel there? How did it get there? I didn’t add it.

This got me to think about discover-ability and what works.

Functionality needs to be discoverable, but at the same time it can’t be intrusive. Overview/Intro screens are great cases of discover-ability gone wrong (here are 6 alternatives to that approach). So is this profile idea at Netflix.

What are the elements of discoverable features?

  • Not intrusive. The system’s not asking a personal question, intruding on your privacy, or the like. In fact, you may not even realize that the system is doing anything to customize or personalize your view. The experience to configure your system is part of the general site/app experience.
  • It’s integrated. It’s part of the experience. It doesn’t seem tacked on like an afterthought. Sure, functionality can have the appearance that it looks like the rest of the app, but does it fit the experience-style of the rest of the app?
  • It proves useful. After you experience the new feature, you want to use it again because it helped you complete a task – something you always wanted to do.
  • It’s available if you need it – obvious and hidden at the same time. If you want to use it, you can easily find it. If you don’t need it, you don’t have to use it and it’s tucked away for later. It’s not shouting in your face all the time.
  • It makes sense and is familiar. As you know, there is no such thing as intuitive, but there are ways to find features that make more sense than others. I guess this is the challenge of UX – designing for general approaches to solve a problem rather than a specific mindset or way of thinking. It has to work for most everyone.

Which sites or apps are effective in this? Twitter is pretty straightforward to figure out. So is LinkedIn in general. Facebook has its challenges. Google maps generally makes sense. As does OpenTable.

Which apps do you like that has easily discoverable functionality? I’m curious to hear your thoughts!

5 Elements of Discoverable Functionality

A phone is a phone is a phone. When innovation from the past is now the standard.

In my quest to get a new cell phone, I visited an AT&T store. I thought maybe they had a secret inventory out back that included iPhone 6’s that they weren’t selling. I was pretty focused in my search for a new iPhone, being an Apple fan and all (ok, some would say obsessive, but I prefer persistent). I mean, Apple products usually don’t require a user to have any real knowledge of how to make things work – just plug and play. They keep it simple.

When I had to face the cold, hard reality that getting an iPhone 6 as a replacement just wasn’t going to happen any time that day (soon, but not that day), I started walking around to look at my options. I was considering getting an Android OS phone or – heaven to besty! – a Microsoft phone. My concern was how the data currently in  my phone would translate over, but at this point I was only window shopping so I was in dream land.

What I noticed right away in the store – all of the phones looked the same. 

(Notice any real differences below? I didn’t either.)

iPhone 6

Samsung Galaxy 5 

 LG Optimus 190

LG Optimus 4x

 Nokia Lumina Icon

Surprisingly, it didn’t seem like Apple was the leader in the design department – the new iPhone 6 is nothing more than a very thin Samsung Galaxy. The LG looks like the Samsung Galaxy and iPhone. All of the phones had the glass touch screen and rounded corners to some degree. I felt like I was looking at product clones.

So disappointing.

It was as if no one had a unique idea for how to get a phone to work, except to copy what a competitor was doing. I was hoping to see a different way of interacting with a device – maybe a smaller device that was based on voice commands, for example?

I didn’t feel like there were any competitive advantages to any of the devices. Sure, some may be faster than others. Some may have better touch interaction than others. Some may have been voice recognition than others (but that’s a software issue). How would anyone know this looking at the same general product design throughout a store? I was browsing through a bunch of little tablet/phone hybrids.

I hope in the future this changes, or else why buy from one company vs another if they are all offering essentially the same product and pretty much the same experience. 

A phone is a phone is a phone. When innovation from the past is now the standard.

With the new iPhone 6 out, what happens if your iPhone 5 breaks? A use case Apple overlooked…

Yesterday, I was on a work call when my iPhone 5 slipped out of my hand, and onto  the floor. This has happened dozens of times, but never with the glass face hitting the floor, falling with such force – almost like a toddler throwing something down.  It's a wood floor, but you would have thought it was concrete the way the phone face was shattered.

At my next meeting, people joked with me how I subconsciously just wanted an iPhone 6. I think that is true, and not, at the same time.

I'm not a fan of the size of the iPhone 6. I love the size of my iPhone 5. I don't want something bigger. I'm on the shorter side, so I don't want a palm held tablet. I'd feel like a child holding a big book, so small and insignificant.

But I need to get a new phone. So I contacted Apple and AT&T to see what my options are. I initially tried to see if I could replace my 5 with a 5C or 5S. My phone is at 64GB; the 5 models support 16 and 32 GB. Not enough for my purposes.

So I decided to move to the 6. If I have to move to the 6, might as well double my storage to 128GB for $100 extra. Color is irrelevant to me – I just need a new phone with the larger storage.

