Hawdale Associates Limited

A Blink Usability Protocol

I mentioned last time in the Relevancy, Search Marketing and Usability article about a Blink Usability methodology or protocol that we have been using.

]]> I mentioned last time in the Relevancy, Search Marketing and Usability article about a Blink Usability methodology or protocol that we have been using.

As more or less dyed in the wool usability folk, we will typically spent our time carefully listening to what users tell us. We listen to their thoughts, their expectations and their surprises. We try to dissect those ramblings, extracting the insights and ignoring any co-operative behaviour if we can.

But what we can't easily measure through this Think Aloud Usability protocol is gut feeling, instinct and emotion. Sometimes the strength of a response will provide us with an insight, but most often we don't do emotion, we do rationality. And this works pretty well for most things.

But as usability research broadens out to encompass more areas and figures more strongly in customer experience studies and marketing research, then we need more methods, we need to cover more ground, we need new ways to get insights.

140 words in 6.4 seconds? That's fast, and that's not subject to rationality

To some extents this requirement has begun to manifest. For example, eye-tracking was once considered a laughable technique because of the unnatural requirements of the apparatus - head clamped and immobile - who could act natural like that?! But now, the eye-tracking kit is embedded as part of a pair of spectacles and can give us great insights into where people look on, for example, a Google Search Engine Results Page.

And Blink protocols will be next, I suggest, because eye-tracking only tells you where people look, not about the decisions they make. Blink is interested in decisions. 'Blink' is Malcolm Gladwells' term for not thinking - the rapid cognition that happens in a moment, without rationality, where decisions get made.

Our Blink Protocols are based on psychological research methods using into memory and perception typically carried out using a tachistoscope in the 1970s. A stimulus (words or pictures) flash up very quickly ... What is seen? What is memorable? What part of the stimulus 'works' and what does not?

We use this 'Blink' Usability protocol with Ads, Google results page and Homepages to ascertain effectiveness. Which ad/page is most memorable? Which get clicked through? Most importantly, why? Which part of the stimulus (ad or page) creates a 'yes' blink moment rather than a 'no' blink moment. By manipulating the stimulus, rules can be derived that start to make sense of why some ads and pages perform better than others.

An unnatural task? Maybe, but eye-tracking report referenced above states that users look at a Google results page for an average of 6.4 seconds before clicking on one of the results and in that time they read 3.9 individual ads. That’s an average of 140 words in 6.4 seconds. Now that's fast, and that's not subject to rationality. This is decision making done in the Blink of an Eye.

Relevancy, Search Marketing and Usability

Recent changes at Google have left many companies facing difficult decisions about their strategies. Google has introduced ...

]]>

Recent changes at Google have left many companies facing difficult decisions about their strategies. Google has introduced a new variable into how it works out where to place your PPC ad. The new variable concerns landing page quality.

What this means in effect is that, all other things being equal, if you have an ad with a 'poor quality' landing page you will need to bid more to get it as high as and ad with a 'good quality' landing page. And what is 'good' in this case? The answer is relevancy. If it ain't relevant, it ain't worth a ... top position.

But what is 'good'? The answer is relevancy.

Google's motives here are also good. They want to encourage companies to produce landing pages that meet the expectations of users to improve the user experience that the ad directs them to.

Practically, it should be obvious to a good search marketer when 'landing page quality' is poor - the result will be high traffic and low conversion. But the culture of the company can have an impact. With ownership of search in the hands of marketers, and ownership of website in the hands of e-commerce, search marketers often will pursue traffic regardless of conversion, and consequently e-commerce have to be content with badly qualified leads.

But with Google's move towards relevancy, search marketers will now need to work with site owners to design in relevancy and usability on landing pages and make the experience join up. Or they face big increases in spend to retain PPC position. And this has to be right - what is the point of clickthroughs to irrelevant pages? Landing pages are opening conversations, and it makes commercial sense to design them to discourage dropout and persuade users.

So, how about this for a template for radical search marketing design?

