KlipBlog Posting re: "Marketers Explore Beyond the Browser"
On October 10, 2005 I posted an article entitled "Marketers Explore Beyond the Browser". My primary point was that marketers are again beginning to explore Innovative tactics such as delivering Branded Desktop Applications (BDAs) that are downloaded onto the user's desktop thus opening a new direct communication channel to the consumer beyond eMail and the the browser.
Allan Willie posted a response to my article on KlipBlog on October 25, 2005 entitled "Marketing Outside the Browser - ie: The Desktop". I have provided below a copy of his post along with the ensuing dialog between Allan and myself.
"Marketing Outside the Browser - ie: The Desktop", Allan Willie, October 25, 2005:
I’ve just read a blog posting by Ian Karnell at karnellKNOWLEDGE talking about how a decade after Pointcast broke the mold and opened a marketing channel to the desktop, marketers are now starting to take note.
The post goes on to describe a few current initiatives where companies have launched branded “desktop alert” apps (he calls them rich internet apps - RIA), where the user gets a pretty rich single purpose app, that reside in the user’s system tray.
Ian believes the trend will continue, and certainly based on the leads and projects we are currently working on, we echo this trend. So … the problem follows, as he aptly notes,
… that brands need to begin to prepare to wage war for real estate in the user’s icon tray and on the user’s desktop.
You bet. And it will be a major hurdle once users already have a few of these RIAs installed. Picture it, each app with their own look and feel, each with their own pop-up alerts, each launching on startup vying for attention … what a mess. And what’s worse is that most of these RIAs are over the top in and of themselves - such as having animated little desktop characters that bounce across your screen when new data arrives. Not really a smart move if you’re trying to build customer loyalty.
Although this targeted approach to putting little desktop apps does bring with it a certain focus and simplicity that can only benefit users, the larger context is missing. It’s like giving a user a browser that can only surf pages from a certain company. It might simplify the user experience, but at the same time, the value is incredibly limited and before long if a browser comes along that allows surfing to other sites of interest, without increasing the usability complexity, then the battle is quickly lost.
So, this is, in a nutshell one of our beliefs also. The single brand, single purpose (SBSP) RIA or desktop alert app will not last too long before the user realizes it:
a) has limited value on its own
b) takes up too much screen real estate and conflicts with other installed alerting applications
You see, although ahead of its time, Pointcast did actually get some things right. It did allow users to personalize their experience. And it did so without cluttering up the system tray, or adding new UI paradigms. But there were also many, many things they did wrong (that’s another topic).
Whenever we work with a client who is interested in publishing a Branded Desktop Alert app, one of the first things we do is to talk with them about “extended user value”. In addition to the value of their services on the desktop, what else is there demographic interested in? If they want to foster true customer loyalty, then need to give users freedom, not lock them in (I think there is a CSNY song about that …).
Winning users on the desktop will require simplicity and value. And yes, that can be packaged within a brand - just not locked within it.
That’s the difference.
My response to "Marketing Outside the Browser - ie: The Desktop" posted November 2, 2005:
Allan,
Thank you for visiting KarnellKNOWLEDGE and reading my article entitled “Marketers Explore Beyond the Browser”. I appreciate the perspective that you provided in your Blog posting, however I would like to address your primary thesis and respectfully offer a counterpoint.
You state that although branded desktop applications (BDAs) may benefit from their focus and simplicity, they have “limited value” as stand-alone applications because they limit the user experience and may over complicate usability. Your primary supposition is seemingly based on the premise that the BDA’s value is “quickly lost” because it misses the “larger context” (which I assume you mean the ability for users to personalize their experience with the specific content, features and functions that they value). You state that “you need to give users freedom, not lock them in.”
The challenge that I have with your theory is that it presupposes that user value is directly related to the user’s ability to personalize their experience. This simply is not true. User value must be defined more broadly, especially when discussing BDAs, to account for usefulness, usability and desirability.
- Usefulness addresses the function or utility the BDA provides to its user. What user problem is the BDA solving; what benefit does it provide?
- Usability addresses the ease with which the user is able to benefit from the BDA. How easy is it to operate the application and how low is its overall “pain of ownership”? A BDA with high usefulness can easily fail to be widely adopted because it may be too difficult to use. This is often a very common problem—especially with high-technology products that are loaded with too many features and personalization options.
- Desirability refers to the emotional connection that users often make with a BDA. Desirability explains why two BDAs can be nearly identical as measured by usefulness and usability, but because they are styled, branded, positioned and marketed differently they may get completely different acceptance in the marketplace.
These facets typically blend in the mind of the user. For example, if a BDA is hard to use the user will simply uninstall it. If, on the other hand, a BDA is deemed highly desirable, a user may gladly ignore deficiencies in its usefulness and usability.
Company’s that seek to deploy BDAs would be well served in investing in primary user research prior to deploying their applications to the marketplace. I would recommend engaging specialists that include ethnographers, user researchers, interaction designers and human-factors experts who are trained in understanding and defining the human-to-application relationship at all levels.
Regarding your comments that BDAs will take up too much screen real estate and conflict with other “installed alerting applications” I would offer my opinion that it is simply too soon to see how this will play out. Most BDAs that I have reviewed offer configuration options that allow users to manage how they interface with the application and how frequently they desire alerts. Yahoo! (http://www.konfabulator.com) has solved the desktop real estate problem for individuals who have downloaded their “widgets” by allowing users to configure a function key, that when struck, either displays or hides the “widgets” on a user’s desktop.
Allan's response posted November 3rd, 2005:
Hi Ian
Thanks for your thoughts. I actually subscribe to all of what you’ve said … At the core of our design philosophy is a user-centered approach; we evaluate efficiency, effectiveness and satisfaction of use. These are the fundamentals.
I don’t see these as being mutually exclusive to our vision. To give you an example, when we work with customers to deploy a branded desktop alert app, first and foremost, the application needs to address the needs of the target user (both utility and usability), but as you mentioned needs also to foster the appropriate emotive connection. Now, the user can stop right there, but if they want (and depending on the scenario), we can help them add additional data points to their BDA - like their local weather, stocks, email tracking etc … RSS feeds if the user is inclined.
It’s clear to me that you understand the human factors approach, and it’s value across every context is paramount. Our vision of granting the user access to additional valuable information needs to be applied appropriately, and within the context of their experience and original need.
Cheers!
Recent Comments