ChaosScenario

What Reason Have We Given Our Audience to Care?

Continuing on the Jakob Nielsen soapbox I've been on for the past several days, I came across his latest article, where he reluctantly released data showing that displaying ads that look like editorial content actually produces results. He argues against this practice under the presumption that ethical companies win in the long run.

No doubt there are still some disciples of John Maynard Keynes who believe, "In the long run, we're all dead." Thus, they'll allow their short-run thinking to overrule ethical business practices. That's too bad, but when we are all aware of the practice, our collective knowledge should somewhat dilute its effectiveness.

The reason the method seems to work in the short run is due to a phenomena called "banner blindness," which is a description of users' tendency to completely ignore anything other than the content they came to read. According to Nielsen:

Scanning is more common than reading, but users will sometimes dig into an article if they really care about it.

He then includes this evidence for his claim, which represents three different contexts in relation to a task. In every case here, the display ads were completely ignored:

"Heatmaps from eyetracking studies: The areas where users looked the most are colored red; the yellow areas indicate fewer views, followed by the least-viewed blue areas. Gray areas didn't attract any fixations. Green boxes were drawn on top of the images after the study to highlight the advertisements."

How you organize your copy will depend on your intended audience, but I'm amazed by the number of companies that actually think their customers want to read their fluffy marketing-speak (What Steve Krug calls "Happy Talk"). For people who don't know who you are or what you do, coming to your site will  often result in scanning like that seen in the left-most portion of the image above. You have to be able to convince them -- quickly -- that they have come to the right place and that you can solve their particular problem.

If you can't, that's okay - you're not the right solution for them anyway. It's still best to be respectful of their time, too, since they may need your service (or know someone who does) anyway, and if your site is easy to scan and use, then they're more likely to consider you.

In light of the shift in advertising dollars being moved from offline media to online, advertisers might be troubled when they reflect on Nielsen's advice to resist the urge to advertise over a network, and instead contract according to the content. (It's important to note that the "shift" that is occurring isn't a zero-sum game; there is still a very large net increase in ad revenue).

It's absolutely true that the more customized the ad is for the content and the audience, the more effective it will be, I think Nielsen draws too hasty a conclusion from the data (and to be fair, perhaps because he never tested it). Just because someone doesn't focus on a display ad does not mean they haven't seen it, and according to a study performed in October of 2006, the effectiveness of contextual ads increases by 249% when run in conjunction with display ads.

I doubt Nielsen, if he saw that study, would conclude such a dramatic increase had nothing to do with the display ads. But what can we conclude from this?

Simply this: We have to work harder to give people what they want and need, and we cannot rest on our laurels just because we're getting more ad revenue to purchase advertising that makes use of the interruption model.

I believe Nielsen's suggestion would, indeed, be more effective, but I have trouble believing it is the most efficient way to do this. The ad networks must figure out away to allow advertisers to incorporate ads that make use of, if not more audience data, then at least more data about the content. Specifically, if you are, indeed, Time's "Person of the Year," don't force on users advertising that suggests the contrary.

The worse we do up front, the less effective even the relevant ads will be, because people will become accustomed to treating ads (in whatever form) as having nothing at all to do with them. As advertisers on the traditional side are learning, once that shift in thinking has taken place, it is very difficult to break through the clutter to get our audience to care. - Cam Beck

Gen Y Needs to Get a Clue ... Quickly

From MSNBC:

A study by Adecco, a work force consulting firm, showed that 66 percent of Generation Y respondents, those in their late teens and 20s, were not aware that the information they put online can be factored into hiring decisions. Fifty-six percent said they think the practice is unfair.

Welcome to the real world, kiddos. What you do today has consequences for tomorrow. Next time, listen to your parents. - Cam Beck

Deconstructing Jakob Nielsen

You probably don't care if I insult famed usability expert Jakob Nielsen. People either don't know him, don't like him, or dare not admit to liking him.

