Author Archive for jason

Pick the right product for the right customer

A friend recently sent me a great pitch video that Steve Jobs gave while he was at NeXT. The video is a fascinating piece of marketing history, especially because the endeavor turned out to be such a failure. While I realize that this is a pitch, pitches, like any other kind of story, have the effect of convincing the audience and the people telling it. He totally overestimated the need for usability at that point, in 1991, in the development of the workstation/pc market. In addition, he projected his tastes onto a market that, to this day, has an almost supernatural aversion to being cool.

I am struck by the difference, between this pitch and the iPod pitch, or even the Mac pitch from Nerds.  He wasn’t framing the NeXT station’s differences from the point of view of benefits as perceived by the customer. Instead, he uses future tense language about how NeXT will be better and people will want what it does. Although he doesn’t seem to completely realize it, he makes the key insight that there was an audience out there that would appreciate an functionally and artistically elevated approach to an otherwise humdrum product category. His thinking was great, it was just his target that was wrong.

He needed a group of people to whom he could teach taste and elegance, and it turns out that consumers and the iPod let him do that. The best part about the iPod, aside from design, was that it changed the way people perceived the digital music player market. The positioning stroke of genius was the statement that the iPod held 5000 songs and let you take all of your music anywhere you went. It was the customer’s problem stated in the words they would use, and providing a solution to an immediate and tangible issue that they faced. Add to that the awesome experience of using the device (especially compared to competition), and you have something remarkable: a story that customers can tell each other, and an exclusive club of cool that has a badge that you carry around with you.

Most striking, for me, is the realization that Jobs, or someone, needs to be a pitch man, a maven of taste, to make Apple successful. He needs to radiate an understanding of cool. It is important because his goal is to get people to accept his definition of cool, and he knows it. He is totally right to leave the technical and user interaction innovations to someone else and be the man that can convince people that they want to be as cool as John Mayer.

Iterations

There are many times when repeating things is necessary and helpful. That is certainly the case with a strong QA/testing/feedback process in software development. The key is getting feedback early and then often. In my most recent project at Fog Creek, we took a product from concept to release in 6 weeks. It was a substantial amount of work. It adds some great new functionality, but my best guess is that it took us fifteen to twenty percent longer then it “should have.”

The problem was simply that our rock star QA analyst was away on vacation at [what we failed to recognize as] a pivot point in the development cycle. It happened just as we finished the first pass of Fog Creek Copilot OneClick’s functionality, before any of the chrome was applied. The people around to give us feedback had a strong technical understanding of the product and the problem that it was solving. As a result, we spent a full week without serious first-time user feedback.

It is a distinct advantage, that QA analysts aren’t programmers (usually). It’s awesome that FC attracted a few that put themselves in the shoes of lead users in a way that is very hard once you are deeply involved in the architecture of the software. Without their feedback, we made decisions about features and interaction design, as well as assumptions about the readiness of the software for delivery to market, that were wrong.

We could have solved this problem without Alison (QA analyst extraordinaire) if we had recognized it. Steve Krug has a great methodology for dealing with this exact issue, through quick and cheap usability testing, but we didn’t think it was dangerous to delay the collection of feedback just a few days. Its not that we had to undo all of the decisions that were made in that intervening week, but some made it harder to incorporate the necessary changes that came out of Ali’s testing. Even hallway usability testing failed us, to some extent, because we had explained too much about the product and the process to our colleagues. Without credible non-tech-centric feedback, our blind spots grew, but our awareness of them receded. More importantly, we lost momentum because we started to feel like it was done even though we were only really at the halfway point, in terms of time.

The day Ali returned from vacation and started filing bugs, our productivity went right back up, our sense of urgency returned, and our blind spots started shrinking. 2 weeks later, we were cleaning the dust out of the corners and putting the final touches on the product. It’s comforting to know that this is a problem that can be hedged by proactively improving our process. Next time around, we will be sure to have either QA or user feedback built-in to the “initial pass complete” phase of our development cycle.

A soft touch

I hated going to the dentist. I have great strong teeth, have only had 2 cavities in my life, but I hated going to the dentist. Why?

Because the dentists I had seen before were almost universally nasty. Nasty and condescending. Every time I would go, despite having no cavities and brushing twice a day, I would get the shaking head and the sucking of teeth about my “dedication” to gum health. Or what about my “sincerity” in avoiding tooth decay?

