Okay, maybe communication never truly left … but our awareness of it has grown keen as we shape effective customer experiences in interactive media. Recently, Donovan (Director of User Experience) gave a presentation about web 2.0’s impact on the landscape of user (customer) experience.  He convincingly described how web 2.0 capabilities evolved as a response to user needs and allow the web to become, among other things, the communication medium people envisioned 10 years ago.

In this changed landscape of customer experience, what is communication exactly?  How do we ensure customers not only get our messages but also find them relevant and convincing?  How do we coordinate messages across multiple channels to deepen our relationships with customers?

As a start toward answering such questions, I just published “Rediscovering Communication“ for the online magazine UXmatters.  Please add your insights as we journey through this exciting landscape together.

I watched the movie ‘Click’ last night. Not so much because I was wanting to see it but, rather, because there wasn’t much else on.  I found it surprisingly relevant to my line of work and was inspired to write this post.  If you haven’t seen it, the premise is this: a stressed out Architect (Adam Sandler) is trying to get ahead at his firm by working hard for his smarmy boss (David Hasselhoff).  He gets frustrated one night due to the stress of balancing work and family.  He then flips out because he can’t find his TV remote so he sets out to buy a universal model. 

The only store open is a Bed, Bath and Beyond where, during his search for said remote controller, he comes across a door marked Beyond (I found this funny in and of itself – never thought about what the ‘beyond’ was).  Behind this door is Morty (Christopher Walken) – the resident ‘scientist’ of the ‘Beyond’ department.  He shows Mike (Adam) this new ‘universal remote’ and Mike soon discovers that the remote can control everything … EVERY thing.  He can turn down the volume of the dog, pause his kids, fast-forward his wife nagging at him.  He soon gets caught up in fast forwarding through all of the hassles of life so he can get his work done and get promoted.

AH, but this isn’t what I wanted to talk about.  After a while, the remote starts to ‘learn’ Mike’s preferences and reacts automatically to life’s situations.  Every time his wife starts yelling – fast forward.  Every time he goes to get ready for work – fast forward.  He can’t stop it.  It’s the way the remote is programmed.  So, Mike’s remote was supposedly programmed to be ‘smart’ … to learn his preferences and react automatically thus making his life easier.  But what happens is that his life becomes a huge mess.  He changes his mind about wanting to fast-forward through things, but the remote can’t unlearn. 

This so-called ‘personalization’ or artificial intelligence has been around in various forms for quite some time.  There was talk in the 70s about AI.  When the internet boomed personalization and customization were the rage.  Now Microsoft is coming out with a search engine feature  that will try to ascertain what you MEAN when you search the internet by comparing it with items on your desk top.  All of this makes the assumption that computers can predict your future behavior by examining your past behavior. 

While this theory holds true in many aspects of life, I don’t find that it does in ‘searching’ behavior.  At any given time, I may change my mind or focus or may be searching for something I may never search for again.  I may have documents on my computer from work that have nothing to do with personal searches.  I balk at the thought of someone – something – trying to second guess what my intentions are.  It’s like the former coworker of mine who insisted to me that we could tell what our users wanted by looking at what they did via our web logs. 

Examining past behavior only tells us what people did, not what they want to do.  I simply don’t understand the constant push to try to get computers to do something that, quite frankly, a lot of humans can’t even do.  Why should we expect a computer to know what we’re thinking and what we’re going to do?  Why would we WANT them to?  I certainly don’t.  Disagree?  Just watch ‘Minority Report’.

I’d like to use this post to start a discussion about the future of the web.  While Web 2.0 is a label given to the evolution of the online medium, most of the ideas often associated with that label really aren’t new. 

I spoke about this at a recent event - how Web 2.0 is more about a collection of principles than a bunch of features.  I also mentioned that if the web was to continue to evolve, we needed to stop thinking about ideas in terms of “features” and more about creatively addressing user needs and business challenges with original thought - thoughts around architecting interactive strategies aligned with how users interact and consume information on the web today.

I’ve been in the industry a little over 8 years now, and it seems that most of the ideas that have been generated over the last few years are not dramatically new.  During the dot-com days, and its subsequent aftermath, a lot of great ideas were built up due to the newness and excitement around the medium.  But like a kink in a water hose, technology limitations prevented those ideas from flowing and there was a corporate thumb over the nozzle, blocking the ideas from getting through.  Over the last couple of years, the kink has loosened and budgets are shifting toward interactive.  As a result, many of the ideas being implemented today are ones that were fighting for existence a few years ago.

