User Experience. It's Not Just a Digital Thing

We’re all well aware of the ongoing buzz around UX. In a landscape laden with digital and augmented experiences, we’re surrounded by terms like “user journey”, “pathing”, “experiential flows”. But these catchphrases are almost always delegated to describing what we’re doing online. Which is a big miss. Case and point: My gym experience this morning.

Crunch Fitness recently launched a new website, which enables members to reserve class spots up to 36 hours in advance. I support this practice in theory: It’s nice to lock in your attendance ahead of time and then go about the rest of your next day and half with the comfort that when you show up you’re IN. (Previously, there was a 1 hour “open” period at the front desk which inevitably caused a gym rate traffic jam, in addition to leaving you with an annoying 50 minutes to kill before the class even started). Kudos on this, at least.

But here’s the flaw: Even if you’ve signed up online, you’re still required to get there 10 minutes beforehand to check in (yes, I am in fact Veronica Wilson, and am present for this spin class). Sometimes you receive a bracelet, other times just a friendly nod. But without fail there are a handful of people lurking around the desk, hoping that someone who signed up doesn’t actually show up, freeing up a spot they can suddenly snag. These people complicate things tremendously. They start taking the recently available places and then Joe, who did sign up online, appears at T minus 2 minutes, out of breath, explaining how the subway was delayed, but look, there’s his name on the sheet that was printed off the internet!

Chaos ensues, things slip through the cracks, and as those of us who followed the rules get settled in to our bikes, the announcement comes: Everyone get off their bikes and go stand outside. We’re going to do roll call. An awkward and frustrated cluster of us move outside and wait to hear our name shouted out by the front desk employee as we physically check in, again, as if we were a class of 5^th graders, some of whom are trying to cut the line and get lunch first. Class starts 15 minutes late, and though the anger may fuel a better ride in the end, it’s hard to appreciate any of it.

So, unfortunately, Crunch has made themselves a prime example of how the online-to-offline experience can quickly fall apart if not executed properly. (Note: I have been, and remain, a happy and loyal Crunch member, so this piece should be taken as constructive criticism).

Do I think Crunch should scrap the online signup process? No. But I do think they should remember what they’ve been historically good at: Giving people a positive, efficient, and accessible workout. But upping your digital game shouldn’t mean compromising your core value proposition if you’re an offline business. It should be about complimenting and enhancing what it is people already use you for: If the online process won’t actually make my workout experience any better, I don’t care how cool it looks.  

At Recyclebank, we talk about the potential to use online tools to catalyze offline action all the time. I think that companies that do this best (ex:Tough Mudder, who embodies the concept of offline experience acting as their own form of social currency) are poised for the greatest long-term success. So to all the companies out there that have digital side and an offline side, please think of UX as something that very much traverses the two. I promise a more holistic approach will ensure a better entire experience for everyone.

Grande Behavior Change (Or Tall, At Least)

By now it’s no surprise that I have a soft spot for mainstream corporate leaders that makes decisive moves towards environmental and social betterment. I’m even more invigorated when this move is baked in to a core product or service that by definition is also enhancing their consumer experience (think: integrated).

So Starbucks’announcement of their new $1 reusable tumbler a few weeks ago was welcome news. In an effort to decrease the over-consumption of paper cups (their publicized goal is to serve 5% of all beverages in such tumblers by 2015) they’ve lowered the barrier for consumers to do their own part. The initial barrier, I should say. [Pause to caveat that I am all for “the journey” concept, and know that change often happens as a result of baby steps.] That said, this is a notable first step in the right direction, but it’s impossible for me to not address the larger, more looming challenges that this goal will ultimately face.

The conversation of consumer behavior change – in particularly within the environmental space – is a common one amongst colleagues at Recyclebank. So, naturally, Starbucks’ strategy to incentivize change was a hot topic. While we all agree they get a gold star for phase 1: accessibility (make it easier for people to own the reusable cup by making it virtually free), phases 2, 3, 4+ will certainly be more challenging. Because what they’re actually endeavoring to do is change the morning habits of their customers.

