Gregory Koberger :: the blog

Everyone who visits your site is a potential evangelist for your product- someone who will go out and vouch for it to their friends.  This is more than just a simple recommendation.  Evangelizing is a step up; more personal and more passionate.  This is the best form of marketing- it’s free, and the message comes from someone the potential user trusts.

So, how can you transform users into evangelists for your product?  Think about the sites you evangelize- what are some things they all have in common?

For me, my list is relatively short.  If we ignore the big ones (Facebook, GMail, etc), there is Twilio, Grooveshark, Doodle and A Story Before Bed.

Here are some common characteristics:

They are easy to share

These products make it easy for users to share content.  Doodle makes it painless to send your polls to people, while Grooveshark makes sharing music extremely easy.  Most importantly, you can share on your own terms- via email, social networks, or just a link.

LinkedIn’s “Join My Network” emails are annoying- they are a form of sharing, however they don’t offer the user anything (at least, not in the short term).  Doodle and Grooveshark offer the users something they benefit from, instantly.

Both also do a great job of converting people.  Next time someone wants to set up a meeting, they will turn to Doodle.  Next time someones looking to play a song, they will turn to Grooveshark.

Let’s look at the competition.  There is a site called TimeBridge, which runs circles around Doodle in terms of features.  However, it’s such a pain to use that very few people will ever want to put themselves through it again.  With Grooveshark, sharing music has been around for ages- but rarely has it been so easy or pleasant.

They conform to the user

Many products try to improve our lives by adding features.  My favorite products, however, just work.  They don’t ask me to change my workflow, or do things their way.  They simply fill a void; no more, no less.

Many startups have an “our way is better!” philosophy.  However, this asks us to leave our comfort zones and do things a different way.  Evernote, for example, is a great product.  However, they ask users to go out of their way (even if it is only a minimal amount).  The products I tend to like, rather, merely fill a frustrating void.

Sharing music and scheduling events are all things we do regularly, yet don’t have an efficient way to do it.  Bridging a website with a telephone is something many applications need, but never had a way to do.

This is a subtle distinction, and I’m not entirely sure I’ve illustrated it properly.  I think the subtle nature is why most startups fail to nail it, however.  They feel that they are enhancing users lives, and users should be grateful for the privilege to use their product.  It’s a subconscious mentality, but it’s there.

Rather, they should be doing everything they can to conform to the users existing workflow, and make the experience as seamless as possible.  Startups need to realize that the users are doing them the favor, and not the other way around.

No login

Doodle and Grooveshark don’t make people sign up.  Even for the person creating the poll or sending the music, no signup is required.  This is the reason Craigslist is so huge- nobody has to sign up.  Doodle acts just like Craigslist- you sign up, and you get a link so you can administer your poll.  Unless you really need users to sign up- and, I mean, really need them to- there’s no reason to make them.

Give users extra features if they sign up- but don’t require it if you don’t have to.

Simple

Twilio not only fills a void- it does it in a way that is impressively simple.  I wasn’t amazed by the functionality- I was amazed by how unbelievably simple it is to use.

Lets say you wanted a way for your customers to call a number, and have a voice tell them (for example) the current weather.  Six months ago, I would have laughed at you.  Now, I can do it in 30 seconds, thanks to Twilio:

<?xml version=”1.0″ encoding=”UTF-8″ ?>
<Response>
<Say>Hello World.</Say>
</Response>

Doodle polls are just as simple.  Grooveshark isn’t as minimalistic as Twilio or Doodle, however the interface is still dead simple.

The Experience

So far, I’m yet to mention A Story Before Bed.  This is because I like it for different reasons.  It might be simple to use, or any of the other characteristics I’ve mentioned before.  However, the reason I like it is the experience.  It is a beautiful site, with a consistent theme.

The Conclusion

What makes you want to tell everyone you know about a site?  Think about that, and do your best to replicate it.

Textbooks are a cop out.

Sure, some classes require it.  You can’t teach a math or science class without assigning a textbook full of math problems and dry explanations.

