In many ways, the Web is still the wild west. This may never change, the low - almost zero - cost to enter the web breaks down many startup barriers that have existed in the past. While this is generally regarded as a good thing by those making a profit online, there is another change that is perhaps more dramatic: control is firmly in the hands of the consumer. Every bit of detailed information on your product, customer service, history, and business model is only a Google search away.
Web 2.0 is often an undefined, vague term, but for this discussion we will define it simply as the websites that embrace the power of the consumer, and empower them further. Web 2.0 is a good thing. Social networking is still getting it's legs, but once it's up and walking it will be great. No longer will you be grouped by race, age, and gender, but instead you will be grouped by interests. If Mr. Covey will let me say it, it's win-win.
Flickr and del.icio.us are held up as great 2.0 sites; this is fine for our purposes. They both (though the concept of tagging) create a social network of information (Flickr using photos, Del.icio.us using websites). They also show Web 2.0 Design: fun sites, highly interactive, a good deal of "discoverable" features, tag clouds, low graphic designs, neat ways to access the site, and sharing of everything. A perfect place for Tiggers to bounce... wait, I'm getting ahead of myself.
I'm nearly done reading "Waiting for Your Cat to Bark?" by Bryan Eisenberg, Jeffrey Eisenberg, and Lisa T. Davis. If you have any interest in marketing on the internet, you should be reading (or have read) this book. In the book, they layout the four "human operating systems" your website will encounter. Your site is trying to sell (even if everything is free, you are asking for someone's time), but you will only make that sale if the person reaches a level of trust to act. To reach this level of trust, they need information - delays in getting it cost you trust, and maybe the sale. The four human OS types are the four ways people will look to get that information.
(We are simplifying here, but it is an okay simplification. People may be a mix of OS types, or may move from one to another depending on mood and what they are looking for - but it's still okay to assume we are dealing with one of the following types because we are only interested in classifying the mental state of the consumer at the time of the transaction. What they did before, and what they do after, doesn't matter.)
Since the cat's out of the bag already, the first type is Tigger (Spontaneous). Tiggers want to know how you'll help them bounce (enjoy life). They look for quick answers, and like to play with things (customize). They like to play with others, sharing what they've found with others and seeing what others have found. Web 2.0 Design is exactly what Tigger wants.
Next we have Pooh (Humanistic). Poohs are concerned with feelings: yours, mine, and the world's. What are your values? What has the experience been like for others who engaged you in the past? Pooh wants to know who you are, your history and why you do what you do. Pooh gets along with everyone, so Web 2.0 Design may or may not affect Pooh, it's a push.
Eeyores (Methodical) we often overlook. Eeyore moves at a deliberate pace, knowing that only bad decisions come from rushing. Eeyore wants to know the fine print, the catch. What is the plan? Do you have a guarantee and proof? Details and specifications are required, fun and games are a distraction. Personal touches strike Eeyore as a game, and disorganization (or the appearance of) imply a poor choice. Web 2.0 design is a negative to Eeyore; an information toy that you must work around.
The last OS type is Rabbit (Competitive). Rabbits are looking for the best possible choice. Rabbit wants full control, and demands efficiency. What are your competitive advantages? How will you make me cutting edge, above the rest? Rabbits differ from Eeyores in that they don't need a guarantee of success, but need to know the probability of it. They accept a certain level of risk, so long as they feel it's a managed (by them) risk. It's well known that Tigger presents a great risk to Rabbit, and Web 2.0 Design can scare Rabbit off right at the start.
It's true the web has a very high Tigger count, with the others catching up. It's also true you may not need to target all four types (not too many Tigger-Accountants out there). It is important for you to understand what types you are interested in "selling" to, and making sure your site has something for each of them.
If you've read this far I want to say the point of this wasn't to outline a solid blueprint for internet marketing - for that read the book (this other one too). My goal here was to help you think in terms of the people using your site, who won't always be the same OS type as you. You're asking for money and/or time, so it's worth your time to make sure their visit is a pleasant one. Your reward will be more than a sale, it will be a repeat customer!
Posted By Mike On Monday, December 18, 2006
Filed under seo design developer web2.0 |
Comments (5)
archidraca
-
Monday, December 18, 2006
8:20:43 PM
They're bouncy, bouncy, bouncy, bouncy! Fun, fun, fun, fun, fun!!!
Gabriel.
-
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
6:05:41 PM
"delays in getting it cost you trust, and maybe the sale."
Delays like, oh, removing all the content from primary pages so users have to navigate to the deepest possible level in order to get any information? Hm...
Reminds me of a conversation I once heard. It went something like this.
Person 1, we'll call him "Blog Expert" says: "I hate it when people censor their posts so you have to go all the way to their article page to read something."
Person 2, we'll call him, oh... say... "Mike" replies: "Yeah, I hate that! My time's too valuable, and that'll just get you removed from my list of sites I visit."
Fun story! Climactic ending!
Mike
-
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
7:59:55 PM
That's an example that came to mind when reading the book.
To clarify, our expert was asking "what do you think of RSS feeds than don't send out the full article?" (These feeds make you visit the site to read more than a snippet of the article). My response was along the lines of "I have a few hundred RSS feeds I follow and don't have the time or desire to click each article to see what it's about. RSS feeds without the full article get deleted."
Gabriel.
-
Thursday, December 21, 2006
5:26:08 AM
Didn't realize your actual homepage shows the full post while your "Blogs" page only shows half a sentence.... So... Nevermind, I'll just use the homepage.
Mike
-
Thursday, December 21, 2006
1:21:34 PM
And see.. I thought you were making a useful relevant comment this time =p
