. Lately he's been focused on education and creativity. This post on Techcrunch features five video clips that are worth watching.Techcrunch -- Po Bronson: “That’s why academics are so boring” [VIDEO]
Enjoy!
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Po Bronson on Techcrunch TV
Here's a great collection of video interviews with Po Bronson, author of The Nudist on the Late Shift: And Other True Tales of Silicon Valley. Lately he's been focused on education and creativity. This post on Techcrunch features five video clips that are worth watching.
Techcrunch -- Po Bronson: “That’s why academics are so boring” [VIDEO]
Enjoy!
. Lately he's been focused on education and creativity. This post on Techcrunch features five video clips that are worth watching.Techcrunch -- Po Bronson: “That’s why academics are so boring” [VIDEO]
Enjoy!
Problem Solving: The Most Valuable Skill That Won't Get You Hired
So I'm looking at my LinkedIn profile wondering what else I need to do to complete it, and this "specialities" section keeps haunting me. It keeps asking me for content, but most of the important things that come to mind are either so obscure that they will never show up in a search or worse -- they sound like tired, cheesy cliches.
Here's a perfect example: Problem Solving
One of the things that has struck me over the course of my career is how few people have basic problem solving skills. It sounds rather rudimentary and stupid, but understanding how to take apart a problem, analyze it, and produce a solution is... rare. It's surprising really. You can take some of the most competent people that you know and drop them into a situation where the environment or the problem is different than they expected and watch them break down. Many will complain right from the start.
And then there are also those people who just seem comfortable solving problems, creatively adapting solutions to fit the needs of the moment. They are the people you drop into unusual situations and they adapt and work through through the differences. Often, they question rules and assumptions and their approach may not be what you expected. But they produce results.
That's another funny thing about problem solving skills -- it becomes like a safe harbor in a storm. In difficult times, people turn to problem solvers. Drop a stranger in the office and they'll probably turn to nearest desk. For the people in the office -- if the office is large enough to have functional specialists -- they will go to the specialist. But in smaller offices or for problems that live outside of a specialization, people turn to the problem solvers.
Being able to solve problems won't endear you to every organization. Some businesses stick closely to established culture, structure, and processes. Some promote consensus over individual initiative. And while some problem solvers do thrive in those environments (possibly as the underlying catalyst for activity or change), it's probably not the personality trait that the organization screened for -- which brings me back to the focus of this post.
Problem Solving and Umami: Everybody Wants Some
While Kikkoman wants to link the idea of "umami" as a keyword for their products, the concept of umami is about savoriness and the taste of a richness of flavor -- the kind of thing that you would like to have in most things that you eat. But at the heart of it, what we're really talking about here is how you would measure it, characterize it, and differentiate on it. While it's likely that the braised short-ribs from The French Laundry will have significantly more umami than a Black Angus steak, it's equally likely that you won't see it used to differentiate the two. Both could conceivably put umami as a specialty on their LinkedIn profile and even if you were 'interviewing' them both, you probably wouldn't be able to differentiate based on that one characteristic.
The real problem with some of these soft characteristics is that they are difficult to quantify and place a corresponding value on. In the same way that Apple products are frequently recognized for their design, there is also a chunk of the population that downplays the value of design and questions paying extra for it. Is design a "specialty" for Apple?
The problem for you, Problem Solver, is that you want to be in an environment where your problem solving characteristics are recognized, valued, and rewarded. And that means finding a way to feature your design, your umami, and to reach the audience that values it. Good luck.
Here's a perfect example: Problem Solving
One of the things that has struck me over the course of my career is how few people have basic problem solving skills. It sounds rather rudimentary and stupid, but understanding how to take apart a problem, analyze it, and produce a solution is... rare. It's surprising really. You can take some of the most competent people that you know and drop them into a situation where the environment or the problem is different than they expected and watch them break down. Many will complain right from the start.