Personally, I think he's misunderstood. When the subject of Nielsen arises (Alright. I admit. I work him into conversations a bit.), I try to explain to my colleagues that they have to consider every Nielsen comment in light of the body of his work and the context in which it was written.

Designers hold special animus toward him for their perception of his utter disdain for all things that might be construed as creative design.

"Haven't you seen his website," they'll ask rhetorically, as if to suggest that by admitting to its obvious lack of aesthetic value, I also must reject everything he says or believe that he thinks every site should be that way.

Invariably I try to explain to them that he's trying to make a point that websites don't have to be pretty to be useful, not that he's making a case for the normative state of websites. No one believes me, of course, but now I have proof.

Guardian Unlimited wrote a nice piece on Nielsen, and explains:

It's a decade-old design and it wouldn't take much effort to make it look nicer, would it? More importantly, surely he ought to be following all his own guidelines on usability.

Nielsen is not a graphic designer, and he reckons that smartening it up would put him in the middle range of site designs: "I'd be just one out of 10m. Redesigning it would take away the real value, which is that it stands out. But I'm probably the only one who could get away with it. I wouldn't recommend it to somebody starting out now!"

Although Use It annoys the people who think web design is graphic design, Nielsen doesn't mind. "There is something good about upsetting people, because it's making an impact," he says. But, he adds: "It's not good if you only annoy people," and you have to offer something of value.

[emphasis mine]

The article gives some attention to Nielsen's recently publicized and subsequently misunderstood and maligned disdain for blogs, but it doesn't really give the sort of depth and nuance that you can get from his original article. To the salient point highlighted in the Guardian article, I can attest that building value in a blog is a commitment. It can be tough to stand out.

Sometimes standing out requires upsetting people -- not for its own sake, of course, but for putting your flag in the ground and taking a stand for what you think is right. If everyone agrees, unless you're the most charming and convincing person on the face of the planet (and you have magical powers that you use to interfere with free will), no one is really thinking.

And that's not a good recipe for standing out, or more importantly, defining the scope or contributing to the course of the debate.

Everyone say it with me:

Jakob Nielsen is my friend.
Jakob Nielsen is my friend.
Jakob Nielsen is my friend.

Even when he's disparaging our profession or hobby. - Cam Beck

Hat tip to If! for the link to the interview.

Blogtipping

It's been a crazy day, so while I work on other projects until the wee hours of the morning, please enjoy some wonderful sites I've recently discovered that you may not have ever read.

Managing Leadership
Discover for yourself from the author of the book by the same name why our perception of leadership is wrong.

Hello, My Name is Blog
Get tips from the guy literally wrote the book on making yourself more approachable.

David Airey
Another designer named David with great insights and a real knack for stimulating thought and conversation. Is there enough room in this space for two of you, Armano? ;)

If they never wrote another word, I have a feeling I could learn a lot from these gifted writers for years to come, just by examining, contemplating, and practicing their current body of work. - Cam Beck

Innovation: Interrupted

Greg Verdino threw down the gauntlet and asked several folks to answer Jon Burg's call to define one word:

Innovation

When searching for inspiration on Dictionary.com, I started to understand why people are dissatisfied with the explanation.

The definition of innovation is "something new or different introduced."

That's it.

The thing that struck me the most about the definition is that it lacked a requirement to be useful and good.

I can think of no instance where change for the sake of change has any general benefit. Without a reason for the change to occur, we're confronted with a situation where we are waiting for the tail to wag the dog. Synthetic cow chips might be new, but I wouldn't consider them innovative.

My first instinct is to simply explain the reason to introduce something new or different, and use language that encompasses either or both a general benefit to society and/or a specific benefit to a community or organization that can offer an objective benefit to society.