If you’re an every-morning coffee drinker as I am myself, remembering to bring your reusable mug each day is not easy feat. Cleaning it after you finish so it’s ready to go the next morning, bringing it home from the office, packing it in your bag on your way out the door…there are so many moments for this ritual to get thrown off track (you have back-to-back meetings and it never gets washed, you run to the gym after work and leave it in your locker, you’re carrying 5 things as you hustle out of the apt and you don’t have an extra set of hands…)

So how does a company like Starbucks address all these hurdles that are inevitably going to prevent even the people that have the reusable tumbler from bringing it in with them? I’m sure there are many ideas. And most of them aren’t necessarily easy to implement (if behavior change were a walk in the park, we’d live on a pristine planet absent of drug addicts and full to the brim of annoying do-gooders). One thing Starbucks does have going for it, though, is its preexisting loyalty program. So if Howard Shultz were to ask me, I’d say hitch the tumbler idea to the loyalty program. And enhance both.

There are traces of the loyalty program baked in to the tumbler concept already: $0.10 off each purchase when you have the mug with you. But that’s not unique to Starbucks – my local shop does the same thing. While monetary incentives to work, I think there are more experiential things that could be done here. Starbucks is, after all, a brand with many, many loyal followers and people willing to take their actions as the trend-setting movement of the week, month, year. So leverage that.

• Up the customer service. If you have a mug that you drink in the shop, the baristas will wash it for you for free (so that it’s clean and ready to go again for tomorrow).
• Make the tumblers represent a community. Like the tiered structure of the loyalty card, upgrade people’s mugs after a certain number of purchases. If you strut in with a gold mug, you’re clearly in the upper echelon of coffee aficionados. And the guy in line next to you with a gold mug is, too. You’re on the same level and experience a degree of unspoken connection. In the best case scenario, it’s even a conversation starter. And that cute guy you see three days a week finally has an excuse to ask you on a date… (I digress). 
• Tap into corporate relationships. Set up “employee tumbler” programs, which make it easy to use, clean, and reuse mugs in the office.

I wish Starbucks the best of luck on their journey towards achieving sustainable consumer behavior change and realizing a company that produces less waste. I think of a lot of the big players out there they are uniquely positioned to have some success at it. So I’ll continue to watch and weigh in. And, on a personal level, meet their efforts with my own re-commitment to bring that reusable mug in every morning (it’s not going to be easy…)

Beyond Branded Content: A DAMN Good Example

Patagonia is backing a feature length documentary film about the environmental impact of dams. And it’s incredible.

From what the trailer teases, at least, Damnation is a beautifully shot, deeply researched and thoughtfully produced piece about a topic as unsexy as water dams. And I can’t wait to see it.

Which got me wondering – would I be as eager to get tickets if it wasn’t backed by Patagonia? Would I even know about it if not for the retailer? Probably not (though I’m not the type to be trolling for the latest eco-docu-drama on my own…) Point is: This film is getting some legs as it borrows from the Patagonia brand equity. Not only are there more channels for promotion, but a new audience and a new angle on the story: They gain exposure to Patagonia shoppers (who may or may not already overlap with their target) and they can use this collaboration with the company to pitch the film through a different lens (pun very much intended). They have the awesome validity of the film itself for sure, but they also have this great narrative about how a mission-driven company with a moral compass has funded the documentation of an issue that they feel so strongly must be more widely known. That is a pretty incredible endorsement as a film maker, I’d imagine.

The best part is that this is a two way street. How highly does it speak of Patagonia that they are willing to invest in something like a documentary film?! Not like the company needs much help in the public good will space (I’d venture their ratings are quite high on all marks, especially after stunts like the “Don’t Buy This Jacket” campaign they ran with eBay last year). But this is a win for them, too: Another piece of amazing content to have their name on. It reinforces their values as a company, and reminds the public what they stand for. And it all gets to come together in a form of entertainment that most would agree is far more compelling than an ad  campaign or published editorial content (though perhaps not, looking at the non-rules by which Patagonia seems to keep playing…)

Corporation + artist. Reach and equity + compelling cause. Mission + entertainment. Genuine storytelling at a new level. Amazing (and hopefully trendsetting).