However, there are no iPhone 6's in my area. Zippo. None. I had an online chat session with an Apple support person who told me to check in with the Apple store about their upcoming shipments to see if I can get one that way. The Apple store wouldn't tell me about their shipments and encouraged me to order a phone. However, looking at how cracked the face of my current phone is (and from experience with this) – I'm uncertain how long this phone will truly work. It may last another week. Or not.

I may try the Apple business line to see if they can help. I use my phone for work mostly anyway. No phone means no business for me.

I then tried the AT&T store. Their news was more bleak about ordering a phone – especially the 128GB. What was originally 7-14 days for delivery turned into 28 days. Seriously! 28 days! For a new phone!!

They, however, told me when the next shipment was and that I could call them to find out what came in. That was useful and helpful. And hopeful. 

Needless to say, replacing your phone with this iPhone 6 madness is turning ridiculous. I understand why they discontinued the 64GB in the 5 for the long-term; however, the case they didn't think through was how do you replace a broken phone right away? If a 5 was available right now, I would have gotten that to fill this gap and gotten a 6 later. But it's not – so I have to be patient.

If Apple did give people who broke a phone priority to get a 6, everyone would break their phones to get a new one, so I see why they don't do that.

But honestly – I need a new phone or else I'm going to get glass splinters in my fingertips. 

Thoughts? Samsung and LG phones are starting to look attractive because they are instock. And further, the phones in the AT&T store all look the same anyway, so its not like there's a brand that stands out completely. I wish I liked the Android OS better…this would make this ordeal go away faster.

 

UPDATE!

I can be obsessive – and this is a blessing and a curse. Yes, I am still checking the apple.com site during the day to see if iPhone 6's suddenly appear. At first, this was futile, until I saw that there were iPhones in Austin.

I felt like I saw a unicorn and called Apple right away. I wondered if maybe I would find one of those iPhone 6 unicorns and get it shipped to me. It was worth a phone call.

What I learned in those 5 minutes with Apple:

  • Apparently the stores get their inventories sent to them 10-11 am every day, and the Web site is updated daily with this information at a specific time. I'm not sharing the time specific information until after I get my iPhone. I will just mention that it does get updated. If you see availability, buy that phone online and pickup at the store RIGHT AWAY! 
  • The other emergency option: a non-warranty replacement phone. (Who knew, right?!?!?!?) I woiuld need to make an appointment at the Genius Bar, and a Genius would give me a replacement phone for a small fee. The EXACT same phone that I have now. A replacement of the iPhone 5 that I love to death. 

Now, I am happy. I'm happier to learn that Apple doesn't leave you hanging and they do have a way to hande shattered screens and phone replacements. 

All is now well in the world! Sometimes, it takes reaching the right person.

With the new iPhone 6 out, what happens if your iPhone 5 breaks? A use case Apple overlooked…

Can a company get too big? Just ask HP.

I think the days of the large corporations are ending. And HP is leading the way.

HP announced that it will split into two companies.  I think this is a great idea. It will free both  the consumer and enterprise companies to have more innovation, be more competitive, and in all honesty be more nimble to react to industry changes. Sure, it's scary – I mean, there are a lot of open questions about how this will work and what will happen. However, when a company reaches a certain size employee-wise, product-wise, customer-wise, and revenue-wise, internal processes can stifle innovation. Too many groups to consult with. Too many aspects to consider. Little autonomy to jump in and just get something done. 

Many of the articles about the split this morning hinted at how HP couldn't merge with other companies because it was just too big. For example, EMC stopped talks with HP. Who knows which other companies were in the mix on the PC and server side talking to HP about M&A opportunities? 

In a large company it is hard to respond to change. And IT/software right now is all about change. It's a wild west show out there – and a large corporation just doesn't have the flexibility to respond properly. 

It will be interesting to see what happens in coming weeks. Stay tuned! I smell innovation around the corner!

Can a company get too big? Just ask HP.

Are ads slowing down the Internet?

I've been working on the Web for close to 20 years (I feel so old saying that!). I have seen trends come and go, issues addressed and re-addressed. Like the concept of evergreen content. I thought Web content was supposed to be updated constantly. How is this suddenly a new trend? I thought that was the practice for a site to keep current? 

Or simplicity. There has always been a movement to make a site seem simple and have interactions be direct. It seemed that flat navigation was the "new thing," but it was always the "new thing." Jef Raskin could speak to that

There is a new disturbing trend I'm seeing – long page load times for news sites because of ads.

A couple of days ago, I went to HuffPost to get my daily update on what's going on in the world. The site  T O O K     F    O   R   E   V   E   R    to load. And I mean forever! And this wasn't the first time, so I figured it's time to investigate and understand why this took so long.