And then there are also those people who just seem comfortable solving problems, creatively adapting solutions to fit the needs of the moment. They are the people you drop into unusual situations and they adapt and work through through the differences. Often, they question rules and assumptions and their approach may not be what you expected. But they produce results.
That's another funny thing about problem solving skills -- it becomes like a safe harbor in a storm. In difficult times, people turn to problem solvers. Drop a stranger in the office and they'll probably turn to nearest desk. For the people in the office -- if the office is large enough to have functional specialists -- they will go to the specialist. But in smaller offices or for problems that live outside of a specialization, people turn to the problem solvers.
Being able to solve problems won't endear you to every organization. Some businesses stick closely to established culture, structure, and processes. Some promote consensus over individual initiative. And while some problem solvers do thrive in those environments (possibly as the underlying catalyst for activity or change), it's probably not the personality trait that the organization screened for -- which brings me back to the focus of this post.
Problem Solving and Umami: Everybody Wants Some
While Kikkoman wants to link the idea of "umami" as a keyword for their products, the concept of umami is about savoriness and the taste of a richness of flavor -- the kind of thing that you would like to have in most things that you eat. But at the heart of it, what we're really talking about here is how you would measure it, characterize it, and differentiate on it. While it's likely that the braised short-ribs from The French Laundry will have significantly more umami than a Black Angus steak, it's equally likely that you won't see it used to differentiate the two. Both could conceivably put umami as a specialty on their LinkedIn profile and even if you were 'interviewing' them both, you probably wouldn't be able to differentiate based on that one characteristic.
The real problem with some of these soft characteristics is that they are difficult to quantify and place a corresponding value on. In the same way that Apple products are frequently recognized for their design, there is also a chunk of the population that downplays the value of design and questions paying extra for it. Is design a "specialty" for Apple?
The problem for you, Problem Solver, is that you want to be in an environment where your problem solving characteristics are recognized, valued, and rewarded. And that means finding a way to feature your design, your umami, and to reach the audience that values it. Good luck.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
iPhone 4 vs. EVO 4G: Yet Another Window Into What Makes Good Design
Recently in the technology press, there was a lot of excitement about the launch of two new products, the iPhone 4 and the Sprint EVO 4G. With launches in June, both phones have received a lot of comparative media, making it the Ali vs. Foreman of the technology press for about a week. As with all historic battles, that conflict isn't framed simply as a comparison of two pieces of hardware, it's about much larger issues shaping the evolution of technology and the smart phone market. Well, it was last week anyway -- this week, we've moved on. Still, if you look at the two products and compare some of the design principles behind them, you'll find some important lessons about design and product marketing that often tend to be underplayed.
Apple, the iPhone, and the Great Problem with all of their Products that Is So Frustrating to Some People in the Technology World
One of the most common strategies for product differentiation is using specifications to create "mine has more" features. While some of these specifications may actually be actual performance differences, often, these differentiators are simply, "this one goes to 11". And yet, in many segments of the consumer world, you can find outrage over products that don't "go to 11" simply because a lot of product marketing simplifies differentiation into specifications. If you're looking for a digital camera this year, you want one with more Megapixels than the one that came out last year, even if the image sensor or the lens of the camera isn't any better -- sure the camera is just creating larger image files, but if you don't know much about cameras, it's an easy way to see that the new one is better (there was a great post about digital cameras on Techcrunch about a month ago).
So with the EVO vs the iPhone4, you have this great battle of kitchen-sink functionality vs good design and intuitive user interface. The EVO approach is all about adding hardware and features, while the iPhone is focused on maximizing select features that people interact with and increasing integration so that things have unified functionality.
Good design is about understanding the essence of the thing that you are trying to achieve, then making the trade-offs that bring you closer to that functionality. Take multitasking as an example: whenever something is running -- even if you aren't looking at it -- it's eating up your battery. Sure you need to run multiple applications on your PC, but on a mobile platform the rules change. Apple's approach to this challenge is been to limit what applications run so that you're always aware of what is using up your battery and enabling you to maximize your battery life. Running Droid, the EVO allows you more flexibility in running multiple applications at the same time, but you suffer a corresponding hit your battery life. Simple equation -- stuff running takes power and eats your battery -- two different strategies for prioritizing what's important.