However, for the softer sciences, teachers who assign textbooks are taking the easy way out.  Why don’t teachers assign actual books?  They are cheaper, more enjoyable, and do a better job of getting the point across.

Marketing classes should assign Seth Godin, business classes should read Chris Anderson, and my class about technology diffusion should be centered around Malcom Gladwells’ Tipping Point.

Yes, these authors offer one-sided views of marketing, business and technology.

However, what is wrong with that?  I have never seen a discussion break out in a classroom over a textbook.  Textbooks present things in a matter-of-fact manner.  Books, on the other hand, spark debate.  After all, look at how bloggers took sides when Malcom Gladwell wrote his scathing review of Chris Anderson’s Free.

Maybe I’m biased.  However, you can learn a lot more from the so-called Airport Books, the “elite class of business titles that I see sold in airport newsstands next to the magazines and crappy romance novels”((Coined by Anil Dash, Free Criticism, Science After Data, and Airport Books)) than you can from the expensive, monotonous textbook teachers feel obligated to assign.

There is a silver lining, however.  Go and read on your own.  You’ll be a few steps ahead of the people stuck reading textbooks.

Two hunters are out in the woods when one of them collapses. He doesn’t seem to be breathing and his eyes are glazed. The other guy whips out his phone and calls the emergency services. He gasps, “My friend is dead! What can I do?”. The operator says “Calm down. I can help. First, let’s make sure he’s dead.” There is a silence, then a shot is heard. Back on the phone, the guy says “OK, now what?

Have you ever retold a joke you found funny, only to have it bomb?  Lots of things can go wrong- too verbose, amiss tone, bad buildup, wrong mood.

Badly executed websites are just like a bad joke- all the parts might be there, but something didn’t click.  Merely doing something doesn’t mean you deserve those metaphorical laughs.

Explaining the joke never works- at best, you’ll get a pity laugh from listeners who want you to stop.  If users are telling you they prefer a similar product, you can show them yours does the same thing if you go into the settings, click the link on the top left, scroll down, and blah blah blah.  But it won’t work.  They’ll nod their heads, but won’t be sold.

You need a solid product, appealing ascetics and effective marketing.  Showing up is not enough.  All the hours you put in and money you spent are irrelevant.  Best intentions don’t justify praise.

Take a look at the joke at the beginning of this post is.  According to research by Richard Wiseman of the University of Hertfordshire¹, it is the world’s funniest joke.  Even with that notable distinction, however, just retelling it isn’t guaranteed to garner a favorable reaction.

Get the joke right.  Merely telling it doesn’t mean you are entitled to laughs.

1. Spike ‘wrote world’s best joke’, BBC [↩]

Recently, a Tumblelog called Clients From Hell popped up.  It is a collection of stories about clients clueless about web design.  At first, I enjoyed reading the stories.  After all, anyone who ever worked with a client has heard “I can’t pay you, but it will look good on your resume.”  However, the more I read the daily posts, the more I started to realize that freelancers are probably a pain.  From the clients perspective, some of these freelancers are dead wrong.

Biased Stories

Take a look at the following story:

Your designs are too pretty, too beautiful looking. I need them to look more like I designed them. For example, instead of using a green box to highlight a chunk of copy, instead I would put green trees all over the page. You should try and be more creative like me and stop trying to make everything look so good all the time.

I would imagine that this is what the freelancer heard, not what the client actually said.  After all, who would say a design is “too beautiful looking”?

I imagine the conversation went more like this:

Your designs are beautiful, but I need them more like I designed them.  For example, instead of using a green box to highlight a chunk of copy, instead I would use these green trees.  You should try and be more creative like me, rather than just going for something that looks good.

This isn’t to say the designer is bad- he or she might be great.  But either way, the design he produced wasn’t what the person paying for it wanted.  People want to get what they paid for- and it’s evident that the designer ignored the clients initial suggestions.

