At Pivot + Levy we focus on the last mile—the final points of contact between your brand and your customers. There are multiple facets to the last mile that encompass consumer facing web sites and the experience at the point of sale. But one issue that overarches everything when it comes to influencing how people actually behave is the user experience—or how well things work.

A simple example from my personal life illustrates this point. About a year ago I was called for jury duty. Rather than pay the ridiculous parking rates in downtown Seattle, I decided to use mass transit for the first time. One of the things that kept me in my car for so long was, frankly, my intimidation about learning to use the Metro system. Metro’s web site does offer a trip planner but I found it clunky, difficult to use and not that helpful in making my route visual to me.

And then I found Google Transit.

The Google Transit system uses the exact same data as the King Country Metro trip planner, but the interface is so much more elegant, easier to manipulate, and, critically, blends Metro data with Google’s excellent maps. As a result of using this tool, I overcame my reluctance to use Metro and have become a committed user of mass transit (and this was long before gas nudged near $5 a gallon).

The key idea here is that it wasn’t data that changed my behavior, it was a superior interface. It was a better user experience that got me on the bus. In this example, Metro failed in the last mile (no pun intended) because, despite the massive investment in resources and advertising to increase bus users, they failed to convert me due to my online experience with their brand. Fortunately for them, Google came to their rescue.

The issue of usability is at the core of what makes a truly effective business extranet or consumer web site. Often it’s not the capabilities of the software that define whether a solution will be a success, but how quickly it is embraced by users. Well thought out and implemented user interface and user experience design are key to driving user adoption. Tremendous efficiencies can be gained by automation. Communication can be made much more timely. Prospects can be responded to more quickly and at lower cost. But only if the system is actually used by the people it’s intended to benefit.

 

 

 Had lunch with a good friend I hadn’t seen in a while and we spent a lot time talking about the Pokémon trading card game. I don’t know a thing about Pokémon, but what “Joe” told me about how the game works posed some interesting questions about the concept of the “wisdom of crowds”.
Joe has been mad for card trading games for years. And while Pokémon is aimed at kids, he’s a serious player and competes in the “senior” category. According to Joe, game play is pretty simple—a player assembles a “deck” and competes in a sort of rock, scissors, paper way. Each year, Pokémon issues a new series of cards and there’s a season ending in an international tournament every year.

Players from all over the world share ideas about strategies and figure out what combinations of cards are the most effective. In other words, they create a global “evolutionary” environment where many, many players are constantly making tweaks and figuring out winning combinations. The result is an unbeatable “super deck” that, if played well, virtually guarantees a winning result.

Joe told me he’s been expecting to meet an individual player who’s better at assembling a deck than he is, and he’s not found one yet. But he can’t beat the super decks. He’s a very smart guy with a strategic mind, but as he said, “I’m not smarter than the internet.”

I asked him, “But where’s the fun, just in the winning? If everybody’s playing the proven performer, where’s the suspense, the fun, of competing?” But he told me there’s a catch. Typically, most of the players that make it to the finals are playing the super deck, but that is often not who wins. Even though “the internet” has created the super deck, it’s often the individual who’s come up with the combination that beats that deck that takes home the trophy.

I think this example has interesting implications for the nature of social networks. There’s no question that a large number of people contributing to finding a solution to a problem can often lead to a really smart solution, a solution that’s “smarter” than you are as an individual. 

But we shouldn’t forget that there is still that potential out there for a scary smart individual to beat the crowd, and do it consistently. To rely only on the wisdom of crowds would be a mistake—whether in investing, research, politics, etc. Potentially, relying on the crowd misses the opportunity for a contrarian or an original thinker to produce a world-beating idea.

Now that social networking technologies are linking more and more “crowds” together, do we risk becoming lazy about challenging assumptions and looking for the best solution? When is it appropriate to challenge the wisdom of a crowd? Is it more efficient to go with the almost best solution to a problem, even if it means sacrificing the very best idea? When should we kick over the conventional wisdom, even when it’s proven to be effective?

Yesterday, Kevin Johnson, president of Microsoft’s platforms and services division announced that the “Live” brand—Microsoft’s flavor of search and online services—could be replaced.  Given the many millions that have been invested by Microsoft, as well as the numerous iterations of “me to” services that have been added to their online offerings over the years, this is a pretty stunning admission. The failure of Live to really catch on and represent a credible threat to Google’s dominance has been cast as a branding problem, but I think there’s a real user experience issue that lives just below the surface. I also believe that without addressing this, any rebranding effort is unlikely to make a real difference.

Consider the development arc of Google as a brand. From the very beginning, that empty field centered on a nearly blank page made it crystal clear what Google was about—search. The fact that Google, as a word, has become synonymous with search in the public’s mind goes to show just how successful they have been. I think that you can attribute quite a lot of the brand’s success to the truly simple and intuitive user experience Google delivers.

Microsoft’s latest gambit to essentially bribe people to use Live search just underscores how much they have to catch up. And I think a part of the problem is the way Microsoft always seems to want more from the user if they want to play with the toys.

Visit windowslive.com, and one thing is clear immediately, you’re going to have to give up a bunch of personal information and allow Microsoft to install a whole bunch of stuff on your computer. Pretty strong contrast with the elegant simplicity and immediate gratification of the Google search field.

I’m confident that Microsoft will develop a successful strategy, which is a good thing. Google needs a credible competitor to keep it sharp, and we all benefit when really smart people compete to come up with innovative new services and products. When they get it right, you’ll know because they won’t have to be paying people to play.

Pity the poor brand manager--they have to keep track of a million tiny details all the time. But there are times when it pays to sweat the small stuff--one of them being when your brand mark is literally carved in stone. Here in Seattle, the Wells Fargo head office is in a nice skyscraper downtown on 3rd Ave. And if you're at street level, and you happen to be just a touch obsessive-compulsive, you'll notice how the Wells Fargo logotype carved into the stone plaza in front of the building has TERRIBLE kerning. Maybe only one person in a thousand notices, but once you do, it starts to annoy, kind of like getting the Macarena stuck in your head. I'm guessing Wells Fargo has a few bucks invested in their corporate image, so it strikes me a bit surprising they'd let this go in such a permanent setting.

Another example--a local cruise company who has a reputation for going the extra mile when it comes to the details has unbelievably bad kerning for some of its ship names. You may ask, "so what?” but when the name is rendered in four foot high letters that you can see from half a mile away, badly executed kerning really shows. Does this impact their business? Probably not. But when you consider that their reputation is based on delivering a luxury experience, the very name of the ship is sending a subtle message that maybe the cruise isn't quite going to be everything that was promised.

2008 has been a year of both challenge and opportunity. The pace of technological change continues to accelerate. Markerters continue to feel the pressure to do more with their resources. And the very nature of marketing is evolving fast. At Pivot + Levy, we're constantly learning and exploring ways to help our clients' brands thrive in a world where they are no longer in complete control of the message. We invite you to take a look at our work and learn more about our "multidimensional" philosophy.