Design creative and copy for your landing page that perfectly describes your product and has a clear persuasive call to action.
Design your Adwords creatives that reflects your landing page.
Test combinations of landing pages and Adwords creatives with users, using a 'blink' methodology.
Pick your keywords, set your Adgroups, run your campaign.

Perhaps we been doing things backwards all along? Thanks Google for setting us right!

Fridges, Flowers and Frocks

The idea that all internet sales processes can be thought of as the same was put into sharp relief recently by our discussions at ...

]]>

The idea that all internet sales processes can be thought of as the same was put into sharp relief recently by our discussions at the IMRG Usability Forum. The forum was concerned with all matters usability and we were debating the usefulness of guidelines in developing and/or evaluating sites. Can a single set of guidelines assist us in all cases?

As example, we had Jakob Neilsens ‘Top Ten Homepage Guidelines’ in front of us. Jakob is big on guidelines - he produces them in their hundreds - but do they help retailers in practice?

We were working through, and had begun to debate No. 5 - ‘Include a Search Input Box’. Obvious? Not when you look harder. Different customers buying different products ask different questions. When you think about it, it is not obvious that a simple search box is always appropriate.

customers might or might not use search. And not just because Jakob said so

Our retailer panel were interested in the questions:

Why a search box at all, why would my customer use it?
What would they type in?
What would they expect to get back?

And the reason they cared about this was that it formed a real part of the customers buying process, and was not just about the simple presence or absence of a widget on a website. And the retailers all sold different things, ranging from Fridges to Flowers to Frocks. So customers might or might not use search. And not just because Jakob said so.

The two Frock sellers had quite different views, one embracing search big-time and investing in developing its efficacy, believing that the ability to find a candidate set was key to making a sale. The other had a preference for browse over search, believing that the emotional impact of seeing the right item was key to making a sale. Who is right? Both of them, as they both have a thought-through sales process and have considered customer mindset over blind adherence to guidelines.

Fridges are different to Frocks, and have little emotional connection for the majority of us. Only a very very few individuals get their kicks from browsing through page after page of uprights, so search is an excellent option over browse. And this time it has to be search with all the bells, whistles and comparison data! This is a very rational purchase, made logically and driven by data. Fridges are not frocks, and they are not searched for and bought the same way, and not bought for the same reasons.

And Flowers, would anyone search for flowers? Maybe, but it is not the heart of this purchase either, more like a frock perhaps, but a key difference is that it is a purchase for someone else. Maybe you have a budget, and probably a delivery date in mind. There are good reasons not to bother with search, as you are buying a token, not a product. Size, shape, and even colour might not be important.

Where does this leave Jakob’s No.5 - ‘Include a Search Input Box’? It seems it is not as easy as this. Search should be included if it supports your sales process and the customers buying process. It might be in or out, complex or simple, but always supportive. It depends what you sell. Crucially, Jakob, it depends.

Landing Pages are Opening Conversations

In a similar vein to the last newsletter which was thinking about 'before' people get to your site, we have also been thinking about the first few seconds after they arrive...

]]>

In a similar vein to the last newsletter which was thinking about 'before' people get to your site, we have also been thinking about the first few seconds after they arrive. This is when they click though at some referring site or other and alight, for the first time, on the page on your site. Let's call this page the landing page.

To continue our conversation right on from Google, Usability and Thin-Slicing, users have pitched up on your landing page having selected your listing to click through over all others in a nearly instant judgement. Cognitively, they have been primed with the wording from your ad and, to a lesser extent, the others around it. It is almost as if they had voiced a question out loud, and received a barrage of replies immediately and all at once. But they can only pick one of these possible conversations to continue with. So they decided in a flash, in a blink: "OK, you ... you go ahead!"

the landing page may be the beginning of a substantial conversation. Or not.

And if this interaction with Google constitutes the question that users pose, then the next thing, the landing page, may be the beginning of a substantial conversation. Or not.

