Will Xfinity be Comcastic?

February 18th, 2010 by Sally Cohen

Comcast recently announced that it is re- branding its products under the Xfinity name.  Re-branding their home cable, broadband, and phone services under a new name may be an attempt to convey a change in the products themselves or a shift in brand values. However, to truly impact the bottom line, changing the label isn’t enough – Comcast must focus on changing the entire user experience.

Companies primarily undertake re-branding efforts to  affect users’ brand perception. However, the most successful efforts are those where the entire experience – not just the wrapping – is enhanced or improved to the benefit of the end customer.  Often, how a customer interacts with a product or service and the company that supplies it – including the actions taken by the company if anything goes wrong —are more influential on loyalty and repurchase metrics than the product itself.  In an era of commoditized products and services where the barriers to switching are low, companies whose re-branding efforts only polish the surface – but don’t improve the user experience – run the risk of losing.

Comcast Xfinity LogoOther companies have been successful in changing both their name and their user experience. Take, for example, the case of Voicestream Wireless, the oft-forgotten brand name of a wireless carrier that was just the 8th largest in the US in 2001. Today, after an acquisition and a re-branding overhaul, the same company is the 4th largest carrier in the US, has celebrity spokespeople (Catherine Zeta Jones!), a slick logo, ultra-cool handsets, and – more importantly – is tied for the best-rated customer care amongst wireless carriers by JD Power. Yes, I am talking about T-Mobile.

But back to Comcast. On the American Consumer Satisfaction Index, Comcast currently has a substantially lower rating than competing cable and satellite TV providers like DirecTV and Cox Communications. A wholesale improvement of the entire user experience – from shopping to sign-up to everday usage to customer service – will make Xfinity successful.  Without the support of real experiential improvements, the new Xfinity name will simply be another cable brand offering below-par customer experiences. Our most successful user experience projects include implementing and measuring not just improvements to surface design features and look and feel, but to functionality, content and customer interactions.  When viewed holistically, companies can tie these improvements back to specific business outcomes, and measure success along the path.  In some ways, Comcast is lucky in that they do not have to make grand assumptions about which material changes are priorities for their customers.  The details are readily available on which improvements will help make a success of the Xfinity products.  Not only do they have their own customer service data, but there is a wealth of information in specialized user sites, social media and the blogosphere for them to tap into.  Active online forums like those on DSLreports.com actually contain useful information on which to base user centric improvements.  When embarking on a user experience improvement plan, monitoring social media can provide some great concepts to test, and some great ad-hoc measurements along the way. Formal user experience research can help quantitatively benchmark these improvements over time.

A great product and great user experience make a great brand – not vice versa.  Staying customer-focused will help companies like Comcast concentrate on the entire experience to maintain the brand promise.  Remember when Starbucks changed the coffee machines to have a lower profile allowing better engagement with the barrista?  Did this have anything to do with how the coffee tasted? No, but it had everything to do with the intimate experience of going to the coffee shop.

Let’s hope Xfinity is better than Comcastic.

Tags: ,

The Apple iPad – a revolutionary game-changer

January 28th, 2010 by Donovan Watts

Apple considers the iPad to be “magical and revolutionary” and it may very well be. From a usability perspective, tablets have found only a few niches. Tablet adoption has floundered for years with a primary problem being an existing operating system crammed into the device. Apple again demonstrates its design capabilities not just with the sleek form factor, but with the specialized OS running the device. This is likely to be the game-changer for this tablet. The floating keyboard, and gesture support familiar to all pinch and zoom enthusiasts will adapt to professional as well as entertainment applications. iTunes and the AppStore have revolutionized how enthusiasts obtain enhanced functionality and entertainment, and the iPad gains an immediate user base by running applications in the AppStore. Significant reinvestment is not required.

The dedication to design sets Apple apart, and the tools from the iPod to the iPhone have fundamentally changed the way regular users interact with technology. The iPad is essentially a larger, and more capable iPhone. With more real-estate, and a well known OS this could be the tool for personal computing. In a world where everything gets smaller and faster, the iPad’s large format may provide the perfect platform for user capabilities. We are looking forward to our first iPad studies.

Tags: ,

Thoughts on Inhibitions Online vs. Offline

December 10th, 2009 by Sally Cohen

Recent research from agency Euro RSCG Worldwide posits that consumers may feel more uninhibited in their online interactions than in their offline lives. This makes sense: the computer screen and the four walls of home (or office) provide a barrier between the user and the people or companies with whom they connect online. It makes the user, for all intents and purposes, anonymous, and therefore, less accountable for their words or actions.