Short-termism: Shift Our Perspective to Change Our Outcomes

A few weeks ago, at the Net Impact Conference, the concept of “short-termism” made its way in to more than a handful of panel discussions and key note presentations. Which has caused my own contemplation of this term as of late; its root cause, the factors that perpetuate it, potential antidotes for it.

It’s not hard to understand how this perspective permeates our day-to-day lives. The instant gratification our society has grown accustomed to is the embodiment of individual short-termism. Cause, effect. Want, get. Do, see results. On demand. Delivery everything. Instant downloads… Technology has afforded us tremendous benefits over the last decade, but I’m not sure this is one of them.

Beyond the ways in which short-termism affects us as singular agents, there is a significant impact it has on the way businesses are being run. According to a working paper published by HBS and written by Francois Brochet, Maria Loumioti, and George Serafeim (March, 2012): “In recent decades, commentators have argued that many corporations exhibit short-termism, a tendency to take actions that maximize short-term earnings and stock prices rather than the long-term value of the corporation." When the outlook of the investment and financial communities is focused on the idea of almost immediate returns, there is an implication for the very way companies structure themselves. If incentives exist for executives based on quarterly – or even bi-yearly – performance, what kind of message does that send? My interpretation would be something along the lines of “fix things now, however un-sustainable your solution, so that our year-end earnings allow us all to get our bonuses”. Now honestly, how much change can be expected to transpire in time windows that span 3 to 6 months? A quarter is twelve weeks! But if your bonus or promotion is based on your performance during Q2, it’s no wonder people shorten their focus and pour all their energy into the band-aids that will offer quick – almost certainly unsustainable – fixes. It’s not even really their fault.

This problem is clearly deep and systemic, and arguably hindering the way our economy moves forward. I won’t pretend to have anything akin to a comprehensive answer (full disclosure: my understanding of financial institutions and the investment sector is admittedly quite poor). However, I do see an opportunity for the startup and social entrepreneur sector to provide at least a partial solution (and this is an industry I am much more familiar with).

I believe our current crop of social innovators is uniquely poised to challenge these binding parameters of short-termism. From the onset, they have an opportunity to create business plans and models that take into account 10 and 15 year-long roadmaps. I’m not suggesting that there shouldn’t be benchmarks, and that incremental results along the way shouldn’t be expected. But I am proffering that it might be ok for some to say “my idea/product/service will achieve its ultimate goal [insert “maximum return”, depending on your perspective] within 12 years of launch”. Especially in the sustainability space, systemic changes aren’t made quickly (at least not if they’re made well). And that’s ok. It should be acceptable to take a bit longer to get it right. I’m not opposed to quick iterations, especially in the startup space, but I do think that the expectations for enduring change should be mapped out on a longer timeline. The structure, the evaluation, and the eventual success of this kind of company would look very different than how many “5ish years to IPO” startups do now. It would require the VC community to consider the longevity of their investments, while encouraging new companies to consider their long-term strategy. Again, I’m not saying that shifts and changes in direction can’t occur, but if we focus on a benefit that is a longer way out, we might, by design, start creating more sustainable models from the get go.  

Perhaps the steps towards this are small (almost surely). And maybe they even start on the individual level. I would actually challenge myself (and any others, if interested) to try taking the long view of some of our usually cavalier decisions. So in the spirit of baby steps: I vow to not be upset if I can’t lose those 5 pounds in one week (instead, give myself a month and a half, and then really keep it off). I vow not take a handful of small, weekend getaways for the next two years so that I can afford a big adventure in three. I vow to invest in my career development so that I can land in a role that I’m best suited for, even if that’s 5 years off. I don’t pretend that any of this sounds easy (or even desirable) but there is something rewarding in the thought of putting in the time to yield a substantial benefit down the road.