OK, here is an example from the real world, just to show this is not all some cognitive twaddle. See what you think. I have taken screengrabs from the four sites that clickthough from the top four placed entries on Google, the top three sponsored and the top natural entry

So, take a look at the listings here, quickly, glancing at what they say, then click though below. I've written a commentary to tell you what I think.

It seems to me that the order in which they are presented on Google in this case appears to determine the relevance of the conversation. The first one, the BA landing page is absolutely awful. Having attracted interest by providing a price and offering online services, the landing page conversation is about something else entirely and asks the user to choose which global site! Don't BA know that this conversation is about flights to Barcelona, and the conversation is in English?! This landing page is rude and irrelevant - it's like talking to a global idiot!

The Thomsonfly landing page is better - at least the conversation carries on in the same general area, which is about flights, but there is little about Barcelona on the page, and on the current live page, the usability constraints are such that a 'from' is required before a 'to' can be input. This tripped me up, and remember, the conversation is about Barcelona not the start point, so the user will be primed to be wanting to carry on the conversation about 'Barcelona' not about (in my case for example) Manchester, Liverpool or Leeds. This landing page is better, but its a little like it lost its memory ... it is a quite a dumb sales assistant, but not rude at least.

With Opodo, we start getting it together. It is a simple page, with Barcelona pre-filled, so that the conversation might move on to where from, which is now relevant, and dates and types of flights. This is best so far, courteous and, importantly, keeping to the point.

But I like Cheapflights the best. Why? Because it carries on the conversation perfectly. It asks you one thing, and one thing only "where do you want to go from" and offers you the available options. In my case, I live in Manchester and typically fly from Manchester or Liverpool. And I'd much rather be offered these as options rather than type them into Thomsonfly and be disappointed. This is a good conversation, Cheapflights, well done. I am very impressed, you listened, you didn't ignore me!

We think that these kinds of interactions or conversations, provide massive opportunities for businesses to get right, where they currently get it wrong, like BA. And getting the right kind of conversation will benefit both business and the consumer.

Google, Usability and Thin Slicing

We have been thinking lately about the experience that users and customers have before getting to the target site...

]]>

We have been thinking lately about the experience that users and customers have before getting to the target site. Jakob Neilsen famously said that customers spend more time on other sites rather than yours and no one would argue with that, but what do users do on those other sites, and how does it affect their behaviour when they arrive at your site?

Lots of clicks but low click conversion is very bad news indeed

Well a simple and only slightly controversial extension to 'Jakob's Law' is that users spend a considerable amount of time on search engines looking for the right site to go to. And as Google is now the most popular search engine in the UK, businesses need to be asking:

what people type into Google?
where do they then look?
why do they click on one listing rather than another?
and, having clicked, why do they stay on a site?
or, if they don't stay, what do they do differently after they go back and start again?

Some of these aspects of these large scale behaviours have received some attention, but I have yet to see any research that joins these up, except for ours of course! Which is odd, as businesses have already got access to good quality statistical information about clickthrough and conversion through pay per click and organic search. And, of course, because getting lots of clicks but low click conversion is very bad news indeed.

Our research is suggesting that entries on the Google search pages are being selected both for clickthrough and viewing by 'thin-slicing'. For clickthrough, the complete search results page is being assimilated and the decision made in only a few seconds. And by unconscious and irrational processes, not open to introspection. For viewing, a similar process is occurring to the landing page, but with the addition of the psychological priming added by the information in the selected listing. What is absolutely not taking place is any kind of rational and logical process. So ads and listings constructed with data constructed using traditional 'features and benefits' research may not be valid. If prospects are using thin slicing to make their assessments, then it would make sense to use research methods based on thin-slicing to discover what makes a successful click and a viewing.

So where does usability fit? Well the shame of all of this is that you may have the most usable site in the internet universe, but if the 'before' experience does not work, no one will see it, and no one will convert. As the internet matures, the makers of the internet must realise that there is more to the internet universe than that which they control, and the customer, and their journey is king.