Last week I went to a new dentist. A phone call to let them know I was running a few minutes late led me to the knowledge that there had been a snafu when my appointment was made, and I wouldn’t be able to get the cleaning I was expecting. I could, however, still see the doctor.  Grumpily, I made my way to the offices of The Family Dental Group. The office is nothing special from the outside, a little gloomy actually. I walked to the door ready to do battle (I hadn’t been to the dentist for nearly 4 years).

I announced myself to the receptionist, and a moment later, the hygienist walked out and announced that her next appointment had just canceled. She looked at me, asked if I was Jason, and proceeded to fend of the doctor saying that she would rather get me a cleaning today as opposed to having me wait over a month for the next appointment. One point for the hygienist.

The cleaning was a bit rough, but really not all that bad. The amazing thing was that throughout the 30 minute process she apologized and cooed over how much it probably hurt. Not once did she give me the sidelong threat of future pain that I was expecting if I didn’t resolve my “irresponsible” lack of office visits. She knew that I knew that had I made regular office visits this process would have been less onerous for BOTH of us. Her approach, however, was so far from what I expected that she actually got my attention. I cared what she had to say afterward when she handed me the toothbrush, floss, and gum stimulator and explained how to use the last as though I already knew but, “just in case I needed a reminder”. I have been following her instructions, and I have already made my next appointment. The doctor who filled my small cavity followed with much the same openly caring attitude.

The humanity of the service was unexpected. It was remarkable. Every other dentist, and their hygienists, that I had visited previously behaved in the same supercilious way. The Family Dental Group changed my perception. Just another example that going to the edges can change the game. The Family Dental Group isn’t the cheapest, it isn’t the closest to my home, but I don’t dread the idea of my next appointment. For that, I am willing to pay extra and travel further, and all they had to do differently was show genuine care for me (not just my teeth).

I can’t help but think, “how hard would it be to show a little extra concern for our customers?” We already treat our customers well, but I am taking this as a personal challenge. If everyone took a little extra time, showed a little more genuine care, I bet life would get a lot more pleasant in a hurry.

The trouble with nostalgia

I have been caught many times by the feeling that things used to be simpler, sweeter, or better. When enveloped by the warm blanket of memory, I recall all of those wonderful little details of the holidays with family, or the rampant productivity in the weeks prior to the launch of a new project. This feeling comes on most strongly when I am faced with a problem or frustration with something that seems all too similar.

The trouble starts with the remembering. The human mind has an incredible ability to fool itself into believing that it is recalling or observing with a very high level of detail. Your eyes are only high resolution at the very center. As a result, your brain has to splice together the images from your rapidly moving eyes into a single coherent, seemingly high resolution, image.

For fun, take a moment and look at one spot about 20 feet away from you. Concentrate on not moving your eyes, and think about how much of what you see is actually in focus. Very little.

If this is the input for our memories, how do we imagine that our memories can serve to help us recall what really happened? Even if you argue that there are all sorts of other sensory and emotional inputs that help to capture a more complete picture, think about your favorite birthday. Great, right? Think hard now; was it all great? Did you get annoyed because someone was 10 minutes late? Did your Mom get you a stupid gift? But, you also got a promotion, raise, and the coolest birthday present ever from your best friend. The emotional quotient for the day is a weighted sum. Not all of the events mattered in the same amount, and so the memory is like our vision experiment, very clear on a few details and everything else is pretty fuzzy.

Where this gets us in trouble is when you try to apply the wisdom of your nostalgic memory to your current problem.

The last time this went really well. What was different? Instead of this we had that. Instead of doing that we did this.

In my experience, success is usually not specifically repeatable. If it were, Microsoft would have major successes beside Office and Windows. They have been applying the specific strategies that they learned about what made those products successful over and over again with arguably limited success. In most cases, if things went well last time, you have already internalized the important parts of that success. The processes, work styles, tools, and attitudes that worked then are now just how you do business. It is so easy to make the mistake of thinking “If I could make right now more like back then, it would auto-magically make things better.” But, you probably have a new problem, and you almost certainly have an imperfect recollection of what made stuff so much better back then.

The solution? Treat your current problem like it is brand new.

Its scary to think of each problem as new because that means you don’t know the answer. But I find myself asking, so what? That only matters because I am afraid to fail. A little fear/uncertainty combined with a new problem are the perfect conditions for an innovation. If you try something new and fail, you have brand spankin’ new information about what didn’t work and a chance to understand the why of it. Not a bad worst-case scenario.

