Bringing the Brand Heat: Branding as the Butt of a Joke

The long running competition for your entertainment/telephone/internet/TV dollar has seen some serious twists and turns. Cable companies promise phone service, phone companies promise television, Internet companies tell you to pull the plug on both...and everyone wants to tell you what you already know: that you have a choice.

Direct TV and Dish Network, the satellite contingent, have a long history of using their ads to create fun friction in the competitive space. Some of the ads are entertaining (louder ads anyone?). Some obtuse. (See here for ad gallery). But one caught my attention during March Madness for the way it used  'brand' as the butt of the joke...while serving up useful and usable benefits as differentiators.

[You'll want to ignore the lame image manipulation at the end as they are not part of the original spot and we're added by someone claiming to find subliminal messaging in the spot]

In the Direct TV spot, a fictional cable company executive team at Cable HQ reviews the functional benefits of Direct TVs web-accessible DVR service (aka...I can set my DVR from anywhere, at anytime). It's about a Functional Feature + Benefit. The cable company's response to competitive differentation is to...conjure the forces of 'brand heat'.

The team, including CEO Character Ed Begley Jr.,  congratulates each other on the brilliance of the idea: which is invoked using the noun 'youth' and the latinized ending '-ize' to create a brand response promising to "youthenize America'.

So What?

It's entertaining (though your mileage may vary)....and it points out something obvious if not always apparent: if the basic offering isn't differentiating, then the functional benefits (i.e., usability) can be. In this socially networked world, customer-centered service innovation can become the PR...and the advertising.

The Deutsch/LA agency (the latest agency to dish the dirt in these campaigns) has done a nice job of making brand heat the butt of the joke in this ad, proving that irony can, in fact, be pretty ironic sometimes.  Of course, Direct TV's 30-second skip forward feature is also pretty ironic...given the investment they've made in producing their TV advertising with big name stars.

That an ad agency and their client would use useful and usable service innovation as competitive differentiation against the vague concept of 'brand heat'..in a TV spot...is certainly funny...in a gallows humor sort of way?

Interface lessons from game design: Play on

Gaming represents one of the purer forms of interface design. It must adhere to usability principles: afterall, if the interface doesn't work in a game, then it's no fun. But it also has to have utility and desirability built in or it's...well, no fun.

Somewhat counterintuitively, gaming interfaces are often inconsistent in the presentation layer of the interface from one to the other. This panel discussion covers lessons learned in gaming interface design that may be applicable to design of non-game interfaces.

Panel discussion....ready, set, go [my comments in brackets]: Robbins, Cressman, Josling, Franklin and Lazarro.

Emotion in design

Lazarro-Play creates emotions. More than 30 different emotions are documented in the choices that one makes while playing games (curiosity, joy, accomplishment, relaxation, etc.). The best selling games include at least three of the following four types of fun: hard fun, easy fun, serious fun and people fun. Independent of gaming, tapping into these emotions is relevant to the experience online [we've posted on the trinity of Useful, Usable and Desirable where desirable is the emotional component of the expereince]. 

Tools in design

Frank-Feedback is critical to the experience when users employ tools (like the Jump Tool in Super Mario) as part of the game. But also in tools like Google Docs. For example, rather than having a ribbon of icons for formatting text (right align, left, bold), why not allow users to drag and move text the way the want it [in the vernacualr this would be called direct manipulation?]. Interfaces built around touchscreen technology can change this, but even the very idea of simplified tools is still further along in games than other online interfaces. 

Controllers in design

Robbins-Hardware interfaces are changing the games...online though, the interfaces are not so customized...keyboards and mice are relatively standard of course. The Wii controller [as a devices that moves in real space] has no real corollary [though a mouse does move thru real space, right?]. 