Please Make Me Think! I Want To Think!

]]>

Steve Krug wrote a book in 2002 called "Don't Make Me Think - A Common Sense Approach to Web Usability". As the usability profession changes, I thought it would be interesting to consider its legacy. It was a rather clever book, and a rather clever title, and presented an impression of the usability profession as a bunch of good and wholesome people using cheap and cheerful methodologies make life better for internet users. All very worthy. The idea was that web sites shouldn't make us think. It just should be so easy it wouldn't tax as much as one brain cell.

I want to think! I have a brain! I want to use it! I want my brain cells taxed and my concepts challenged and threatened!

Although the Krug book helped members of the nascent usability profession get off the ground by popularising this easy idea, it didn't help usability PR in the medium term. Usability fossilised into being viewed as a conservative profession, seeking to criticise and dumb down design, and develop lengthy guidelines for others to follow. In fact, I believe that its legacy was:

a neutered usability profession
users patronised and held in contempt

In the case of usability professionals, I think Krug's book trivialised the profession, making it appear that anyone could be a usability expert. And this just ain't the case. The usability professional takes a big view of task and business requirement. There is more to being a usability professional than being able to decide between a drop down list and radio buttons! All members of the project team should report possible issues as they see them, but defer to the expert for decision. Krug suggests deference to common sense, and often common sense is not the right answer. Would a visual designer defer to common sense? If you asked them, they would think you were crazy!

But most harmful in hindsight was the and contempt for users, which continues today. We are told users want easy. They don't want to think. Well, Krug, I want to think! I have a brain! I want to use it! I want my brain cells taxed and my concepts challenged and threatened! Now that is not to say I want easy when things should be easy, but the Neilsen/Krug axis has taken us all one step too far, and by suggesting that:

All users are the same
all sales processes should be the same

Hence we have a million websites that look the same and employ the Amazon sales process because its easy. All so we don't have to think.

This is a radical and empowering view and it both improves customer experience and hits business targets.

But users are not all the same and sales processes should be different for a car or a CD. At the core of a proactive usability process is the principle that users and customers are all different and should be treated appropriately. Some may not want to think, some will. How do we accommodate this? We get customers to actively participate in the process of design through involvement and prototyping. This is a radical and empowering view and it both improves customer experience and hits business targets. These processes are not trivial, not quick fixes, and not applicable to ad hoc methods, but at least they are in the real world.

The Always On Culture

Its long been my contention that the people who embrace technology also enjoy the use of it. Consequently it has always been rather odd to me that the given wisdom of the internet states ...

]]>

Its long been my contention that the people who embrace technology also enjoy the use of it. Consequently it has always been rather odd to me that the given wisdom of the internet states that:

Users want to get in to a website, buy, and get out again as quickly as possible

But that cant be right, can it? If a child gets a new toy then it plays and plays and plays with that toy until it is exhausted! New toys are great, and the internet is like a new toy everyday, new sites, new interests, new things that you never thought you might be able to do. Well, now you can. So, do people really just log on, quickly and efficiently get on with what they are doing, and then log off? I don't think so. I think that if you get a new toy then you play rather than leaving it in its box. So I guess I see these 'embraces of technology' - the early adopters and early mass market - spending a lot of time online rather than just dipping in and out. They love technology, so they find and invent different ways to use it. This segment, a big segment, want to stay, not get out.

I would accept, however, that cost and speed has up until recently been a big consideration. Dial-up meant slow progress, long waits and sometimes high costs to stay online all the time. In this situation, you might be quite picky about how you use the internet however keen you were. Banking, certainly yes - great time saver, researching, probably yes - where it produced a result, groceries, maybe not - long-winded and slow, rather go to the shops.

But dial up is plummeting, and broadband is now everywhere and of equivalent price if not cheaper. And so if I were an early adopter now then I'd get broadband and I'd be on all day! I get to play with my toys as much as I like for a set cost. Marvelous.