But the juice is worth the squeeze…

There are a lot of people completely cheesed off at Apple right now. Rejecting iPhone applications for seemingly undefinable reasons has been going on for a while, but the latest row is over the fact that some of those rejections have been accompanied by an NDA warning:

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS MESSAGE IS UNDER NON-DISCLOSURE

Developers and bloggers are up in arms, as they should be, over a system that is clearly designed to disenfranchise the folks who are the App Store’s heart; pumping the icky-green cash-colored blood through the veins of the feverish iPhone apps market.

But guess what? Some guy made a game the netted $250k dollars in a little over 2 months. Holy smokes! Another guy made a virtual coy pond, and I would guess that he has made around $100k. These are low-utility apps. They aren’t solving a real problem for every person that purchases them. This is impulse shopping at its best (you don’t even have to take out your wallet).

This isn’t an established market with lots of rational actors. Its the gold rush all over again, for buyers AND sellers. The rules as to what was acceptable were “bent” back then (read: broken; smashed to pieces), and they will bend now. Until more people are betting their livelihoods on the app store, most people in there now are hobbyists, the majority of developers will grumble a bunch and go right ahead and submit another entry into the free money giveaway that is being sponsored by Apple. If a few people get hurt in the process, well, prospecting is dangerous work.

A culture of creation

I was asked recently why it seemed as though 37Signals did nothing BUT create interesting products, and quickly at that. Interestingly, my answer came quickly and I suspect it is not far from the truth. 37Signals has made the act of creation a goal, and not just something that you do on the way to achieving your goal. The company is organized to encourage and support the creative process from its core. The company systematically gets out of the way of people being able to pursue an idea and encourages a high level of productivity in all sorts of unusual ways (4 day work week, everyone gets a company credit card, they pay for your hobbies). The result is new products/features released frequently, and a feedback loop that gives them the insight necessary to improve and create even newer products and features that solve customer problems.

With so many opportunities out there, it seems as though there are far too many companies taking the classic growth path.

    1. You create a winning product. HOLY CRAP that was hard! Pat yourself on the back.
    2. You listen to your users and slowly add all of the features that they request. People love it! If only you added a toaster oven, 1,000 more people would loooove it.
    3. You hire more people to support/develop the product
    4. You make it more and more mainstream. Change the color scheme! We hear that people like the Windows XP color theme; use that. My great Aunt that lives on a farm can use it now, phew!
    5. You rake in the dough as you watch your market share deteriorate in favor of competitors who are addressing specific market needs that you can’t address.

      The problem for most of the companies like this is that somewhere along the way, they forgot how to make a remarkable product. Think Napster, Yahoo, and a thousand other offerings that started off with fanfare, users at the edges, and quickly moved to the middle. They start “managing” and “maximizing” and avoiding the hard truth that they are slowly losing touch with the ability to identify and exploit a market need. This is the same point at which many of those organizations start to experience management challenges like turnover in key employees and lack of motivation.

      Copilot, as a service, has moved toward the middle. Copilot is still the easiest of any of the services to use, but what it does has been comoditized by a dozen years of technological development. The industry is crowded with huge competitors and everyone is doing the same thing. Feature creep is on the rise. Developers are being hired into the industry by the bucketful. If this product category isn’t already completely ordinary, it is about to be.

      So far, we have avoided the desire to keep adding features to “keep up” with our competitors at the cost of disenfranchising our customers who appreciate the simplicity of our offering. But what still makes it remarkable? The day pass pricing model combined with the ease of use make Copilot the best choice for ad-hoc remote support. But, what do we need to do to double the number of customers? More features? A New product? We’re working on that now, and you can track our progress here: Air Traffic - A blog about Fog Creek Copilot and running a company within a company.

      If you will “never catch up by being the same“, what can you do to jump ahead? Build a culture of creation. Realize that ideas come from unexpected sources at strange times, and be prepared to take small risks often to get concrete feedback on what works and, perhaps more importantly, what doesn’t.

      Here are a couple of the practical things that I am doing now to try to build a personal and collegial culture of creation:

      1. Create a todo list and use it. Software can help here, and I recommend Things. The todo list isn’t a single running list. It is a backlog, a list of next things, and a list of today’s things. Think digestible.
      2. Shorten projects and lengths of activities. Projects no longer than a few weeks (two to four); tasks no longer than a few hours. Think MOMENTUM.
      3. Raise individual accountability by feeding back progress of project participants through clear concise communication. Think Scrum.
      4. Release stuff often. Get it to customers. Even if you are worried that it isn’t perfect. If it solves a real problem, early adopters will help you make it better.

