One of the best things about being an interactive agency with high quality research offerings is that we get to use our offerings for ourselves. As experts in user behavior, we typically study the users who our clients are trying to understand. But the truth is, our most important users are our clients and prospects themselves. To offer them the very best, we study our clients and prospects with the same scientific rigor that we provide in our research offerings. Here’s a light review of some recent survey findings that opened our eyes to the people who we serve and the things that they do.

1. Which publications do our clients and prospects read on a regular basis? MarketingSherpa, Advertising Age, AdWeek and Business 2.0 are popular publication choices. The MarketingSherpa and Advertising Age publications tend to be most preferred.

2. Which industry websites do our clients and prospects visit on a regular basis? MarketingSherpa, MediaPost and AdWeek are popular website choices. The MarketingSherpa website tends to be most preferred.

3. Which resources do our clients and prospects find most helpful when looking for marketing vendors? Three main resources are most popular for finding marketing vendors — referrals, Google and associations. Referrals tend to be the most preferred method.

4. Which industry tradeshows do our clients and prospects attend and/or plan to attend? eTail, MarketingSherpa Email Summit, eMarketing Association Events and DMA Annual are popular tradeshow choices. The eTail and MarketingSherpa tradeshows tend to be most preferred.

As an interactive agency, we benefit not only by selling services to our clients. With high quality offerings, we benefit when we use our offerings for ourselves. At Spunlogic, we depend on one agency when we need the very best in research, design and development. We depend on us.

*Thanks to our clients and prospects who participated in the Abominable Snowman survey for making these findings possible.

There’s something special about TiVo that separates it from the other DVRs. It’s the experience. It’s that little sound it makes when you get to skip the commercials. “De-deet.” I love that sound. It means I won’t be inconvenienced. It means I’ll enjoy my TV more and I’ll be irritated less. But TiVo is doing more than satisfying my need for speed when it comes to watching TV. TiVo is changing the language used in my family. And as I write this post, I wonder if this is happening in other families too. Here are some things that I wouldn’t have said before I discovered TiVo. Am I alone?

Don’t worry, we’re TiVoing your show.
Translation: It’s ok, we’re recording the show you forgot to watch with our DVR right now. No worries, we can keep doing whatever we’re doing – you won’t be forced to watch live TV. Here, TiVoing (v) refers to the present action of recording a show.

We TiVo’d that show last week.
Translation: We recorded a show with the DVR last week. We’ll watch it at our convenience – unless it’s a season finale. If it’s a finale, our friends might accidentally tell us what happens. To prevent this, we’ll watch the show while it’s being TiVo’d so we’re current and if we miss anything, we’ll have back up. Here, TiVo’d (v) refers to the past action of recording a show or present action in the case of “being TiVo’d.”

Do we have any deet?
Translation: Do we have enough DVR recording so that we can keep skipping the commercials? Asked with longing tone, when the answer is No, we feel frustrated. Arg. Here, deet (n) refers to the amount of recording you have left. It stems from the word “de-deet” – the sound that the TiVo makes when you fast forward. Sometimes we say “Can I get a deet-deet?” Similar to the sound of “Can I get a what-what?” this calls the person with the remote to action.

Do you have a TiVo?
Translation: Do you have a DVR of any kind? People usually say Yes regardless of whether it’s really a TiVo (n). I replaced my TiVo with a different DVR a year ago to record HDTV. But it’s still a TiVo to me. When someone asks you for a Kleenex, you give them a tissue. It doesn’t matter if it’s really a Kleenex. Everyone knows what everyone’s talking about.

Am I alone here? Perhaps not. Just Google (v) bloatware, macintrash, wikification and flog to learn more new words. Language is not a static, lifeless set of words and rules. Language is a technology that evolves in the presence of life – in the presence of other technologies, like the web. If the development of language didn’t keep up with the development of other technologies, communicating would become so difficult that we wouldn’t be able to do our jobs. People who work in technology are most effective when we break out of the existing linguistic framework that we have come to know to describe new things that we see – when we use imagination to create new words (neologisms) for technologies that existing words cannot quite express. As Einstein, the Kleenex of geniuses, once said “Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited.”

Sometimes, we are successful not because of what we do – but in spite of what we do. I think of that often as I watch the user experience industry grow.