Because here’s the bottom line: If we keep operating within systems that demand quick returns and fast outputs, it’s going to be a long time until we see real, lasting change.

Next Gen Entrepreneurs...And a Note on "Empowerment"

I was recently given the unique and interesting opportunity to be a “professional judge” (I chuckled at the title for quite some time) at a “speed pitching” event hosted by DoSomething.org.

The gist: Young entrepreneurs with ideas for nonprofit organizations participate in a bootcamp-style program that teaches them the abc’s of planning and launching their dream projects.

My role: Sit on the outer ring of a massive circle (literally, think speed-dating setup) in order to listen, critique and rate these 2 minute pitches from the group of talented, albeit very nervous, kids.

The outcome: Of the 12 ideas I was pitched, I’d say 2 were actually good (which actually isn’t that bad). And I’d say that all 12 used some derivative of the word “empower” at some moment in their 120 seconds of speaking (which is kind of annoying). Within the nonprofit space – and I feel entitled to say this since I used to work in it – “empower” might be the most overused word there is. Which is a shame, since it has a lot of potential as a word. But alas, it’s been diluted to a practical stand-in verb, used to convey the very act of just “doing” in many cases. So, as opposed to illustrating what their organization was poised to accomplish, I began mentally docking points every time someone said “to empower youth” or “in order to advance empowerment of the under-served”. To me, they were now using a common place fluff word, and I was unimpressed that they hadn’t found more originality. Of course your organization is intending to “empower” an “un-empowered” group (these are nonprofits, after all, and I’d argue this is part of a general criteria). So spend more time and energy on what you’re empowering them to do. And why? What are the outcomes, and how are you approaching this challenge that is different than the others who are currently tackling it?

I don’t mean to be too harsh on these kids. The fact is, most of them have great ideas (*most*). The pitch is a work-in-progress, and DoSomething is committed to helping them refine it. Based on what I heard, I have a handful of across-the-board suggestions. I feel these pieces of advice are applicable to any of us starting a new endeavor (myself included) so I’ve put a little checklist into writing:

• Be concise. Two minutes is actually a LONG time to get your idea across. And I promise, simple = better.
• Make it personal. There is a nonprofit tackling just about every cause under the sun these days, so what makes your idea differentiated is the story behind it (because I promise someone has already thought about building an after school program in every inner city district or starting a support system for families with a child suffering from cystic fibrosis). If you don’t have a deep and compelling connection to the mission yourself, you might be better off partnering with an organization already addressing the cause.
• Be passionate. This really builds off the above, but without the personal commitment and drive to your cause, you might as well go the collaboration route (which, for the record, I am a huge proponent of).
• Be charismatic. If you have the above two, you’ve probably got this one down. It’s only 2 minutes, so bring all the energy and charm you can muster (genuinely)!
• Explain the why. There has to be a sound reason for your endeavor. Whether it’s a personal experience or staggering statistics, you need to be able to explain why you’re doing this.
• What’s the outcome. If you succeed, what have you delivered? What has changed and how is the world a better place? You need to be able to articulate what your success story looks like and why it’s meaningful (give me something tangible I can help achieve).
• Have an ask. Don’t come to the end of your time and leave the person sitting across from you thinking “ok, that was all nice and good, but I don’t have a clue why they’re telling this all to me”. There is always something to get out of the person, so you should (a) know enough about them to be clear on what that is and (b) make it extremely apparent how they specifically can help you.
• Find a new buzzword. Extra points to all who replace “empower” with another verb.

So, to all these young, energized social entrepreneurs, go get it. Keep up the work on your pitch and the further you come in articulating your idea, the more refined the organization may become in and of itself. It’s a funny little thing, this power of communication. So pay attention to it and let it help you shape your ideas. Listen to yourself talking about the organization, and listen to how people react. Be open to changing bits and pieces – I promise it won’t ever be “perfect”. And remember – if you can’t explain it simply, it’s probably too complicated.