Hence The Always On Culture, with an emphasis on Culture. Whereas in 2003 I go to get my groceries offline, because it is too painful with dial up and poor fulfillment, in 2006 I don't care how long I stay because it will take less time than going to the shops. I would browse forever if the retailer could keep me there! I'm playing! I enjoy this! I want to stay! In 2003, the tick of the connection clock still nagged, but in 2006 nothing can stop us but the limits of our imaginations. We've now got the flow that we could never get before with the ticking dial up clock in the background

"Users want to get in to a website, buy, and get out again as quickly as possible"?

In 2006? Complete tosh.

Update 8th March 2006

I read in the Guardian today - "Britain Turns Off and Logs On" - that Britons now spend more time online than watching TV. This supports the cultural shift reported here.

A survey conducted on behalf of the search engine found that the average Briton spends around 164 minutes online every day, compared with 148 minutes watching television. That is equivalent to 41 days a year spent surfing the web: more than almost any other activity apart from sleeping and working.

Basic Online Sales Process Pitfalls

In many ways, there is only one rule - to make sales online you have to design a sales process that fits the customers buying process. Rocket science? I don't think so, but 'mono channel vision' means...

]]>

A salesman selling a loan wouldn’t just read out a list of questions in a dull voice

And there are a number of pitfalls to designing a sales process that suits both being online and fits to online customer behaviour. But broadly it is about adaptation rather than any radically new ideas. Here are some pitfalls to consider:

A Focus on the Seller, not the Customer

Companies tend to map a sales process according to the organisation of the business or product they are selling. If a business sells Package Holidays and Car Rentals and is organised as separate divisions, you can bet your bottom dollar that they will sell them as separate entities. You buy your package holiday, then you rent your car. But customers don't think the same way that businesses are organised, they want to get a holiday that includes a car and a hotel. They think of them together not apart. Isn't it the customer that this is supposed to be easier for, not the business? Even if the sales process ends up 'looking messy' to the business, then isn't more sales compensation enough?

A 'Data Capture' Process not a Sales Process

Financial organisations often end up producing an unappealing and overly ‘data capture’ process. The business needs data to calculate the loan, for example, so they build an online form. And consequently the customer gets a very dull and boring form to fill in with no excitement or emotion evoked. A salesman selling a loan wouldn’t just read out a list of questions in a dull voice… they wouldn’t get far, sell very little.

A Usable’-but-Wrong Process

This has become awfully common, as usability practice has become more widespread. But you can make the wrong process as ‘usable’ as you like, but it wont make it any ‘righter’. Usability helps but it has to be used in combination with an understanding of the customer away from the interface as well as close up. Just because a customer succeeds in a task to 'buy' in the usability lab doesn't necessarily mean that they will be bothered to even try in their own home or workplace. I can say this. I am a usability expert! But it is an easy mistake to make. To design the right sales process we need to go beyond usability into peoples heads.

All these pitfalls can all be avoided by understanding the customer and accommodating their buying process.

Design to Make a Difference - Proactive Usability

(First published January 20th 2006 as part of the IMRG Annual Report)

The increasing take up of usability and design best practice by e-commerce over the last few years is finally beginning to pay dividends. The IMRG predict...

]]>

(First published January 20th 2006 as part of the IMRG Annual Report)

The increasing take up of usability and design best practice by e-commerce over the last few years is finally beginning to pay dividends. The IMRG predict 5 billion pounds transacted online by 24 million people for Christmas 2005. E-commerce has hit the mass-market, big time. It is no longer a struggle to shop online. And customers are voting with their wallets, so when an online store provides a good customer experience it will thrive.

So if usability brings good experiences, and good experiences bring happy online shoppers and more sales, where should businesses be concentrating their usability efforts in 2006?

This can’t be right, surely? I differ from you in my personality, my psychology, my motivations, my context, my life. And I buy a television in quite a different way than I buy a book

So far this century, the usability profession have taken a ‘defensive’ approach to usability. Focus has been to get rid of barriers to sales, remove interface inconsistency and to consolidate a simple, common sales process. This has been a highly successful model. But it makes substantial assumptions about both people and processes, specifically that:

all people think, act and decide in the same way, and;
all online products can be sold using the same sales process.