My point?  I believe this new flow of old ideas has caused the stagnation of original thought.  We got so excited that we finally pushed through an idea we’ve been passionate about that our focus shifted away from coming up with new ones.  Now don’t get me wrong.  I’m not saying there aren’t any new ideas today.  The Web 2.0 movement has caused people to start the ideation process again. But, for the most part, these ideas are being conceived by a small percentage of people.

The larger percentage of ideas being generated by companies and agencies today are either jumping on a fad bandwagon, recycled ideas from years past or the replication of a feature already being used by their competitors or the latest cool site. Unfortunately, this often results in the misapplication of the idea - either not aligned with user needs, the business objective or both.

Maybe it has always been this way and always will, but I do think the web is at a growth stage where the time is right for a surge of new ideas.

So now what?  How do we shape the future of the web without staying attached to the past?  I’ve got a few ideas, but I want to see what you think.  Discuss…

There’s a theme in Monty Python movies -a comedic tactic, if you will- to take light of people who say one thing but really do/mean/say another. It really IS quite funny. Those of you familiar with Monty Python and the Holy Grail will find these scenes familiar. Those of you who are not (for shame!), here’s an example of what I mean…

First Scene - Arthur

Guard: Who goes there?

Arthur: It is I, Arthur, son of Uther Pendragon, from the castle of Camelot. King of the Britons, Defeater of the Saxons, Sovereign of all England!

Guard: Pull the other one!

Arthur: I am. And this is my trusty servant Patsy. We have ridden the length and breadth of the land in search of Knights who will join me in my court at Camelot. I must speak with your lord and master.

Guard: What, ridden on a horse?

Arthur: Yes.

Guard: You’re using coconuts!

Arthur: What?

Guard: You’ve got two empty halves of coconut and you’re banging ‘em together.

Arthur: So? We have ridden since the snows of winter covered this land, through the kingdom of Mercia, through —

Guard: Where’d you get the coconuts?

Arthur: We found them.

Guard: Found them? In Mercia?! The coconut’s tropical!

The Black Knight

Arthur: Now stand aside, worthy adversary.

Black Knight: ‘Tis but a scratch.

Arthur: A scratch?! Your arm’s off!

Black Knight: No it isn’t.

Arthur: Well, what’s that then? [Pointing to the knight’s arm lying on the ground.]

Black Knight: I’ve had worse.

Burn the Witch!

Bedevere: What makes you think that she is a witch?

Mr Newt: What, she turned me into a newt!

Bedevere: A newt?

[pause]

Mr Newt: I got better.

Bring Our Yer Dead!

Dead Collector: Bring out yer dead. [Hits gong]

Large Man: Here’s one.

Dead Collector: Ninepence.

Old Man: I’m not dead!

Dead Collector: What?

Large Man: Nothing. Here’s your ninepence.

Old Man: I’m not dead!

Dead Collector: ‘Ere, he says he’s not dead.

Large Man: Yes he is.

Old Man: I’m not!

Dead Collector: He isn’t.

Large Man: Well, he will be soon, he’s very ill.

Old Man: I’m getting better!

Large Man: No you’re not, you’ll be stone dead in a moment.

Dead Collector: Well, I can’t take him like that. It’s against regulations.

As funny as this is on the big screen, it’s not so funny when it comes to real life. Now, I’m not accusing people of lying, but people do have a penchant for believing that they do one thing, when they really do quite the opposite. For instance, think about how you would ride a skate board or a scooter - do you push with your right or left foot? Do you wear name tags on the right or left side? In what order to you eat the food on your plate at dinner? Think about how many people are in jail because of faulty eye-witness testimony – victims convinced of what/who they saw? What people think and what is actually true are often different things.

This gets me thinking. How should we listen to users? We know we should, but how much should they dictate what we design? The trick, I believe, is to hear not just what they’re saying, but what they’re NOT saying, and how they’re saying it. Basically …. we need to interpret what they’re telling us.

A good book about this is “Are Your Lights On? How to figure out what the problem REALLY is” by Donald Gause and Gerald Weinburg. It covers techniques for how to get at the real problem. It’s such an easy trap to only take your users’ word for what they need or want and design solutions based on that. Think about where Apple would be if they just ‘listened’ to users without really hearing what they were saying … without figuring out the real (right) problem to solve. As Henry Ford is attributed to saying “if I asked my customers what they wanted, they would have asked for a faster horse”. Or maybe two empty halves of coconuts

Back in June, NBC’s dotcomedy.com launched The Lunch Break Show, a new diversion for those of us that eat at our desk to save time during the day. Arby’s was the sole sponsor and the site is plastered with Arby’s branding and links to their TV commercials. Although it seems to have hit the news release channels back in June, I only recently stumbled across it and found it interesting enough to share the links and some thoughts for any of you who might have missed it the first time around.