The fun is where the real world mapping of controls to the digital world has a gap...it's also an opportunity for fun and frustration. If the game controller mapped to the real world exactly, it wouldn't be as fun. [Imagine objects in a game operating under exactly the same gravity conditions as the real world...what fun would that be if you couldn;t fly!]. Touchscreens have a modicum of imprecision that can make them fun and frustrating. 

Devices like the iPhone create issues such as being able to see the screen when the device is put in motion (as in a bowling app). With Wii you can see the feedback of the controllers on the screen. With an iPhone you wouldn;t be able to see the screen while the device is in motion.

Every screen is going to be a touchscreen in the near term...this changes the nature of interface design when the controller device becomes the human hand directly manipulating the screen objects. [Imagine typing a word document the way you type email on an iPhone or Instinct...or pinching and pulling images, using swipes to move images/folders from a desktop to the trash]

Progress + Goals in Design

Cressman-Rewards + Reputation Systems. Game mechanics around ideas like earning points and reputation ratings are important. [Ref Amy Jo Kim's Google talk on this here]. Game ratings also get translated in web sites like eBay with ratings systems, stars and such. Use of badges that can be earned [similar to experience points on Xbox] is consistent with offline ideas like boy scout badges. Enabling these elements to exist in online tools--ways to build points and reputation--is an opportunity. 

Examples include ratings on ePinions. Social media points/reputation numbers like number of Diggs or Reddit. Designing the interface to reflect the different levelling associated with experience--a tripadvisor contributor or seller rating on eBay--should be embedded in the design of the status display...even if it is something as simple as color changes [like karate belt colors].

Another principle is the interface complexity ramping up with experience. The idea of getting an experience flow that varies with the users experience. Startup tutorials trend isn;t going to get the job done.

Social Aspects in design

Josling-Enabling people to feel part of something bigger than themselves is the basis of successful MMOGs like World of Warcraft, Runescape and others. The flow of community in online support forums for products (like software products) seems more laborious. Going to a support board, trying to follow the flow of support inquiries and responses. Being able to seek support in the application context for instance rather than having to 'go somewhere else' online is something that game designers do well and non-game interfaces might embed more consistently. 

BONUS POINTS for naming the game that the characters above inhabit.

More Technorati SXSW at the link:

sxsw

Web Typography

Quit Bitchin' and Get your Glyph on! 

A Panel discussion on the role of typography in web design.

The panel is borne of an article posted April 08 AIGA site that said "Semantic type is ugly type".

Let the panel begin [my comments in brackets]

A critical set of questions? 

Why do so many designers bitch about web typography?

Stocks: Limited pallete of faces [online] is one...but limitations can drive creativity.

Tan: One reason is consistency...as designers we want what we've done to be seen as we designed it...we want highest 'quality' [confusing quality with designer's desire?]. Designing for complexity is the other side of online type decisions. Having to design for the common denominator [embedded in multiple devices, screens and contexts online].

How do we get inspired then?

Coyle: Approach the web with the great fonts that do exist. Georgia and Arial allow us to execute great design with typography, great grids.

Stocks: I don't get inspired online...great stuff is in the print world [well. that may be more a sign of limited exposure...smashing is but one example that can inspire if you look]

Tan: Great content inspires me most [hear! hear!].  Finding type that accomodates the narrative that emerges from the content.

What are the best ways for implementing typography within current limitations?

Rutter: Embracing the web as the medium itself, not as print.  Times can be used beautifully when paying attention to hte details...by making the information work properly. That's how we can view type. There are other faces beyond the core web faces. Clear type faces that come with Vista and Office on both PC and Mac (e.g., Camry)...and you have these faces with near universal penetration [the benefit of a de facto standard]. It's really about information design.

Warren: Often people get confused with mediums...if I can do it in print or tv, why not web?

Tan: Corporate brand consultants often request that brand typefaces on the web...but often the faces are not hinted for the web...it's a different medium. Finding something comparable is a better approach. Faces that are used everyday by millions of people, these core fonts are places to look for comparable fonts.