But this can’t be right, surely? I differ from you in my personality, my psychology, my motivations, my context, my life. And I buy a television in quite a different way than I buy a book.

So for 2006, I predict that a more proactive, less defensive usability will help businesses to start to accommodate prospects and customers with different wants, needs and motivations, and match them with products with different sales processes. A salesperson would not sell a fast car to a middle aged man in the same way as they would sell a mid-range digital camera to a teenager. A good salesperson would listen, learn and adapt their conversation and sales process to suit.

How? For sales processes, companies typically know the best ways to sell the things they have in store, but to make it work online requires a translation into web site design. In our example of cars and cameras, the first might ‘sell the dream’, the second ‘convenience, ease and fun’. But it will be a sequence of web pages that adapts to the prospect with decision points, micro-closes, encouragement and persuasion. As for the psychological angle, perhaps the well-known Myers-Briggs Type Index (MBTi) formulations can offer us a framework for thinking about this. MBTi describes differences rather than similarities, differences in how people interact with others, assimilate information, make rational or instinctive decisions and run their lives.

Skilled salespeople adapt their process and conversations according to the individual they are talking to and the product that they are selling. So why can’t we design our online stores to do the same? Different people want different things, and want to shop in different ways. In 2006 I predict a more proactive, sales oriented usability will be working on difference and diversity, and using these positively to happy customers and even better business.

Thin Slicing in the Blink of an Eye

Malcolm Gladwell's book 'Blink : The Power of Thinking without Thinking', just out in paperback, is destined to be a classic in my opinion. Gladwell has an easy style and big ideas. His idea here is about the way that we form ideas 'in the blink of an eye'. This is a pre-cognitive activity...

]]>

He calls this magic moment 'thin-slicing' and proves through the book with anecdotal and experimental evidence that this effect is real and frequently deployed by individuals, knowingly or unknowingly. It's an unconscious process, quick and often righter than a slower more conscious and more logical processes.

We do a hell of a lot more with our unconscious than we currently accept

What does this mean? Well, it means that 'sensible and logical' ideas might easily fail if they do not stand up to the blink test. It means that we do a hell of a lot more with our unconscious than we currently accept. It means that we judge more quickly than we admit. There has been a recent study from Carleton University in Canada, reported by the BBC that says that we made judgments about whether we 'like' or 'don't like' websites in very short times. It seems to me that much web activity is carried out in the blink of an eye. We are carrying out research on Google. What makes us choose one listing over another? Whatever it is, it happens in a blink.

Gladwell says: "I think its time we paid more attention to those fleeting moments. I think that if we did, it would change the way wars are fought, the kind of products we see on the shelves, the kinds of movies that get made, the way police officers are trained, the way couples are counseled, the way job interviews are conducted and on and on--and if you combine all those little changes together you end up with a different and happier world."

The Design Psychology of a Heinz Ketchup Bottle

]]>

Heinz UK have brought out a new variety of ketchup bottle that stands on its top rather than its base. The driver for this innovation in sauce delivery systems will be quickly realised by any fan of the spicy red condiment. Simply, the traditional sauce bottle has the sauce at the bottom and the hole is at the top. When inverted, unless the bottle is perfectly full, a finite time will elapse between this inversion and the consequent exit of ketchup from the bottle. And, when your bacon sandwich awaits, this finite time can appear infinite. Clearly this innovation is driven by understanding of customer behaviour!

Something had to be done and the Heinz solution is pictured here, but it is fatally flawed. The flaw is simple and obvious once spotted - although the bottle is designed to be placed cap-down, it may also be placed cap-up. If placed latterly, the benefit of the design disappears and the long wait is back

But why would anyone place it the 'wrong' way up? Simple. because they can. Because, thin sliced, the bottle upside down looks like a bottle upside down. The designer would have done better by making the bottle not be able to stand the 'wrong' way up. If he/she had done this, it would always have been placed the 'right' way up because it was the only way up and form would have determined and preserved the correct function.