So What Makes Good Design?
Good design is all about answering the question, what am I using this thing for. While a hammer is a simple tool, you can find a number of options for hammers, depending on the size of the nail you are trying to hit (tack hammer vs. a framing hammer) or a number of other aspects of your application -- a sledge hammer is a poorly designed tool for hammering those tiny tacks that you use to hang pictures. Sure a hammer is a simple tool, but good hammer design means not including a claw on the back-end of a sledge hammer because you won't use it to pull nails out of a wall. And while there are some people out there who might dream of a sledge hammer with the flexibility to remove nails or a tack-hammer that can bust concrete, what core functionality do you lose by adding these capabilities?
Years ago when I started bicycling seriously, I sold my sports car to buy a bicycle. At the time, I was looking at an $800 Cannondale, one step below the top of their line. My parents suggested I look at the sub-$100 bicycles that they had at Sam's Club. To their unresearched eye, both products were equivalent, but the cheaper one offered the benefit of cash in the bank. Looking back, had I gone down the path of the cheap bike, I probably wouldn't have become an avid cyclist or ridden all of the miles that I have. There would be no cycling market in my world.
For some, the sub-$100 bike would have been the wise choice. For those people, a frame was a frame, wheels were wheels, and pedals were pedals. A bike is just a bike. With today's phones, it's big displays, memory, processors, touchscreens and app stores. It's difficult to see the subtleties of design when you just walk into the store and are bombarded by specifications.
The art of design comes through in day-to-day use, in those moment when you encounter and issue or a challenge and you realize that somebody expected you to face that, that they saw it coming and they made it easy for you. Good design is not just when Step 7 follows logically from Step 6, it's also when all of the parts that you need for Step 7 right have been collected in front of you so that you don't find yourself scrambling to find the pieces that you need.
The Elusive Apple 'Recipe for Success'
Right now, in a host of technology companies, there are teams working to craft the iPad killer or the iPhone killer. Odds are, those discussions center around statements like, "it doesn't have enough of this" or "it doesn't do that." Contrast that to the iPod -- it didn't add features to an .mp3 player, it made cool technology easier to use. So the question you have to ask yourself is, what problem are you trying to solve?
Apple, the iPhone, and the Great Problem with all of their Products that Is So Frustrating to Some People in the Technology World
One of the most common strategies for product differentiation is using specifications to create "mine has more" features. While some of these specifications may actually be actual performance differences, often, these differentiators are simply, "this one goes to 11". And yet, in many segments of the consumer world, you can find outrage over products that don't "go to 11" simply because a lot of product marketing simplifies differentiation into specifications. If you're looking for a digital camera this year, you want one with more Megapixels than the one that came out last year, even if the image sensor or the lens of the camera isn't any better -- sure the camera is just creating larger image files, but if you don't know much about cameras, it's an easy way to see that the new one is better (there was a great post about digital cameras on Techcrunch about a month ago).
So with the EVO vs the iPhone4, you have this great battle of kitchen-sink functionality vs good design and intuitive user interface. The EVO approach is all about adding hardware and features, while the iPhone is focused on maximizing select features that people interact with and increasing integration so that things have unified functionality.
Good design is about understanding the essence of the thing that you are trying to achieve, then making the trade-offs that bring you closer to that functionality. Take multitasking as an example: whenever something is running -- even if you aren't looking at it -- it's eating up your battery. Sure you need to run multiple applications on your PC, but on a mobile platform the rules change. Apple's approach to this challenge is been to limit what applications run so that you're always aware of what is using up your battery and enabling you to maximize your battery life. Running Droid, the EVO allows you more flexibility in running multiple applications at the same time, but you suffer a corresponding hit your battery life. Simple equation -- stuff running takes power and eats your battery -- two different strategies for prioritizing what's important.