Coyle: One of my favorite sites is questionable characters.  Don't use typography to make a good design. Use typography in a good design.

How will we implement web typograph in the future?

Rutter: Font-linking: @font-face {   CSS code that calls to download and render a font face from a server hs been around since 1998. Different browsers have implemented this in different ways, but not everyone has even been made aware of it. The other issue is that not alot of fonts cannot legally be handled this way [Because people could steal the font from the server, which becomes a licensing issue].

Tan: If your client is willing to pay to license the fonts for web use, I do it. But the need here is to standardized the font between eot, otf and open type.  There is a real disntinction between type designers and font developers. The issue is that web designers need to build trust that they aren't going to rip off the type designers. EOT (Microsofts version) is the protection standard, but it is like putting a flag on the type syaing 'come steal me'.

Coyle: I wouldn;t use EOT because I don;t see the benefit. Implementation in Safari and Firefox is poor. Have to wait for it to download before rendering. Javascript issue does not call back to let page know when the type is rendered.

Is font-linking death knell or renaissance for typographers?

Coyle: Personally, I think it's a viable approach. 

Stocks: Fan of forcing the browsers to adopt by using it...or they self destruct. While I don;t see it as the savior, it should have been there from the beginning. The fact that it allows us to set type the way we want makes it viable, even though there are those who will use it for bad.

Tan: WebFonts.info has a great list of faces that have license agreements that allow you to embed them via font-linking. 

Rutter: It enables a wider audience for your work, so it can't be a death knell. Some technical issues may remain, but a wider audience should be seen as opportunity, not a threat.

[For the record, this blog post--like most on rkdna--is done entirely in Georgia...by a non-typographer].

More SXSW at Technorati...

sxsw

The only bad PR is no PR? Journalists and Company websites

I'm not a journalist...though I did do time in journalism class decades ago.  Back then, there were no company websites.  Now, of course, what company can be without one? 

When we develop a company's online presence, we always discuss the value of a creating a special place just for journalists and what it should entail. 

If you expect journalists to cover your company, afterall, what is it that they need from your company website? We have a PR staff at R+K that includes former journalists and their insight into the utility and usability needs of a site is a key element of our efforts. And what do they have to say? 

Unsurprisingly, journalists want the same types of things customers want from a company website: what they are looking for, not necessarily what you want them to hear. 

In fact, usability guru Jakob Neilsen's organization recently summarized the results of their more formal research into 'PR on Websites' (here). According to JK, here's what journalists said they need-specifically- on a company's website:

• Locate a PR contact (name and telephone number)
• Find basic facts about the company (spelling of an executive's name, his/her age, headquarters location, and so on)
• Discern the company's spin on events
• Check financial information
• Download images to use as illustrations in stories

That's it. No mission statement. No virtual tour. Not that they won't use these things, but they don't come to the site for them. 

And what do they do if they can't find what they need? Just like customers and prospects...They go elsewhere...or write about something else. 

If a company wants coverage by journalists (in all their emerging forms) then the company website must provide the users with what they want. To find out what someone wants, of course, you have to ask the question "What do you need?"

 

Research Methods: Confabulating Useful, Usable and Desirable

Confabulation is a term that describes the space between one's imagined truth and the actual facts. In describing behavior or attitudes, people abhor a vacuum.  So when we don't remember what we did--or why--we'll create a narrative to fill the void. Mostly, we do this unconsciously or with very little recognition of what we are doing. That's confabulation. 

Put another way, confabulation is the difference between our peronsal truths and the actual facts. 

Confabulation presents a particular challenge to marketing researchers in that research subject's explanations of behavior may not be what they seem. Attitudinal research is no better able to address the issue given it's general requirement to ask the person with the attitude just what 'it' is and where they got 'it'...and of course, researchers being human, they may create their own confabulations for defining and explaining attitudes in others.