5 Questions to Ponder

1. How does this square with innovations that apply to advanced weaponry and wartime tactics? Clearly these types of innovations in product or processes can be used for either good or bad purposes, depending partially who is using them and on if the side using them is seeking to advance an objectively good purpose.
2. Is something less innovative because it is used for something bad, even though it has great potential for good? Many people look to the splitting of an atom and recognize the enormous potential for the creation and supply of energy. However, many of the same people lament the destructive power of weapons that use the same technology.
3. What if there are unintended but unavoidable negative byproducts of the innovation? As they currently exist, energy plants that rely on fission also create radioactive waste that can be harmful to the world's ecology.
4. If we can overcome the negative unintended effects of the innovation, does that make the initial invention more innovative? Currently we store the radioactive waste from fission plants deep underground. What if we could turn that waste into something useful... or at least innocuous?
   
5. How do we know what should be considered "an objectively good purpose?" What defines objectivity? How can we properly couch that in the definition?

I'm going to mull this over a bit, and I encourage you to do the same. When you figure something out, head on over to Jon's blog and leave him an answer. - Cam Beck

Taking Responsibility for Our Own McActions

"Stanford University researcher Tom Robinson recently published a study linking brands with the perception of quality in children. Apparently kids think McDonald's-branded products taste better than its unbranded (but identical) counterparts. This "revelation" is supposed to make us think that McDonald's is evil because their marketing is responsible for making kids fat."

Read more of my post today over at Marketing Profs: Daily Fix. - Cam Beck

Update 1: An executive from McDonald's has weighed in at the Fix.

Update 2: David Airey has a fascinating conversation going on over at his place on the same subject. In the comments section, he refers to an amusing exchange between infamous celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay and Sir Cliff Richard, who has his own vineyard:

“Cliff’s got this vineyard in Portugal that he’s obsessed with, he’s crushing grapes and all the rest… so we brought him on the show and had this brilliant wine-tasting challenge.

“He thought one of the wines was amazing. Of course it was, it was $550 a bottle. Then we got to one which I told him was a $20 wine.

“He said, ‘That’s rubbish! I wouldn’t pay for that. It’s tainted, it tastes like vinaigrette. I’d never even buy that.’ “I said, ‘Cliff, that’s your own wine!’ He went bananas. He bent over and whispered in my ear, ‘F**k yourself.’”

Go check it out. Some great insight is coming from this debate.

One thing that occurred to me when I considered Stephen Denny's comment at the Fix is that the study measured the effect of the packaging, but it did not conclude that the brand preference was a result of the advertising.

Food for thought.

 

Men and Women: Take a Lesson from Wyoming

Over at Lewis' blog lively discussion has erupted over Valeria's gracious and seemingly innocuous gesture to give special attention to blogs authored by women. It was pointed out that only 13% of the blogs on Todd And's Power 150 are authored by women, and of the 100 top-ranked blogs on Technorati, only 8% are authored by women. Not quick to leap to the conclusion that this is the result of discrimination on the blogosphere, I openly asked if anyone knew what the ratio of male to female business bloggers is. Although we never got a conclusive answer, on reader pointed out that male authors outnumber female authors on the Age of Conversation by about 3 to 1.

Still, this is evidence of a disparity, not discrimination. The bigger questions are these:

1. Who or what factor is responsible? and
2. Should we do anything about it?

Whatever the cause, I would counsel us to take a deep breath and to learn something from the U.S. state of Wyoming.

Many people mistakenly believe that the United States Constitution, before the passage of the 19th amendment in 1920, forbade women from voting. Not so for Wyoming, which was granted statehood in the union under the Constitution's precepts in 1890. Wyoming had allowed universal suffrage as far back as 1869. The U.S. Constitution simply left the matter to the states. That is, it did not forbid universal suffrage, but it did not protect it, either.

There is not a historical consensus on why Wyoming granted suffrage. Some claim it was a ploy to attract women to the territory. Others claim it was an attempt to offset the effects of the 15th amendment, which demanded that race, color, or previous condition of servitude will not be used as a basis to deny the right to vote. Whatever the case may be, influential women's rights activist Susan B. Anthony called for a mass migration of women to Wyoming to take part in the body politic.