So What Makes Good Design?
Good design is all about answering the question, what am I using this thing for. While a hammer is a simple tool, you can find a number of options for hammers, depending on the size of the nail you are trying to hit (tack hammer vs. a framing hammer) or a number of other aspects of your application -- a sledge hammer is a poorly designed tool for hammering those tiny tacks that you use to hang pictures. Sure a hammer is a simple tool, but good hammer design means not including a claw on the back-end of a sledge hammer because you won't use it to pull nails out of a wall. And while there are some people out there who might dream of a sledge hammer with the flexibility to remove nails or a tack-hammer that can bust concrete, what core functionality do you lose by adding these capabilities?
Years ago when I started bicycling seriously, I sold my sports car to buy a bicycle. At the time, I was looking at an $800 Cannondale, one step below the top of their line. My parents suggested I look at the sub-$100 bicycles that they had at Sam's Club. To their unresearched eye, both products were equivalent, but the cheaper one offered the benefit of cash in the bank. Looking back, had I gone down the path of the cheap bike, I probably wouldn't have become an avid cyclist or ridden all of the miles that I have. There would be no cycling market in my world.
For some, the sub-$100 bike would have been the wise choice. For those people, a frame was a frame, wheels were wheels, and pedals were pedals. A bike is just a bike. With today's phones, it's big displays, memory, processors, touchscreens and app stores. It's difficult to see the subtleties of design when you just walk into the store and are bombarded by specifications.
The art of design comes through in day-to-day use, in those moment when you encounter and issue or a challenge and you realize that somebody expected you to face that, that they saw it coming and they made it easy for you. Good design is not just when Step 7 follows logically from Step 6, it's also when all of the parts that you need for Step 7 right have been collected in front of you so that you don't find yourself scrambling to find the pieces that you need.
The Elusive Apple 'Recipe for Success'
Right now, in a host of technology companies, there are teams working to craft the iPad killer or the iPhone killer. Odds are, those discussions center around statements like, "it doesn't have enough of this" or "it doesn't do that." Contrast that to the iPod -- it didn't add features to an .mp3 player, it made cool technology easier to use. So the question you have to ask yourself is, what problem are you trying to solve?
Monday, June 7, 2010
To MBA or Not to MBA, A Few Funny Thoughts About The Techcrunch Post
You know, there's a funny subtext to the MBA question referenced in the Techcrunch post that I linked to in this recent post. Simply, it's this idea that there's a set recipe for success, be it start-up or otherwise. In the formula, people are like eggs or flour or some basic protein -- add some basic ingredients, take them through a set process and presto, you have a successful entrepreneur.
How many students attend Le Cordon Bleu? How many students do you think that they turn out every year? One school, one city -- maybe twenty every four months? Let's aim low -- maybe twenty a year. Imagine those numbers mean on a global scale. Multiply that by all of the cooking schools in all of the cities. With all of these professionally trained chefs entering the work force every year, how come we are so often subjected to so much crappy, poorly prepared food?
Consider this: there are written recipes for much of the food that we eat -- formulas for an established, repeatable process; culinary schools teach the mechanics involved in precision execution of cooking processes; and, in contrast to an MBA program, a cooking school is focused on a single core curriculum as opposed to a broad-brush sweep across marketing, finance, operations, and more. All of that and yet, we still find ourselves eating crappy, poorly prepared food.
There are great restaurants out there. There are places that you can eat that can take you through transformational food experiences, tasting things in new ways, changing your relationship to an ingredient or a cuisine. And while you can probably extrapolate some common success points across the lot of them, if there was a simple recipe for success, none of us would have to suffer a bad meal.
How many students attend Le Cordon Bleu? How many students do you think that they turn out every year? One school, one city -- maybe twenty every four months? Let's aim low -- maybe twenty a year. Imagine those numbers mean on a global scale. Multiply that by all of the cooking schools in all of the cities. With all of these professionally trained chefs entering the work force every year, how come we are so often subjected to so much crappy, poorly prepared food?