The Concept:
The top of the original press release states quite obviously where the idea came from: “According to a recent survey by Kelton Research, nearly 60 percent of office workers in the U.S. spend their lunch breaks at their desks looking for distractions.”

So, it seems that NBC and Arby’s decided to go after this target market by throwing together a 30-minute collection of short segments taken from the previous day’s comedy shows on NBC and inviting office workers to ‘tune in’ between 12:00pm and 2:00 pm to watch the show while eating lunch at their desk.

The Experience:
Open http://www.thelunchbreakshow.com/ in a browser outside the time of 12:00pm - 2:00pm and you will see a page that explains quickly what the show is about and a form to register for email alerts each day before the show begins that only requires a Zip Code and an Email. There is also a countdown to the next show.

Open http://www.thelunchbreakshow.com/ in a browser between 12:00pm - 2:00pm and you will see the video which loops through the 30 minute segment repeatedly, along with a funny little PANIC button.

Thoughts:
I love the idea, it got me interested enough to try it out, but I had some problems with the experience.

Design - I enjoyed the website design and loved the funny little Panic button that pops-up a screen with numbers and lines all over it to make it look like you are doing something important.

Email Reminder - The email comes at 9:30am for me, and there is no way that is going to help me remember the show at lunch. It is buried in my email by that time, and I have to consciously think about the show and go and dig up the email to find the link. (If I haven’t bookmarked or tagged it already)

The Video – The video has some great spots in it each day, and I can always find something to chuckle at. However, you can’t pause it, rewind it, or skip ahead. Here comes the rub. I get what they are trying to do. However, I find it hard to believe that the same people who are clicking around online for entertainment at lunch can’t pause and rewind TV at home with some sort of DVR. I found it very frustrating. A colleague came up to me and asked a question during the show, and I missed something I wanted to hear, and couldn’t pause it or rewind it and I wasn’t about to wait another 30 minutes to catch that segment again.

So to wrap things up, I enjoyed the website and the video, but ultimately got turned off by the lack of ability to interact with the video. I wonder what their drop-off statistics look like because it feels as if they missed the mark a bit on how their demographic would want to interact with the site once they actually got there.

Links:

• To give credit where credit is due, I stumbled across it here at MediaPost in an article that gives a few facts about the campaign.
• The original press release
• Lunch Break Show FAQ

While doing a little research on email marketing, I came across this nifty site called EmailStatCenter.com.  Since I found it to be helpful, I wanted to pass it along to you guys.  This site is the first centralized online repository of statistics and research specific to the email marketing industry, with a broad range of topics included. 

EmailStatCenter.com provides statistical information for those looking for quick facts, but also provides the name of the reports if you’d like to research further.  Let’s face it, if you’re trying to convince people there’s value to an email marketing program, stats will be extremely helpful in your argument.

Here are some facts that I found particularly interesting:

• Of the largest online retailers that send welcome emails, 69% of them send their welcome emails in HTML, while the remaining 31% sent theirs in text-only format. - Email Experience Council/RetailEmail.Blogspot (September 2006)
• 55.3% of marketers surveyed currently use, or plan on using an outside vendor for email marketing. - Datran Media Research, “The 2007 Email Marketing Survey: Looking Forward” (2007)
• 56% of the world’s heaviest online advertisers revealed that they had budgeted significantly for landing-page A/B tests in 2007. -MarketingSherpa (2007)
• The majority of marketers annually allocate less than $250,000 to each of the discrete email functions of acquisition, retention and creative. - JupiterResearch “E-mail Spending and Governance 2007″ (2007)
• U.S. marketers spent $300 million on email in 2005. - 2006 Online Retail Holiday Readiness Report, WebTrends
  

In the last eight months, Second Life has grown like wildfire. Even since May, the world’s total number of avatars has grown from around 6 million to more than 8 million. This growth has made Second Life far and away the largest virtual social interaction world. And with so many brands in-world it looks like Second Life is running away with the competition. Hold up. For users interested in social interaction in virtual worlds, there may be life outside of Second Life.