It never happened, but I'll consider the benefits of being a pioneer on this subject as self-evident.

No one has yet offered the possibility that the reason there is a disparity on the blogosphere is because women are simply smarter than men.

After all, blogging represents a big consumption of time and occasionally emotional strain, and only very rarely does it result in an increase in wealth. My wife, for instance, is a bright and highly talented CPA, but she will never be enticed to author a blog unless there is a clear, compelling and direct benefit.

The blogosphere is enriched by the participation of women, and it cannot sustain itself by men alone. The mean perspectives of men and women are indeed different. There is no use (nor truth) in claiming otherwise. We have much to gain by venturing into each other's territory, asking probing questions about that perspective, and learning what we can from each other. To get that perspective, though, the counsel we seek must first agree to participate in the conversation.

As Valeria's post celebrated the contributions of an underrepresented part of the community (for whatever reason women are underrepresented), I think her effort should be applauded. The exposure some women get for their participation may entice more worthy women to participate, which is not only a good thing, but a necessary one for the health of the medium in this category.

However, as I said over at Lewis' post, I would still urge caution, for there is a risk of pigeonholing the women as niche writers who appeal to only women -- making the fact that they are women become not a flavor that enhances the meal, but the entire main course.

I shudder to think that this discussion might turn into a competition of the sexes. We complement each other rather well and need not sling arrows to make our points, even if we are of different opinions. Let us reason together. - Cam Beck

Update: Check out this insightful piece from an article written by Jim Stroup that underscores the importance of seeking the unique perspectives of women:

"When asked what sort of factors motivated them to seek promotion, men outnumbered women two-to-one in identifying the opportunity to direct others. Women, on the other hand, outnumbered men by the same proportion in identifying the chance to empower others."

"In the new world of work, women will be immensely more influential than men. Greater numbers of women, after all, will have empowered their juniors. And greater numbers of men will likely have alienated theirs."

"Women have been learning a lot about management from men. The time is approaching for men to do the reverse."

Anthony Bourdain: Hypocrite ... or Genius?

Anthony Bourdain is a celebrity food critic and occasional guest-judge of the Bravo TV show, Top Chef. A witty and entertaining writer, Bourdain recently agreed to take on Top Chef blogging duties as a viewer and respected expert foodie. Though undoubtedly smart, Bourdain took issue with Rocco DiSpirito's choice to, among other things, pitch, promote, and endorse Bertolli frozen meals.

His commentary surrounding Rocco's "selling out" is earning rave reviews in the comments section on his blog. Interestingly, Bourdain's readers also object to the proliferation of product placement on the show (a product placement that usefully informed me about the meals, since I watched the Bertolli episode on DVR and skipped the commercials).

Don't look now, Anthony, but you're pitching Bertolli, too. Not to mention Glad. Now ain't that a kick in the pants?

 

The truth is, Bourdain is promoting himself. His expertise. His charm. His personality. These characteristics make for entertaining television, blogs and more informed foodies. It just so happens that this entertainment also makes for a more enriched Anthony Bourdain, which is not much different than the source of his objection to Rocco Dispirito's marketing activities. Is this hypocrisy?

The readers of the Top Chef blogs don't seem to recognize the irony. There aren't many people sticking up for Rocco over on Bourdain's blog. He seems to have an audience unto himself. Likewise, there aren't many people criticizing Rocco on his recently acquired guest blog. People seem to be choosing their side and reading the blogs of those whose personality suits them best. Yet, it also seems the "controversy" has stirred up some interest in the blogs to motivate good-natured and well-meaning people to leave comments. More and more, it seems Bourdain's polemic is an act of measured genius.