While user experience training programs are emerging, sound research methodology is not often emphasized. As an industry, we try to compensate by use of expensive recording equipment, artificial lab environments and complex software. Executive level stake holders are often excited by these technologies. But with few people with the skills to make sense of the data that is generated, we are often left with impressive recordings that mask worthless findings. There’s a saying that sums up this problem quite well.

‘You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.’

Unfortunately, sound science is often hard for executive level stake holders to assess – particularly when they don’t have much of a scientific background. There’s a Catch-22 in this business. You need to have knowledge and skills to be able to assess knowledge and skills in others. Without these, you can never really be confident about the quality of your resources and the findings that they report. Executive level stake holders often see the lipstick, but not the pig. They think…Hey, what a pretty lipstick color, so red, so sparkly. They don’t think…Hey, wait a minute guys, it’s a pig!

Far too often, businesses are much more willing to invest in costly material resources as opposed to high salary human resources. Perhaps material resources feel more permanent – a more sound investment. But there is a vast difference in what each investment can yield. Namely, material resources are useless without human resources who know how to properly utilize them.

What businesses really need is not expensive recording equipment, artificial lab environments and complex software. It’s resources who have sound scientific training – those who have a firm grasp of proper research methodologies and analyses. These people can find far more with a pencil and paper than many can find with the most expensive recording equipment in the world. In fact, these people would likely argue that expensive recording equipment often stands in the way of accurate findings – particularly when operated by amateur researchers.

When I left academia, I ‘took off my scientist hat’ to work here in the real world – but I’ve carried it in my hands. I’ve come to believe that this industry needs to reach a consensus on more than usability principles, goals and heuristics. This industry needs to build a methodological foundation on basic science and hold itself to higher scientific standards. High tech research methodologies are far too often smoke and mirrors, nothing more – they are a crutch.

There’s just no substitute for sound science.

I’ve got a Chihuahua who weighs 14 pounds. Kept feeding him. That and he’s probably not 100% Chihuahua. At first, he was known as Snuggle-Bunny because he loved us so much – always wanted to be close by. After a while, he was known as Sweet-Pickle because he was such a sweetheart – never barked or cried. One day by accident, I called him Snuggle-Pickle. The nickname stuck.

I like to assign human characteristics to my 14 pound boy. I’m a dog mom. I can’t help myself. Fortunately, I’m not alone. Most people assign human characteristics to their pets – as well as other more inanimate things. We’re hardwired to do this. It’s a built in heuristic (mental shortcut) that makes human to human social interactions easier. Without heuristics like these, we would have to exert a lot more brain power to deal with simple situations. But these social predispositions are so ingrained in us that it’s hard not to apply them when we interact with other, nonhuman things. Technology is no exception.

Take a look at MIT’s Kismet. She’s an anthropomorphic talking head. But to most people who meet her, she’s a 2 year old child. People adore Kismet. When they interact with her, they speak motherease. When they hurt her feelings, they feel bad and try to make it up to her (see several videos of Kismet). Some groups are against the production of ‘intelligent’ robots like Kismet. They think that creation of such technologies goes against nature and raises questions that are too difficult to answer. But they’ll never lay a hand on Kismet. Oh no. After all, she’s only 2.

Have a chat with A.L.I.C.E. She’s a massive database of questions and answers. But to most people who meet her, she’s one of the best web-based conversational agents in the world. During the last major election, I asked A.L.I.C.E. whether she was a Democrat or Republican. She told me she was a Libertarian. When you get to talking with A.L.I.C.E, it’s easy to forget that she’s not a real person. It’s easy to forget that she’s talking to several hundred other people while she’s talking to you.

A group of researchers recently discovered that users are most likely to disclose personal information to computers ‘who’ disclose ‘personal information’ to them. For example, computers ‘who’ say things like…

I only have 28k modem speed but I wish I had more, what are your shortcomings?

…are more likely to elicit personal information from users than computers ‘who’ say…

What are your shortcomings?

I often question whether findings like these could be used to influence conversion behavior. If we disclose more information about ourselves before users convert, for example, will users be more willing to give us personal information during conversion? I imagine they might. And the truth is, there are so many findings like these – just waiting for people like us to apply them to what we do. The possibilities seem endless in the veritable gold mine of human-computer social interaction research (see The Media Equation or anything by Byron Reeves and Clifford Nass for findings). Those who leverage this research will likely spawn some of the most powerful conversion strategies that this industry has ever known.