Perhaps the designer thought that the massive orientation cue on the label would do this job? If the bottle is the 'right' way up, then so are the words on the label. But things can mitigate against these cues as they depend on cognitive attention which may not always be given. For example your audience might be children, typically huge ketchup fans. The children may value physical cues like form over cognitive cues like letter orientation because of their developmental stage. (In fact this phenomenon was noticed in the company of children who just kept putting the ketchup back the 'wrong' way up even though they understood the bottle as it had been talked about). But there is another cue that leads to the wrong orientation and that is the familiarity of the bottle with the top at the top. Most bottles orient this way, its the way the world is. In fact in many circumstances, notably with wine or beer, it would be poor practice or impossible to balance a bottle on its top. Indeed, this is because its form determines that you cannot!

The strongest clue to correct orientation in this case is physical form, not cognitivist clues that fight for correct orientation (label) or against it (familiarity). Shame Heinz didn't go all the way, but a good try nevertheless.

(Thanks to my friend Paul Miller for pointing this one out!)

The Ghost of Christmas Delivery

Flowers are a very popular gift at Christmas, and are an almost perfect internet purchase. But with flowers the delivery date needs to be right. They can't be delivered...

]]>

Flowers are a very popular gift at Christmas, and are an almost perfect internet purchase. But with flowers the delivery date needs to be right. They can't be delivered too early or they will droop. And its obvious that they can't be delivered late. So delivery date is a crucial choice, and is quite different from choosing a delivery date for, say, your internet grocery delivery when it is just down to convenience. But for some reason, some Scrooge retailers are using the exact same sales process for all their products at all times of the year to try to hold onto their flowers for themselves this Christmas.

Delivery date is a crucial choice, and is quite different from choosing a delivery date for, say, your internet grocery delivery

I heard a real-life story the other day from a friend of mine who hade decided to send flowers to her mother. She had been to the Marks and Spencer online store, and had tried to order some flowers, but had had a very poor experience and had not gone through with the purchase.

Why? Well, the sales process goes like this, as it does for all products at all times and M&S. First you choose your flowers, then second you give your personal details, like address, email address and phone number. Thirdly you give your credit card details, and fourthly a delivery address. Then, finally, after all that, you find that the last delivery date for Christmas is 9th December! Or, if you wish, they could be delivered in January.

My friend was 'furious' and 'could not believe it'. After setting up her expectations, they had been dashed in the most disasterous way for her and the Marks and Spencer brand. This is indicative of that store not considering the motivations and needs of the customer at Christmas, where delivery date choice needs to be early in the sales process, not last thing. Should she have looked at the last order dates link? Maybe, but she didn't. And although it may have avoided the pain of all that form filling, to see that the last order date for flowers as 9th December might have been equally dissappointing.

So my friend went elsewhere, to www.interflora.co.ukin fact who did a much better job of selling flowers at Christmas and who got her money and will probably get her continued custom in the future. Well done www.interflora.co.uk for being so generous! And bottom marks for M&S for that miserable Scrooge experience.

The Ghost of Christmas Empty Shelves

A key factor in being able to buy something is being able to find it. When people seek things out on the web, they typically will know the details of what they want, and have been intimately involved in deciding to buy it. But at Christmas ...

]]> A key factor in being able to buy something is being able to find it. When people seek things out on the web, they typically will know the details of what they want, and have been intimately involved in deciding to buy it. But at Christmas many potential childrens gift buyers like uncles, aunties, cousins are often looking for things they don't know about, haven't decided on buying themselves, and might only have been told about on the phone. In this case many will resort to the online High Street store they know and trust.

It almost seems like Harrods want to keep hold of all the toys, just like Scrooge

For example, did you know the very popular Bratz toys are spelt with a Z not an S? So if you go along toHarrods online store and type in 'bratz' to the search box, you get about nine Bratz, ranging from £4 to £30. But what about the misspelling - 'brats'? You guessed it, nothing, nada, empty shelves.