Without digressing into a philosphical discussion of the limits of our perceptual abilities, Jakob Neilsen has posted a matrix of research methods and when to use them. Though crafted in the context of usability research, they are applicable in any marketing context from product design, to customer service, to the ever mysterious practice of 'branding'. 

In the end, these methods provide a breadth of support for the discovery and creation of experiences that are useful, usable and desirable...even with the attendant uncertainty of confabulated results.

(click to enlarge)

Designing for the user: Will it work?

Good product design incorporates (among other things) three fundamental elements: Utility, Desirability, and Usability. These three elements don't lend themselves to neatly symmetrical graphical representations, though, because usability is by far the most critical of the three.

Think of it this way: no matter how useful an idealized product would seem to be, no matter how desirable the idealized outcome of using the product is to you...if you can't make it work for you, then the product experience risks failure due to usability issues. 

Usability issues are why help desks and user guides exist. An entire series of 'For Dummies' books has been published to address what are, in essence, usability issues. Taken to an extreme, one could even argue that the entire education system is an attempt to make the world more usable for each generation that will inherit it and to share usability improvements made in prior generations.  Or maybe that's too far.

So let's step back, way back, to design of interactive media. Information products, like web sites and applications, certainly need to be useful, desirable and usable. And if usability is the key to unlocking the doors of utility and desirablility online, how does one evaluate the usability of design online?

We certainly prefer to conduct detailed task analysis, interaction design, hi- and lo-fidelity prototyping and formal usability tests, but the reality of the world demands alternatives. One alternative we've used to great effect is to employ a Heuristic Evaluation Checklist.  

The checklist provides a means of quickly evaluating a designs usability by inspecting it against a set of standard questions. It requires no particular expertise to employ, only a willingness to employ structured observation and critical thinking. It can be done formally--with data--or informally via discussion. Either way, it beats the alternative: failure.

Here's four elements on a checklist we use:

1. Is the design efficient?

• Is it faster than the old way?
• Does it support power users and novices?
• Does it support the way users perform their task?
• Are response times fast enough to keep up with user's work rate?

2. Is it intuitive?

• Does interaction take advantage of user's mental models?
• Does it behave consistently throughout the task?
• Is it visually consistent?

3. Is it supportive?

• Is it easy to undo mistakes?
• Does the design provide advice/reference materials/tools?
• Will users be able to perform their work better than they otherwsie would?

4. Is it engaging?

• Can users focus on their work instead of the interface?
• Do users have control...and beleive they have control?
• Is the experience enjoyable or even...fun?

What's in your checklist?

Show me don't tell me

Nothing is quite so fun as the web design debates that begin with "If I was coming to this site..." Of course, this is generally an inefficient way to actually get a usable web design.

As humans, we naturally start from an inwardly directed sensibility of how to frame and solve a design problem. But for usable website design, we need not rely on major assumptions built on inwardly derived beleifs. And while 'there's never enough time to do it right, but always enough to do it over" may be a common experience, it is useful to think about ways of incorporating a learn-as-you-go expectation into the design process. Afterall, online a good design is a design that works.

Jakob Neilson has a set of principles that make sense in "Bridging the designer-user gap".

But the Six Revisions site lists Seven Useful Tools for evaluating web designs.

Interestingly in the Six Revisions list is that these tools (which are mostly open-source or free) provide realtime data around what users actually do on your site...where their mouse hovers, what they click on, how long the pointer hovers as examples. For the record, we've been using the free Google tools that are part of the analytics package.

One implication of these tools is that it takes the notion of usability testing...learning what works...and puts it into the production phase...learning as you go.

So what?

Usability testing has often been relegated to the pre-productioon phase. There, it is oftentimes deferred due to rushed production schedules or the perception of limited budgets. And then the opinionated debates about design fill the vacuum created. These tools, though, enable something akin to the multivariate testing that has allowed ads, direct mail and search engine marketing to be tested and refined. The online world is ever changing. Our design decisions should reflect the real experiences and needs of real users. Empirically driven tools can help show us the way.