According to the research, this anonymity results in 20% of consumers feeling freer to “lash out about or at companies or their brands” online. In practice, this can translate into consumers who blog, tweet, or post on Facebook negative – sometimes scathing – reviews or ranting recounts of bad interactions with a company or brand. What’s more, groups of anonymous consumers can come together online over bad experiences with companies or brands, forming communities, creating websites, and contributing to blogs. That said, the same mob mentality can work in marketers’ favor – the Internet provides a meeting place for anonymous consumers to express their devotion to various companies and brands through “fan sites”, Facebook pages, and devotional tweets.

But when the online backlash seems to spiral out of control, marketers cannot stand idly by – they should be prepared to step into the fray. In trying to turn the discussion to more positive tenor, marketers cannot afford to ignore the importance of customers’ experiences across channels. Euro RSCG Worldwide’s research shows that three-in-four consumers make a distinction between online and offline interaction – and just as consumers’ online negativity very rarely stems from Web-based interaction alone, marketers mustn’t neglect the offline interactions as a component of their own offensive strategy. In other words, while bad offline experiences lead consumers to rant en masse online, delightful offline experiences can drive consumers to sing your praises on Facebook, Twitter, blogs, and discussion boards.

Tags: ,

What not to do in an interview

November 28th, 2009 by Dan Clifford

Are you a user experience research professional looking for a new job? Perhaps your company recently had layoffs, or maybe there’s been a re-organization and you’re evaluating where you’ve landed.

If you find yourself looking for something new, here’s my #1 interview tip : Be concise in your answers. Over the years, the AnswerLab team has interviewed hundreds of user experience professionals. For each position, we typically review hundreds of resumes and interview at least 20 candidates. And consistently, the number one turn-off that we encounter in the hiring process is that candidates have a hard time communicating concisely, i.e. they talk too much.

This is a bad habit for many reasons:

#1) As a research professional, your job is to gather information, ask the right questions, and then listen. In particular, if you’re a qualitative researcher, you should be an absolute expert at listening. So when a candidate takes a good chunk of the interview to answer a simple question, we see that as a red flag.

#2) You’re expected to work with clients – either external clients if you’re planning to work at a research firm, or internal clients if you’re an in-house researcher. A good part of the value you offer is being able to professionally manage a meeting, understand the goals of the meeting participants, and help them achieve these goals. A job interview is to put your best foot forward and show off these skills.

#3) An interviewer may have 20 things they’re looking for in a candidate, ranging from areas of expertise, specific software skills, industry experience, soft skills, and fit with the company’s culture. You might not know exactly what these 20 things are, but be assured the interviewer is thinking about them. If an interviewee takes a long time to discuss one topic, they’re not allowing the interviewer to cover all of these important areas. You may never get the chance to hit on the points that are most important to the interviewer.

So if you find yourself interviewing for a job, please remember: it’s a dialogue, not a monologue. Provide short, to-the-point answers that allow the interviewer to ask follow-up questions. This provides a more conversational tone – which is always nice in an interview. It also gives you the best chance of hitting on all the most relevant topics that can make a great impression with the interviewer.

If this was useful, check back. In a future blog post I’ll provide some tips for hiring managers.

Tags: ,

Alienate some people, and make sure you know who you’re alienating

October 30th, 2009 by Dan Clifford

corn on the kid

An article in today’s NY Times got me thinking. The article discussed how some school districts across the country are prohibiting Halloween costumes that are considered scary, offensive, or gross. One line in the article really caught my attention, “In a school district in Illinois, students are being encouraged to dress up as historical characters or delicious food items rather than vampires or zombies.” What? Really?

I can’t imagine there are many kids that would willingly choose to dress up as historical characters or delicious food items. Where’s the fun in hanging out with other kids dressed as a history lesson? Nothing creates a bland experience like ensuring that you don’t offend or alienate anyone.

So, where’s the connection to website or software development? Well, just imagine you’re building a product that could potentially serve thousands, or hopefully, millions of people. The product will be a perfect match for some. Others may be alienated in some way – the product is too difficult for newbies, or too simplistic for power users. It might seem too stuffy for a young audience or unprofessional-looking to a more traditional user. When you aim to turn on some users, others are going to be turned off. That’s fine – it’s called targeting.

So Tip #1 is: Alienate some people.

The problem occurs when product teams don’t understand their audience.

Tip #2: Make sure you know who you’re alienating.

Even if usage of your product is growing, you can be assured that some users are fully engaged and others are barely hanging on. Through user segmentation and user experience research you can understand if you’re meeting the needs of the right people. For example, without the appropriate level of research it may be too late before you find out that your product is the perfect match for a light user but not a profitable, heavy user. So, when you hear compliments or complaints from users, be sure to view them with the appropriate filter. You don’t want your product to look like a historical character or delicious food item to your core target market when your competitors are making cool vampires and zombies.

Tags: ,

« Older Entries