Its not only 'brats' that shows empty shelves though, it get worse. Much worse. Typing 'barbie' in the Harrods search box shows ten Barbies, but typing ‘barbies’ - a simple plural - shows an empty shelf.

I'm afraid this is NVQ usability, as basic as you get. Jakob Neilsen has talked about it and Mark Hurst back in 1999 and it's in all the books. It's not rocket science. But for the Christmas reasons outlined above, its more acute right now.

It almost seems like Harrods want to keep hold of all the toys, just like Scrooge. They don't want to sell anything. Perhaps they should extend this idea to their stores? They could hire Sales Assistants that didn't understand plurals and spelling errors. Then they wouldn't sell half as much stuff! They could keep all the toys!

"Have you got Barbies?" "No!"
"Have you got any Barbie?" "Yes!"

How good an idea is that! Must be a good one, because Debenhams and John Lewis do it too!

The Ghost of Christmas Availability

The Christmas season is special. People buy differently and for different reasons than in other months.One very important difference is availability. Everybody wants the same things, and they want them at the same time!

]]>

This Christmas, Nintendogs are very popular, and mostly sold out. Finding one in stock is hard. Parents are desperate. One way to try to get hold of one is to scour the search engines, like Google. Online stores advertise on Google, with sponsored link adverts, shown here.

Is this a Nintendog for Xmas? Doesn't look like it for me

You look down the list ... and there at number 3 is "Nintendog for Xmas - Buy Now!" From Littlewoods Online! It's gonna be ok!

But when you click through and find the page, you see its not like that at all. In fact its all rather bizarre. "Nintendogs Labrador and friends, £159.00 - Out October 2005. Pre-order now and receive on day of release". THEN next door to this, it says “Delivery within 9 Week(s)". 9 weeks?!

Is this a Nintendog for Xmas? Doesn't look like it for me, and it is a very messy communication throughout. I suspect marketing and e-commerce are not talking and consequently expectations have been set very badly. And the Nintendogs page itself doesn't look like its been updated since October, which is bizarre, as millions of these have been sold.

From a customer experience point of view, excuses will not hold much water in the circumstances, it's just like a salesperson standing at the door to the store saying, "Roll up, roll up, get your Nintendogs here in time for Xmas!", but when you get in, they are nowhere to be seen, at least not this side of February. If you were a desperate parent chasing these games, pitching up on this site, thinking your search was over, what would you think of this store?

The Ghosts of Christmas Customer Experience

I was asked to appear on BBC Business Breakfast recently to talk about how Christmas E-Commerce differed from Rest of the Year E-Commerce. This was a great opportunity to consider what was different about Christmas, and how this might affect the customer experience...

]]> I was asked to appear on BBC Business Breakfast recently to talk about how Christmas E-Commerce differed from Rest of the Year E-Commerce. This was a great opportunity to consider what was different about Christmas, and how this might affect the customer experience. So I went and found examples from three major retailers. But I only managed to tell one story, which I thought was a shame.

These are self-inflicted wounds, and I feel it my duty to help remove this humbug and help them them sell Tiny Tim what he will want next year

So that this material does not go to waste, I thought I would tell you about the"The Ghosts of Christmas Customer Experience" which will expose three scrooge retailers who have given customers a poor buying experience this Christmas.

What did they do to deserve this? Simple - they have failed to sell things to people who want to buy them this Christmas. But they have not only negligently lost revenue, but they have also irritated and exasperated the general present buying public. So in reality, I suppose these are self-inflicted wounds, and I feel it my duty to help remove this humbug and help them them sell Tiny Tim what he will want next year.

Accordingly, the Ghosts of Christmas Availability, Christmas Empty Shelves and Christmas Delivery will be revealed over the next few weeks on the lead in to the festive season. "Gawd bless us one and all!"