As of June, more than 50 corporations use and have established a presence in Second Life. Just as some businesses have gotten in, though, some are jumping out. Wells Fargo recently left, and Starwood Hotels has plans to leave as well. Part of the reason is that as the world has gotten so big and there is such stiff competition for brand recognition, some companies are having trouble sustaining avatars’ attention. This could be good news for worlds like There.com, Kaneva and even China’s HipiHi.

Both Kaneva and HipiHi are still in their beta testing stages. However, There.com has emerged as a very possible alternative to Second Life, showing a significant amount of promise.

One interesting aspect of There, which currently has around one million users, is that they are targeting a slightly younger target audience. Many worlds - such as Second Life, HipiHi, and Kaneva - are shooting for the 18-to-34 demographic. More than two-thirds of There’s users are between 13 and 26. There also places higher restrictions on user-generated content. For instance, all objects created in-world must pass a review to ensure all content is appropriate (There is bound by PG-13 style content). Also, all clothing designed for avatars must follow “minimum coverage requirements.”

Despite a slightly younger target audience, There IS similar to Second Life because it is a true social networking world, not a game (like RuneScape  or Entropia Universe  where users are focused on tasks and objectives). There considers itself a true social networking destination, pitching the world as a place where users can “hang out and make new friends.” Some of the There’s activities include card games, a race track where users can challenge each other, paintball and trivia contests - all of which encourage social interaction. Despite having only a fraction of the users of Second Life, There is able to offer a world with more extensive social interaction opportunities.

In order to separate themselves from Second Life, There must find a niche as a better environment for close-knit social interactions. Users will be drawn to There if they will have a better social experience. However, There still has to focus on luring big brands to establish a presence in-world:

1. The more brands There is able to lure in, the more revenue the site will generate.
2. Users are more likely to stay if popular brands are present. Some analysts say it’s the numerous brands in world that have made it effective.

Ideally, There will find a balance as a world that places a premium on social interaction and one that is a home to big brands.

Marketing in There

The deal that There struck with MTV was consequential in the world’s continued growth. MTV originally started in Second Life, but has since jumped ship to create online environments that better complement its TV series. MTV hired There to create the sponsored worlds the Virtual Laguna Beach, and, more recently, a virtual version of The Hills. In these worlds users can hang out with the real-world cast of the popular MTV shows. “MTV networks is the first to recognize the potential for using social virtual worlds to enhance the viewer experience and build a stronger bond with the audience,” said Michael Wilson, CEO of Makena Technologies, the creators of There.

Earlier last month, There yet again made headlines by partnering with Capitol Music Group. The partnership between There and Capitol Music Group works almost exactly like the partnership between BMG and Second Life. As part of that deal, BMG brought in artists like Ben Folds and Talib Kweli to perform on Media Island in Second Life, a complex that BMG opened. Through this project, Folds was able to promote his new album with two live performances.

The Capitol project will bring in stars like the Beastie Boys, Korn, Yellow Card, and rapper MIMS to perform in The Tower, a new nightclub that Capitol recently purchased from There. As an added perk for both users and performers, during each virtual show fans can purchase both virtual and real world band gear, ranging anywhere from a virtual t-shirt to an actual CD.

Capitol is very optimistic about the possibilities of the partnership. “We know that consumers are spending a lot of time in virtual worlds and There.com offers a completely new way to promote music, both emerging talent and recognized artists, allowing artists to really connect with their fan bases,” said Syd Schwartz, senior vice president of digital strategy for Capitol. “Virtual worlds also give us a new revenue channel to promote our artists and sell virtual and real branded merchandise to customers.”

Perhaps netting these projects represents a real advantage for There. Looking back at HipiHi and Kaneva - they each show strong potential for different reasons:

• Kaneva is one of the first worlds to blend aspects of a 2-D social networking site, such as MySpace or Facebook, with aspects of a virtual world.
• HipiHi is geared towards a booming Chinese population and has been dubbed the “Chinese Second Life.”

However, because both are still in the testing stage, these worlds are relatively unknown - pushing There far ahead of Second Life challengers. I believe it’s only a matter of time before we see more brands launching in There. And with the rest of the competition looking up at Second Life, it is unlikely that they will catch up any time soon. However, with smaller worlds continuing to grow, it is likely that brands will see that Second Life is not the only world in town.

When it comes to words and the web, you may have heard less usually is more. What you may not have heard? How on earth to do it. Here’s the nitty gritty on 4 tactics for content that’s nice and concise.