Consider this: there are written recipes for much of the food that we eat -- formulas for an established, repeatable process; culinary schools teach the mechanics involved in precision execution of cooking processes; and, in contrast to an MBA program, a cooking school is focused on a single core curriculum as opposed to a broad-brush sweep across marketing, finance, operations, and more. All of that and yet, we still find ourselves eating crappy, poorly prepared food.
There are great restaurants out there. There are places that you can eat that can take you through transformational food experiences, tasting things in new ways, changing your relationship to an ingredient or a cuisine. And while you can probably extrapolate some common success points across the lot of them, if there was a simple recipe for success, none of us would have to suffer a bad meal.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Are You Tired of Adobe Whining about the iPad?
It all started with an update to the Apple Software Developer Kit that said developers could only use Apple's tools to build apps for the iPhone and the iPad. While this stirred up a number of blog posts from the developer community, the biggest victim of this was Adobe and their planned release of a tool to port Flash applications to a variety of mobile platforms -- write once in Flash and publish to the iPhone, Android, and potentially others. This product was now DOA.
What followed was a bunch of back and forth between Apple and the community centered around Steve Jobs basically saying, "Flash sucks." Jobs even went so far as to publish an open letter explaining in detail why Flash would not be supported on the iPhone or the iPad. And again, there was some more back and forth within the community.
Adobe has now come out with an ad basically saying, "We Love Apple." While that might fill you with an overwhelming sense of "who cares," over on Techcrunch, MG Siegler put together a nice little commentary on what Adobe should do instead of this ad campaign. A simple synopsis of his advice to Adobe, "make a better product."
The Myth of the Special Relationship Between Apple and Adobe
Siegler also includes a link to this great blog post, Sorry, Adobe, you screwed yourself. This post revisits the history of Adobe's lack of support for the Apple platform. If you're sitting around with some grand notions of 'the special relationship' between Apple and Adobe, then this post is for you. It's a great refresher on how Adobe has virtually abandoned the Apple platform over the past fifteen years.
This post really connected with me. Over the years, I've grumbled about Adobe's products to anyone that would listen. While I've been forced to use the software as an industry professional, the last Adobe product I actually had good things to say about was Photoshop 3.0. Since that time, I've watched Adobe act like Microsoft, cranking out product after product focused on what Adobe wanted to make, not improvements to the functionality that I depend upon. As processors got better and better, Adobe managed to find ways to take the basic functions of their software and make them run slower and slower. Illustrator and Photoshop basically do the same things that they did back in 1995, but it takes the software five times longer to launch. Worse than that, they used their substantial resources to buy up competitors, take crappy software like Pagemaker, repackage it as InDesign, and cram it down our throats. When I use InDesign, there isn't an hour that goes by that I don't curse the product and everyone that made it.
In the end, that's why I agree with Steve Jobs and MG Siegler. If Adobe wants to be on my iPhone, they need to make a good product. Being the industry standard doesn't protect you from changes in technology or exempt you from animosity in your user base -- remember Syquest? As it stands, when I find decent alternatives to Adobe products, I use those tools instead. Admittedly, I'm just one member of the user community, but I'm sure that there are others that feel the same way.
What's more, as an effort to generate word of mouth buzz and inspire their user base to push for some sort of inclusion / exemption from Apple, this approach is more astroturf than grass roots. Maybe the team at Adobe should take a closer look at how much lawn they actually have.
What followed was a bunch of back and forth between Apple and the community centered around Steve Jobs basically saying, "Flash sucks." Jobs even went so far as to publish an open letter explaining in detail why Flash would not be supported on the iPhone or the iPad. And again, there was some more back and forth within the community.
Adobe has now come out with an ad basically saying, "We Love Apple." While that might fill you with an overwhelming sense of "who cares," over on Techcrunch, MG Siegler put together a nice little commentary on what Adobe should do instead of this ad campaign. A simple synopsis of his advice to Adobe, "make a better product."