Last week, I spent hours freeing my dining room from its 1964 wallpaper captor. It was Me V. Wallpaper. My fingers sore and callused, I was at war! My husband begged me to hire contractors for the job. I wouldn’t hear of it. I come from a generation who believes that if you work really hard, make sacrifices, and have a good strategy for success, there will be a big payoff in the end.

It’s typical for people in my generation to feel the way I do. Our families sold us on the American Dream, often by their actions. I know mine did. Growing up, I took pride in my immigrant grandfather, forced into self-employment in the 6th grade, who worked night and day to grow a successful New York City window washing company. I watched my cousin start her own clothing line… my uncle start his own magazine…my brother start his own programming business…my mother’s first husband grow his own movie production corporation… and my mother become a CEO. Their dreams were all very different. But hard work, sacrifice, and strategy were always the key to their success. My family came to American to live the American Dream. And as I watched, they lived that dream – again and again.

But Generation Y is getting a slightly different message from their families – particularly the youngest members of this user segment, now in their teens. They are more separated from the blood, sweat, and tears of their forefathers. Life has been easier for them. Technology made this possible. The expectation of inheritances made this possible. Helicopter parenting made this possible. Gen Y parents are telling their children that they can do and have and be anything they want, just like my parents did. But they are leaving out the part about the hard work, sacrifice, and strategy. The American Dream is vastly different for Gen Y.

Online, Gen Y often gets confused when their parents’ advice doesn’t work. Gen Y is asking, Why? Why do I have to figure out how this shopping cart icon works – why can’t I just check out? Why do I have to learn to play this video game – why can’t I just play? Why do I have to search this website – why can’t I just find what I’m looking for instantly? Why are they making me try?

As interface designers, it’s not our job to teach Gen Y about hard work, sacrifice and strategy – tempting as it may be. Instead, it’s our job to meet their expectations by designing interfaces that get them what and where they want fast. It’s our job to prevent Gen Y from realizing the flaws in their parents’ message – to continue to shelter them from the harsh realities of real life and to grant them what they believe they have been entitled to all along. After all, the Internet is one of the few places where their parents’ message can actually work. With a well designed interface, you can be, have, and do anything you want – almost instantly.

Life isn’t easy at 5 foot nothing. Take it from me. When I first learned to drive, I realized that I had a choice. I could either press the pedals or see over the dash – but not both. Nothing fits. Pants are always too long and heels are only so high. I have to hurl dishes into my kitchen cabinets. And to top it all off, I’m a lefty.

Products are designed for average users – not for people like me. It’s about what’s most profitable. It’s about the 80-20 rule. I get that. But what about the people who get left out of the design process? What about me?

I’ve met several people over the years who have shared my plight with average product designs. None have been more memorable than my former student of statistics, Jonathan. Jonathan was blind. One day, he asked me to print the content of my course website so someone could read it to him. Jonathan told me that most websites weren’t made for people like him – even with the existence screen reading technology.

I wanted to understand. I downloaded a trial version of Jaws and listened to my favorite websites. I was horrified. Sites with the most organized visual designs were often the most confusing to listen to. My stats website was no exception. At that moment, I decided that I would not let my website fail Jonathan like so many others had – I would give Jonathan the same online experiences as every other student.

I spent months learning about the web accessibility standards. I listened to my site again and again. I tested my links with Bobby to find the flaws I couldn’t hear. I worked closely with Jonathan to understand the experience of a real, non-sighted user.

Jonathan thrived. He used his earphones to explore my site in the student computer lab. He loved to learn about stats – and that’s really rare for an undergraduate. By semester’s end, I found Jonathan helping several of my sighted students with their homework.

The web is one of the greatest tools in human history. But it’s not just a tool. It’s a place — a place where non-sighted people cannot go. Will the day ever come when people take this more seriously? Will the day ever come when potential clients are beating down our doors for online accessibility evaluations and repairs? With pioneers like Bruce ‘BJ’ Sexton taking on giants like Target.com, perhaps that day is closer than we think.