Although I have a lot to say about the nature of Bourdain's criticism (as well as the usability of BravoTV.com's website), I must admire his ability to speak to and rile up his audience. - Cam Beck

Friday Freaks

It's one of those hot summer days in Dallas that make me a little bit stir crazy. Here's some fun things:

Mmm, Donuts

Guess what the only commercial endorsement Elvis Presley ever did? For Southern Maid Donuts - Jelly Donuts. If you love donuts, live in Dallas and want to support a great cause, why not enter the United Cerebral Palsy/Southern Maid Donuts “Jelly Jam” Jelly Donut Eating Contest

When: Saturday, Aug. 11, 2007 at 10:30 a.m.

Where: West Village (Blackburn and Cole, across from Tom Tom Noodle House), 3699 McKinney Ave., Dallas, TX 75204

Why: To support United Cerebral Palsy’s 12th annual Elvis Run on Aug. 18, 2007 at 8 a.m. at Reverchon Park in Dallas, and to commemorate the 30th anniversary of Elvis’ death (on Aug. 16, 1977).  All proceeds from the Elvis Run will benefit UCP’s programs and services for children and adults with cerebral palsy and other disabilities.

Details: Contestants will race to eat the most jelly donuts – Elvis’ favorite – in 2 minutes.

Free donuts donated by Southern Maid Donuts and free coffee donated by Starbucks will be available to those in attendance.

Bonus points if you win both the donut eating contest AND the run.

And now for something completely different....

Cat Stampede

- Paul Herring

10 Steps to a More Fulfilling Experience in the Showroom (if the dealerships listen)

"Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on them personally."
- Abraham Lincoln

Over at Marketing Profs Daily Fix, Jeanne Bliss wrote a great piece about how consumers hate shopping for cars. Taking a cue from, if not Lincoln's quote, then at least his sentiment, Jeanne suggested automakers go through the process of buying a car for themselves using the same channels consumers do.

With only a hint of a mean streak (all for a good cause, of course), I pointed out that if we wanted real change to occur, automakers would have to be forced to buy groceries the same way we buy cars. That would give them the message.

Shelley Ryan brought that idea to the next level, by helping us visualize what that experience really would be like:

I can see it now... Produce managers following your cart, "I've got some late model Yukon Golds, low mileage, and I'll make you a sweet deal." Then at checkout, a store clerk ushers you into a cubicle, painstakingly calculating a total sale price with finance charges and "standard" add-on fees for bagging the goods and carry-out to your car, patiently waiting for your counter offer. She looks skeptical, and you wait while she trots over to the business office to get coffee and pretend to argue with the supervisor about discounting your canned tomatoes. Meanwhile, your child is getting cranky and your ice cream is melting... and you seriously consider whether your family really NEEDS to have food in the house!

Like so many things, buying a car should be examined through the lens of the Golden Rule -- or at least the Silver Rule: (paraphrasing) If you wouldn't want to experience this yourself, DON'T FORCE IT ON YOUR CUSTOMERS!!

In this case, the Silver Rule should cause the dealerships to take Drew's advice and completely discard the current car buying process. The Golden Rule, to treat others as they wish to be treated, will give them the guidance they need to invent the right process.

Here's an example of a somewhat better experience. It's subject to change as I get some feedback from you, though.

1. I research the vehicles online and find out all the technical details about them, and what I can expect from it if I purchase it in terms of performance, total cost, features, and reliability.
2. I can read consumer reviews of the dealerships and the salespeople before I go in.
3. I know what is in dealer inventories, and I don't have to approximate cost based on a specific set of features I wish I had, but the dealership doesn't carry.
4. I obtain conditional approval for financing from a third party.
5. I pick several cars to test drive.
6. I tell them which car I want and which options I want (extended warranty, tire warranty, etc.)
7. I get a reasonable offer for my trade-in (Sticky point here: We put more value in our possessions than others put in our possessions.)
8. I call my financing company and tell them which car I'm buying, and for what price.
9. I sign a statement to the effect that I am purchasing this vehicle.
10. I drive away as the dealership hammers out the details with the financing company.

What does your ideal automobile buying experience look like? - Cam Beck