The Myth of the Special Relationship Between Apple and Adobe
Siegler also includes a link to this great blog post, Sorry, Adobe, you screwed yourself. This post revisits the history of Adobe's lack of support for the Apple platform. If you're sitting around with some grand notions of 'the special relationship' between Apple and Adobe, then this post is for you. It's a great refresher on how Adobe has virtually abandoned the Apple platform over the past fifteen years.
This post really connected with me. Over the years, I've grumbled about Adobe's products to anyone that would listen. While I've been forced to use the software as an industry professional, the last Adobe product I actually had good things to say about was Photoshop 3.0. Since that time, I've watched Adobe act like Microsoft, cranking out product after product focused on what Adobe wanted to make, not improvements to the functionality that I depend upon. As processors got better and better, Adobe managed to find ways to take the basic functions of their software and make them run slower and slower. Illustrator and Photoshop basically do the same things that they did back in 1995, but it takes the software five times longer to launch. Worse than that, they used their substantial resources to buy up competitors, take crappy software like Pagemaker, repackage it as InDesign, and cram it down our throats. When I use InDesign, there isn't an hour that goes by that I don't curse the product and everyone that made it.
In the end, that's why I agree with Steve Jobs and MG Siegler. If Adobe wants to be on my iPhone, they need to make a good product. Being the industry standard doesn't protect you from changes in technology or exempt you from animosity in your user base -- remember Syquest? As it stands, when I find decent alternatives to Adobe products, I use those tools instead. Admittedly, I'm just one member of the user community, but I'm sure that there are others that feel the same way.
What's more, as an effort to generate word of mouth buzz and inspire their user base to push for some sort of inclusion / exemption from Apple, this approach is more astroturf than grass roots. Maybe the team at Adobe should take a closer look at how much lawn they actually have.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
What Do You Mean There's No Phone Number?
In the online world, you'll find many businesses that don't publish contact information. Instead, they route any customer service and support issues through a fixed path of web-based submission forms, online chat, or simply a support email address. Sales and orders are handled entirely through their web application.
From a business standpoint, this enables them to streamline their staffing requirements. By managing the pipeline of incoming issues, these businesses attempt to eliminate or eliminate their customer-facing staff. It seems like a perfect system if the transaction works correctly, but when things don't work right, not providing a human-customer interface has the potential be really bad. Here's an example:
Lulu.com: We Don't Publish Direct Contact Information
If you're not familiar with the site, Lulu.com offers a web interface that enables you to publish your own book and print just one copy (or more). Basically, you can upload a book (following their templates) and self-publish your book in a variety of sizes. Leveraging digital output, Lulu.com can print books at about half the price you can get it done most other places. You can find lots of publishing options on the site, including an entire ecosystem devoted to helping you publish. What you won't find on Lulu.com is direct contact information -- no sales contacts, no support contacts, and no phone numbers. You're only options for contacting Lulu are a web-based contact form and web-based chat with a customer service person.
If you've ever spent any extended time at Kinkos, you probably have an understanding of Lulu might not want to talk to people:
Here's a list of things that I didn't receive:
Is Poor Customer Service Your Business Strategy?
About a decade ago, Iomega found themselves in a class action lawsuit over their poor customer service practices surrounding issues with their Zip drives. The lawsuit essentially forced Iomega to provide better customer support. So another possible explanation for not providing contact info?
In the end, Lulu.com refunded the charge to my credit card and I printed the books through a local vendor -- they are not a scam. If I were to guess, I suspect that their distributed production model needs some additional transaction system oversight. In the case of my transaction, it appears that even if I had been able to speak with a human, he couldn't have told me anything about what went wrong with my transaction. However, a live person might have been sensitive my tone or my frustration and provided a more aggressive remedy.
The Take-Away
When you are in charge of a customer-facing process, whether you are designing it, managing it, or restructuring it, never underestimate the cost of not offering a human interface to your process. While email support and online chat may seem like a reasonable strategy, these tools are not equivalent to providing a direct interface with a person -- of course, that presumes that you are interested in building your brand and positive Word of Mouth.