Sometimes, when I’m feeling small, I think of Jonathan and what his life without the web must be like. Even if major companies are legally forced to include him (see the Section 508 website), it will likely take years to get their sites up to standard. Jonathan will have to wait a long time before he can surf the web like the rest of us. Meanwhile, I’m online all the time. Online, being small means nothing. In that space, I fit. In that space, I am capable of anything. Jonathan helped me see and appreciate something that I took for granted – a charmed virtual life.

There’s an elephant in the corner. And here lately, he’s gotten bigger.

Interactive marketing agencies have long been packaging and distributing ‘online personality types’ by use of online surveys. Media-Screen recently joined in with their Netpop | Portraits research program. Five broadband ‘personality types’ were born out of an analysis of 4,000+ survey responses.

The Netpop | Portraits survey reached thousands of broadband users, a noteworthy accomplishment. But there’s something that interactive agencies often don’t mention about this type of research – and it’s a big problem that’s really hard to ignore. These types of research programs are not studies of broadband users. They are studies of broadband users who are willing to respond to online surveys. And there’s quite a difference.

If we really want to explain and predict online user behavior, it’s going to take more than an online survey to get what we’re looking for. Surveys are great at reaching thousands of users. But we don’t just need numbers, we need to reach the right kinds of people. What are the characteristics and behaviors of users who don’t complete online surveys? How would these things, if known, impact the Media-Screen ‘online personality’ findings?

While pioneers like Media-Screen have published exciting findings, I am of the opinion that the greatest discoveries in ‘online personality types’ remain to be seen. We are largely uninformed about a critical portion of the online population – users who abandon online surveys. And users who abandon online surveys may very well be the same type of people who abandon prior to conversion in so many other realms – making them perhaps the most worthy of study, at least in the conversion industry.

Surveys are a powerful method of assessing broadband user behavior. But alone, they are not enough. Complementary methods of data collection are essential if we want a holistic view of online user behavior. Let’s compliment our survey findings with studies of survey abandonment rates, to quantify the portion of users that we don’t account for. Let’s investigate where the people who abandon our surveys come from, where they abandon and where they go next. If we don’t, I’m afraid the elephant in the corner will only get bigger, at least for me. If we don’t, I’m afraid we will continue to sit in Plato’s cave – talking, writing and dreaming about shadows on the wall.

Parrots don’t ride tricycles in the wild. It’s not their nature. You can watch them fly and hop and search for food all day, but you’re not going to see them riding tricycles. You can put a tricycle right in front of them, dangle treats in front of their faces and shout ‘TRICYCLE, TRICYCLE!!,’ over and over again. Nope. Not going to do it. But what if you want to defy nature – what if you want to get a parrot to ride a tricycle anyway? Where do you start?

Getting parrots to ride tricycles is like getting some users to convert. Some users seem like they just weren’t made to convert. Getting them to convert is like defying nature. And you can dangle money and vacations and free anything in front of them, but it’s not going to happen. How can you reward users with incentives for the behavior you want when they won’t produce that behavior to begin with? Well that’s a popular problem in the conversion industry. But behavioral researchers in Psychology have long known of a way to get around this problem – at least with parrots. We call it shaping.

With shaping, we don’t wait to reinforce a behavior that’s never going to happen. Instead, we reward successive approximations of the desired behavior until that behavior is ultimately displayed. Let’s get back to our parrot example. He doesn’t ride the tricycle but he will hop onto it every now and then. So first, we reward the parrot for hopping onto the tricycle with a treat. After he realizes the relationship between hopping onto the tricycle and the treat, we take it up a notch. We only give the parrot a treat when he hops onto the tricycle and puts his foot on the pedal. Next, we only give him a treat for having his foot on the pedal and pressing the pedal. Eventually, we get the parrot to ride the tricycle. And here’s what that looks like.

Does the power of behavioral shaping apply to web conversions? Can we reward successive approximations of converting behavior until users ultimately convert? Given that shaping has been so effective in so many other realms, I imagine we can.

For some inspiration, I leave you with several other animals who have successfully defied nature. Note that none of these animals produce these behaviors in the wild.

Twiggy, The Water Skiing Squirrel

Tyson, The Skateboarding Bulldog

Gongkam, The Painting Elephant