I think startups have a dirty little secret. It’s not something that’s ever talked about, and it’s especially easy to gloss over when it seems like we’re in the midst of the next bubble. It’s also hard to put a finger on it with all of these slick products that startups are putting out: shiny “web 2.0″ goodness, easy sign ups, intuitive interfaces, built in gaming fun, engaging visuals, seamless integration between the web and phone apps, location-based…everything. When you add it all up, it sure feels like behind every startup there’s a Steve Jobs doppelganger pulling the strings (and we all know how designers who think of themselves as Steve can get us in trouble).
Lifting up the kimono
Is there a concrete Ux process behind any of these startups? Did they do their user research, test their prototypes, iterate on their designs? I, for one, can’t tell, because in the last 3 years I’ve only seen 3 startup clients at EchoUser, while we’ve worked with dozens of bigger companies. We all have friends in startups, too, and very few express more than a passing interest in investing in Ux. I presume they’re all too busy trying to get more users in order to IPO. And the really interesting thing? The startups we have worked with knew on a fundamental level that they needed Ux – but they also wanted to make sure they had done their due diligence before getting more funding. So good Ux = more $$$. Sounds like a safe equation, right?
And why aren’t we seeing VCs doing more of this? I can count on one hand the number of VCs who publicly tout having Ux (defined as usability testing, user research, prototyping, etc.) as part of their investment process. I know investors are often quiet about their process for investing in companies, but there’s no reason VCs shouldn’t talk about user experience – I mean, that’s like a bank not talking about a credit check before issuing a new account. It should just be standard procedure.
So if startups generally aren’t interested in Ux, and VCs aren’t asking for it, what does that say about the state of the startup industry today?
Ux isn’t about pixels
Before I comment on the tech bubble (which I’m as wholly unqualified to talk about as everyone else), a few words about Ux:
Ux is not about pixels, yo.
Sure, the end result of a good Ux process will be a change in UI – but these changes will be based on a thorough understanding of user behavior, wants, and needs. Not some ethereal desire to make a cool-looking, “me too” product. And don’t tell me Ux doesn’t work with products that push the boundaries of what people want or need – a well designed Ux process is meant to map the system of user behavior so that gaps can be identified – and opportunities capitalized on. It’s not just about moving buttons around (though Amazon showed that this can be very helpful).
Good Ux can make a company bubble-resistant
Yep. You read that correctly. A company that invests time and money in a solid Ux activity will effectively immunize itself against a bursting bubble. Markets doesn’t drive the bubble, but user behavior sure does transcend the bubble. The companies that survived the last bubble had a product and user experience that were in line with long term user behaviors (::cough cough:: Google ::cough cough::). It’s when the startup community and VCs take a gamble, make a bad guess about what they think users will want – that’s when things go awry. And to think all it might have taken was a little Ux.
Ux is addictive
The silver lining? Ux is catching. Working with real users, hearing feedback from the horse’s mouth (as it were) – it’s fascinating, and every single client of ours has come away jazzed. Nobody has come away going “wow, that was a waste of time. I hate actually listening to my users.”
More importantly, quite a few have taken the Ux process that we helped them with and internalized it – and why not? We don’t want to be a crutch, and spreading the Ux gospel is way more enriching an experience for us in the long run anyway.
So here’s my TED-style wish for today: startups and VCs – please take Ux to heart, and make it part of your product growth and investment process and strategy. The world will be better for it, and you’ll have some primo bubble insurance.
Flickr pic from Keith Barlow, CC license.
I had a great chat with Johannes over at IDEO last week. Johannes is in charge of bringing some quantitative flavor to IDEO’s magic, and he’s up to some interesting stuff. After our morning coffee conversation, though, a few ideas stuck with me:
1. User churn
Me and the team at EchoUser have been getting more involved with start ups of late, helping them with usability, general user experience and the like. General start up concerns revolve around reducing “user churn”, or in other words, “how to keep users interested and encourage ongoing usage of our product/service.” It turns out that this is a sticky problem, especially when it comes to balancing the needs of new users (who might get “churned”) and “habitual” users who already use the product on a regular basis.
Our work inevitable hunts for what we’ve come to call “the aha moment”, or that one particular experience that helps turn a casual/new user into a habitual one. Of course, we all know it’s probably not one single experience that does the trick, but the simplification is helpful nonetheless.
In talking with Johannes I drew out what usage paths look like for a given product:
user churn paths
Ideally, you want users to take the path going up and to the right, because this means they’ve had their “aha moment” and have now become habitual users. And for start ups looking to raise funding from VCs, being able to say “our usability work has shown we can improve user churn by X% because we can guarantee an aha moment” is a very good thing.
2. Switching
Then it was Johannes’ turn to pick up the pen. He drew this, which deals with a marketing concept called “Switching”:
User switching
Basically, switching refers to the idea that many people, when trying out a product or service, will tend to switch between different ones – this is represented by their degree of “loyalty” to a given product. The general point is to try to get users to either extreme, either 100% loyal to one product, or 100% to the other (to me this is a little simplistic, given that it’s a zero-sum outcome, but more on that another time).
It’s interesting to note that the Churn graph is a loose inversion of the Switching graph: users who have yet to experience their “Aha!” moment are less likely to become 100% loyal to a particular product – and therefore more likely to switch (as well as churn).
We’re finding more and more that startups have to balance design changes that appeal to both habitual users and new ones, changes that try to straddle the divide between 100% loyal and “I’m not so sure just yet”-loyal. The balancing act is an interesting one to say the least, and we’re using our usability special sauce to make it that much easier. More to come.
Quality post, stylish site theme, carry on the good work
Bernarda