From a business standpoint, this enables them to streamline their staffing requirements. By managing the pipeline of incoming issues, these businesses attempt to eliminate or eliminate their customer-facing staff. It seems like a perfect system if the transaction works correctly, but when things don't work right, not providing a human-customer interface has the potential be really bad. Here's an example:
Lulu.com: We Don't Publish Direct Contact Information
If you're not familiar with the site, Lulu.com offers a web interface that enables you to publish your own book and print just one copy (or more). Basically, you can upload a book (following their templates) and self-publish your book in a variety of sizes. Leveraging digital output, Lulu.com can print books at about half the price you can get it done most other places. You can find lots of publishing options on the site, including an entire ecosystem devoted to helping you publish. What you won't find on Lulu.com is direct contact information -- no sales contacts, no support contacts, and no phone numbers. You're only options for contacting Lulu are a web-based contact form and web-based chat with a customer service person.
If you've ever spent any extended time at Kinkos, you probably have an understanding of Lulu might not want to talk to people:
Reason Possibility #1: A significant percentage of people trying to print things are idiots that have no idea what they are doing and why it won't work. They need help making their giant Word graphic print as 1000 business cards, they need to get Mr. Biggle's face to be on Page 30, not page 31, and the greatest American novel needs to be printed, but they can only pay in traveler's checks. (full disclosure: these examples are not intended to represent specific individuals. If you feel like one of these examples might be you, I swear it wasn't. Oh, and please try to avoid being in front of me in line at the store. Thanks)
Here's a list of things that I didn't receive:
- a packing list, order confirmation, or any other documentation that might normally indicate what the people who were shipping thought was happening inside the box
- a customer support phone number, an email address, or other method of communicating directly with Lulu to resolve the issue
We can place either a reorder or refund for the defective book...So, after paying for expedited shipping on my original order and waiting two days for a response, their customer service group wanted to know if I want to reorder.
Is Poor Customer Service Your Business Strategy?
About a decade ago, Iomega found themselves in a class action lawsuit over their poor customer service practices surrounding issues with their Zip drives. The lawsuit essentially forced Iomega to provide better customer support. So another possible explanation for not providing contact info?
Reason Possibility #2: You know that your standard business processes are going to produce a substantial percentage of dissatisfied customers and by making it more difficult for them to resolve their issues, a significant percentage will simply give up in frustration.This is similar to many of the online models that add a recurring monthly charge to your credit card, then make it difficult to cancel or unsubscribe. To me, businesses that use approaches like this suffer from being one or two steps above a scam. And that's exactly why I find this strategy of limited customer support communication channels to be such a risky path for a business to take: at what point do you move from a "limited overhead customer relationship" to a caveat emptor business selling herbal supplements for weight loss or erectile dysfunction where the threshold for quality is "not proven to cause harm"?
In the end, Lulu.com refunded the charge to my credit card and I printed the books through a local vendor -- they are not a scam. If I were to guess, I suspect that their distributed production model needs some additional transaction system oversight. In the case of my transaction, it appears that even if I had been able to speak with a human, he couldn't have told me anything about what went wrong with my transaction. However, a live person might have been sensitive my tone or my frustration and provided a more aggressive remedy.
The Take-Away
When you are in charge of a customer-facing process, whether you are designing it, managing it, or restructuring it, never underestimate the cost of not offering a human interface to your process. While email support and online chat may seem like a reasonable strategy, these tools are not equivalent to providing a direct interface with a person -- of course, that presumes that you are interested in building your brand and positive Word of Mouth.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
To MBA or Not to MBA, Is That The Question
There's an interesting thread running over on Techcrunch at the moment. The post, Is an MBA a Plus or a Minus in the Startup World? by Vivek Wadhwa, dives into that time-honored debate that you may have had with yourself. Between the article and the comments, it's an interesting read, totally worth checking out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)