I thought part of the reason could have been due to Outlook hoovering memory on my Mac. (Please don't ask me why I use Outlook rather than Mail. It's a long and complicated story that isn't very interesting.) So I closed Outlook to see if things with HuffPost's load time improved. Nope. I tried my iPad. That was a little better, but not really.

So I decided to run a little test on some news sites to see if they all had this "ailment." 

My sample set included: DailyBeast, Vox, Bloomberg, Vice, WSJ (they had the best news site, by the way. I don't know what they did with ads loading, but you could read headlines without unloaded ads interfering with content), and Business Insider. And they all had pretty much the same problem – the ads loaded slowly. 

I don't have any specific time/load measurements because this was a casual observation and study, but in many cases, the last items to load on the page were the ads. And if the ads weren't loaded, I couldn't scroll down the page. In some cases, the ads being served overtook the page as a layer, or expanded to a larger ad from a smaller ad, or were videos. I mean, these were really big ads with intricate creative. Stunning, but at the same time, it detracted from my goal for visiting the site – reading content.

I understand that news sites need ad revenue to make ends meet, but at the same time, users aren't there to look at ads.

Again, they are there to read content.  

So who are these ads really designed for? Is the site optimized for the ad payers?

 

I remember in the early days of the Web when we'd optimize a page to be below 100-150K so it would load as fast as possible to users on dial-up and lower bandwidth environments. We'd try to optimize images, use more text and fewer images (ah – when CSS matured! That made life so much easier!). And we'd track our competitor's page load times to be sure we weren't higher than them. At times, we spent more time optimizing pages for load time than we would designing them!

And then bandwidth for all got higher, so this debate ended and 250K and above didn't seem like such a big deal.

Until mobile came along, and pages were optimized for that experience with the same parameters as the early days of the Web – low bandwidth, small screens. 

 

We see on average 5,000 different ads per day. That's a lot of ads. And a lot of outside influence.

I don't remember seeing that many messages growing up. We had TV and magazines. Newspapers and radio. But with the Internet, there are ads all over the place. 

There are ads when you do a Google search. I know people who won't click on ad space there because they know that someone paid Google to put them there and it may not be relevant to them. Or on a news site, these same people only read the articles on a page and ignore the ads. I believe there are studies that proved people overlook/skim over ads on a page (here's an old report – but it's still kinda relevant).

But we all know, you can't unsee what you saw. Even if you scanned an ad, its message was imprinted in your mind and made you think about The Gap, Banana Republic, The Container Store, Target, or any other retailer or company that wants you to think about them. It's like that new lover who keeps texting you every 15 minutes so you don't forget about them. 

 

Ads build awareness of a brand. Sometimes users click on them; sometimes they don't. In my view, ads are an easy way to generate revenue – give a marketer hope that people will keep their brand in mind after they see it. 

Successful ad metrics are usually based on views. Until the days of the Internet, ad revenue couldn't be mapped to a sale. It was just awareness building. Even now, an ad can be somewhat tracked to a sale, but also not. It's complicated, and often makes me wonder why we put ads out there anyway.

Advertising is a multi-billion dollar business, pretty much expanded by Edward Bernays. Not sure who he is? Read his book, Propaganda. You won't see advertising the same after that. Actually, you won't see the world the same after that.

According to him, PR and advertising are ways to change our behavior and get us to want to do something we normally wouldn't want to do. Or at least, that is the goal.

Advertisers want us to buy things and spend money with their company. However, if you take a step back you start to realize: 

  1. There isn't enough money to buy all that is being asked of us to buy.
  2. The larger corporations don't care which of their divisions you spend your money in – they just want your money.

For example, if you shop at Banana Republic, The Gap or Old Navy, it doesn't really matter to Gap, Inc. You are spending money all at the same corporation. That's what they really want.

 

When HuffPost loaded slowly on my computer, I also wondered if the problem was my Internet connection. There are days that I think Net Neutrality is becoming an idea of the past, especially when I experience such slow page load time. Vox mentioned that Netflix has already experienced this insanity of paying to reach its customers. 

And the Internet carriers are arrogant enough to tell us how much bandwidth we can have. The FCC said we need about 10mbps, with video, TV and other Internet goodies available. The carriers said 4mbps is just enough, thanks. How do we let them get away with that?

When it comes to advertising – will the advertisers let the carriers get away with that too?

 

So have ads slowed down the Internet? I'd say yes.

  • Page load times are seeming to increase and there needs to be greater optimization for ads
  • We need to train our brain to work around seeing ads on a page. That slows down our reading/skimming capabilities.

It seems that we are designing more for the advertisers than we are for readers. The irony is that it is the readers who allow publications to demand higher rates for advertisers. 

I think its time to move away from advertising as a model and find something new. Do I know what that is? No. However, I invite you to comment on how revenue could be generated from something else besides ads.

 

Are ads slowing down the Internet?