      I will let you know how it goes…

      UAC designed to annoy people: Microsoft misses the point

      While this isn’t wholly surprising, it was disappointing to have it confirmed. In a recent interview, David Cross, a program manager responsible for UAC made some seemingly tongue-in-cheek comments about the rationale behind UAC and its current impact on the average Vista user.

      The reason we put UAC into the platform was to annoy users. I’m serious…UAC is not a perfect security boundary, but it [has helped us] move from ‘zero click’ exploits to ‘one click’ defense, said Cross.

      Essentially, his position is that having a UAC prompt has made users aware of the dangers that they face in a connected world. In addition, those users have a better defense against exploits. This position was based, at least in part, on internal research that claimed that the vast majority of Vista users have UAC enabled and don’t receive prompts on a regular basis.

      I wonder how much actual in-home observation time was included in that research. It has been my experience that UAC leaves non-technical consumers, think about your Mom, in essentially the same position they were in before. A UAC prompt basically gives the user a choice between allowing or disallowing an action which they don’t completely understand and almost certainly believe is happing at their request. In my limited observations, most people click “Allow” without carefully reading the prompt. Same risk as before, just more inane clicking around. It is the usability equivalent of your car asking you if you would like the engine to burn several chemical compounds, that you certainly don’t recognize, as they might be harmful to your car.

      Mr. Cross would have us believe that the solution to Windows’ vulnerable code base is to force users to act as police for their computer’s activities. Isn’t this what software is supposed to be really good at? While I agree that there is no perfect solution yet, I think turning the human behind the keyboard into a filter for the “bad” things that are likely to happen on their computer sorely misses the mark. At the very least, more work on tightening down the core Windows code that is consistently exploited would be a good start.

      The Effects of Secondary Markets on Primary Innovation in MMOGs

      Over the past decade, the popularity of Massively Multiplayer Online Games (MMOGs) has led to an incredible amount of development by major game producers. With revenues in the billions of dollars each year, over $1.7B for Blizzard/Vivendi’s World of Warcraft alone (Boyer), this industry has grown to include hundreds of titles.  These numbers have game producers hurrying to figure out the best way to capitalize on this fast growing source of revenue. As with other high growth markets, secondary markets have developed to satisfy the needs of customers in the primary market that either can’t or won’t be met by primary market makers. Not surprisingly, a market this large, approximately $1B (Brightman), has attracted the attention of entrepreneurs looking for opportunities to support or supplement the primary activities in these markets with products and services that enhance the gamers’ experience.

      There are many different forms of secondary markets in the gaming world, some legitimate and legal, and others which have been deemed by game developers to be illegitimate, or even illegal. An example of legitimate secondary market is the host of gaming magazines and websites that offer strategies, content guides, and communities where gamers exchange ideas. An illegitimate market is generally defined as one where people exchange real world currency for characters (avatars), items, or in game currency in ways that violate the Terms of Service defined by the game developers. I will examine how the nature, and implicit goals of a game, affects its interactions with secondary markets. Further, I will argue that the “illegitimate” markets have had a direct impact on primary innovation, shaping current and future game design very quickly to account for these markets’ impact on the value of in-game assets.

      I will focus primarily on Vivendi’s The World of Warcraft (WoW) and use Linden Research’s Second Life (SL) as an example of a vastly different approach. In order to effectively explain the impact, and resulting strategies of the game developers, I will detail how value is created and measured in MMOGs , a brief history of secondary markets in MMOGs, their current revenue models and legal concerns, the vastly different responses from Vivendi and Linden Research, the role and impact of secondary markets on design innovations WoW and SL and , finally, my prediction of the impact these markets will have on future game development.

      Continue reading ‘The Effects of Secondary Markets on Primary Innovation in MMOGs’

      What happened to me in the last 6 months

      Well, shortly after my last post this happened:

       AMG I got hitched

      Yes, that is me, and yes I am that lucky [sic]. It was a lot of fun to have my friends and family around for this, and the location was really amazing. If you are at all interested, you can see more of the photos here. In addition, I am one semester through my Masters degree. My next series of posts will focus on some of the work that I have been doing for those classes, including a term paper that I wrote on the impact of secondary markets on massively multiplayer online games.