Which brings us to our next point…

Clients Know Their Audience

Sure, freelancers may know Web 2.0 .  They may be able to make a beautiful, standards compliant website that would impress even the best of web designers.  But the client undoubtedly knows their audience better.  If the client thinks that their users would rather green trees, he’s probably right.  Maybe not from a design standpoint, however the client is closer to their own clients.

For example:

I’m not a Graphic Designer but I redesiged your brochure in MS Publisher. This is kind of how I’d like it to look

Do I find MS Publisher brochures attractive?  Not at all.  However, it is likely that this clients audience consists of other people who use MS Publisher.  There’s no reason to scoff at a client requesting Word- why shouldn’t they be able to edit the documents they’re paying for?  I once had to redo my resume in Word once, and was pleasantly surprised at how similar it was to my InDesign version- and you didn’t need a degree in graphic design to edit it.

Lack of Work

These stories are anonymous, so it is hard for submitters to upload work.  But wouldn’t it be nice to see the work in question?  What if the designer created something truly horrid?

I have met a lot of people who complained about clients not appreciating their work, when their work was simply bad.  We have no context.

Back to the story about the trees.  What if the site was about nature, and the trees were tasteful vector images that subtly highlighted the message?  Maybe the client wanted to get away from a plain green box- after all, very few sites can pull of a square, solid green box.  Feel free to attempt to prove me wrong.

Car Mechanic Problem

Car Mechanics have a reputation for overcharging.  When something breaks on my car, I know my uneducated “estimate” is always much lower than the actual cost.  I have a superficial understanding of cars- there are a ton of factors I overlook.  Are there a few mechanics out there that overcharge?  Of course.  However, overall, I would argue that normal people merely don’t have a proper understanding of what repairs entail.

Customer: Our budget is $4,000 but it is not so complex what we want. Have you used Outlook?

Me: Yes

Customer: We want exactly that functionality in our site plus some other stuff.

Many of the posts on Clients From Hell are about lowballing clients.  If a client offers you $100 and gives you two days, it isn’t because they are insulting.  They have no frame of reference, and they value the benefits of a website at $100 and two days of work.  Do your best to make your case, but remember they aren’t trying to screw you over- they just don’t know any better.

For the few that involve the freelancer getting screwed- well, that’s the freelancers fault.  The client was wrong, but so was the freelancer.

We know your photos have been on our website for six months, but we’re only going to pay you 1/4 of your invoice because we don’t think the quality is there.

Get a contract, and get money up front.

Conclusion

My biggest problem is the name- Clients From Hell.  I get it- clients like comic sans, ugly colors and Microsoft Word.  But does this mean we should vilify them?  We are dealing with people who don’t know our trade- much like how we don’t know theirs.

Wouldn’t it be less bitter if the site was instead called “Clients Say The Darndest Things”?

There are two sides to each story.  While these stories make for a good (despite repetitive) read, it would be fun to hear clients talk about their horrible hires.

Freelancers From Hell, anyone?

The “Broken Window Theory” says that windows are more likely to be broken if one is already broken.  From the original article “Broken Windows” by James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling:

Consider a building with a few broken windows. If the windows are not repaired, the tendency is for vandals to break a few more windows. Eventually, they may even break into the building, and if it’s unoccupied, perhaps become squatters or light fires inside.

Or consider a sidewalk. Some litter accumulates. Soon, more litter accumulates. Eventually, people even start leaving bags of trash from take-out restaurants there or breaking into cars.

The theory is that people are more likely to do something bad if someone did it before them.  For example, cleaning up graffiti as soon as it happened supposedly lead to a huge decrease in crime in NYC.

This works with comments and message boards, too.  If a post is offensive or badly written, delete it.  Having only thought out and civil comments will lead to more thought out and civil comments.

There is a lot of criticism of the Broken Window Theory.  However, look at comments on various sites.  You will never see a YouTube-like comment on a site like Hacker News, and you will have a hard time finding a thought-provoking message anywhere on YouTube.

Expectations of quality are set by previous comments, and it is important to consistently maintain a high standard.

So, free speech be damned.  Delete offending comments, or risk having the quality of your sites’ comments go downhill.