• Use the Right Subjects and Verbs
  Writing style guru Joseph Williams recommends viewing each sentence as a story. Readers expect main characters to be subjects and their main actions to be verbs. Not only is this structure more clear, it’s also more concise. In the After example below, Spunlogic is the main character.
  Before: There has been a green initiative launched at Spunlogic.
  After: Spunlogic launched a green initiative.
• Don’t Be Redundant, and Don’t Be Redundant
  Spotting redundancy can be fun, and the fix is easy.
  Obvious: Orange in color, period in time
  Implied: Imagine a picture
• Avoid Meaningless Modifiers
  Basically, you really, really want to stay away from virtually all the various modifiers that don’t add meaning. (Translation: Stay away from modifers that don’t add meaning.)
• Why Use a Phrase When a Word Will Do?
  The more carefully you choose your words, the fewer words you have to use. Here’s an example.
  Don’t use this: Due to the fact that
  Use this: Because

Quick!  Match the following menu items to the type of food.  Your choices are: Burritos, Fajitas, Quesadilla, Salads, Nachos and Tacos.  GO!!

• Alfredo Garcia
• Art Vandalay
• Billy Barou
• Close Talker
• Fat Sam
• Homewrecker
• I Said Posse
• Joey Bag of Donuts
• John Coctostan
• Pinky Tuscadero
• Ruprict
• Sherman Klump
• The Full Monty
• The Other Lewinsky
• The Ugly Naked Guy
• Triple Lindy

So, how’d you do? 

Beyond the fact that these names say nothing about the food items they represent, I don’t even recognize several of them from American popular culture.  Imagine now that you’re a foreigner that has never been exposed to TV. 

To be fair, this menu has descriptions of each item categorized by type of food. But the point is that if you were just looking at the name of the item, you’d have no idea.  To top it off, you have no frame of reference for Pinky Tuscadero if you’ve never seen Happy Days.

I noticed this the other night when I went to order Chinese food.  I was using the menu I pulled off of my mailbox and noticed that they only had the title of the dish.  I have to tell you ‘Happy Surprise’ doesn’t sound like something I want to eat.   Sticking to what I know – beef with Broccoli, I may have just missed out on a yummy dish. 

Same goes for websites.  You may think that your product names or site navigation names are cute and ‘hip’ - but do they have meaning?  If they are cute and funny, is there some kind of context?  Does your audience understand the language you’re using?  Be careful what you call things on your site, you don’t want your customers missing out on that ‘Happy Surprise’.

Yesterday our Director of User Experience, Donovan Panone, spoke at a lunch & learn about how Web 2.0 is changing the landscape of user experience. He specifically focused on the psychological reasons that people want Web 2.0 capabilities (sharing, collaborating, etc.) rather than focusing on the technologies that enable this type of interaction. It was a great event and I expect he’ll be cranking out a white paper on it soon that we’ll be happy to share (sans his cheesy jokes I suppose hope).

One of the things he noted that I found particularly interesting was that companies should stop thinking about their interactive efforts as “one-offs”. No more website redesign or email campaign RFPs. Instead, companies need to first address what they are trying to accomplish and then task agencies to come back with an integrated plan to hit those goals. Sometimes a redesign of a corporate website is going to be the answer, but likely that’s not where your users want to be anyway.

I posted a few months ago about the death of the corporate website. In the post I was trying to make the point that search is really the way most people begin their web browsing and because of this, we know exactly what a user is looking to find. If someone searches for a product that your company sells, you certainly don’t want to have the user click directly to the homepage of your site and then have to navigate to that product. You want them to go directly to the page for that product. The very essence of a homepage is to help the user get to where they want to go - no one WANTS to be on your homepage.

Maybe I should emphasize that again, NO ONE WANTS TO BE ON YOUR HOMEPAGE. Why would they? Search has started to replace the homepage and this will only continue to be the case. The homepage is like Yahoo’s early efforts of directory-based search. Great for it’s time, but time has changed (if you don’t believe me, check the increasing usage of RSS as a reminder).

A decent article by Nilofer Merchant in this month’s Advertising Age makes essentially the same point and emphasizes that we should be looking to have our users help us create the experience - co-creation she calls it. That may be a little ambitious but the point is still clear - we need to really understand the user experience today and what that means.

Maybe our old/current conventions of user experience, information architecture, etc., need to be re-purposed to take these things into account because you can create the most usable, best laid out homepage but if people never see it, what’s the point?