47 replies to this topic

[cre8pc]

The Eisenberg's new book, "Waiting for Your Cat to Bark?", follows me around the house. It started in the office, but since I'm writing a review of the book, I figured I could read it by the pool. It's such a great book that it follows me where ever I go now. It may go to a few baseball games...

Every page of their new book has food for thought, written in easy to understand language. I'm not a marketer, but I do find online buyer behavior fascinating. The same thing with search behavior. What really gets me going is what happens after all the effort is put into getting someone to a website, and the action or inaction that occurs next.

Did they leave the site? Why?

Did they browse the site? Why?

Did they buy something while there? Why?

You likely wonder the same kinds of things.

But, did you ever play around with the questions? Like,

Why didn't they leave the site? What did I do correctly? Was it something I did, or something I said, or something I sell or something else that made them love something?

If you know what that great thing is, you want to keep doing it.

Here's another one. You track your traffic. You may know how many stayed around long enough to do something you wanted them to do. However, how many of them were *satisfied*? We don't often think about their emotional or mental well being.

What struck me most, as I'm reading, is the reminder that people come to our web sites because they have volunteered to do so. Even if you did something to drive them there, they still came of their own free will. They have agreed to see what you do. Now what?

Do you have a site that's relevant?

Does it deliver what the landing page in the search engine said it would?

Can they relate to you, your company, your experience, your offer?

The book points out that just because they agreed to come, doesn't mean they agreed to buy anything. Or do anything, for that matter.

I think this is an amazing way of thinking about sites. SEO/M's are so focused on links, rank and indexing. Do they care about the site visitor satisfaction angle? Does a site owner have a self rightous view of their site, leaving out the possibility that they are always one click away from a big fat zero?

The book really delves into this hidden underbelly of web site marketing. I love it. It's challenging. It's going way beyond conversions and asking, why didn't they come back?

Do you think like that?

Buy Waiting For Your Cat to Bark (No, this is not an affiliate link.)

[DCrx]

I've been reading A Day in the Life of a Persuasion Architect. There is a close relationship to much of the research I've seen elsewhere. Most websites are designed around the "quick path."

It's fairly easy to sell online to folks who know exactly what they want. They're eventually able to find what they're looking for and seem willing to stumble over a road block or two to complete the deal. Word is these visitors convert well.
-- Are You Ignoring Eager Customers?

These "quick path" websites aren't designed for shopping, they are built around the transaction at the end. And that's where usability comes in, which gets the site out of the user's way. Persuasion is a different animal. Motivation is different from persuasion. These are both within the power of content design to provide.

I've rarely seen online content take up the task and Forrester Research seems to be on my side. (Small consolation).

Edited by DCrx, 24 June 2006 - 06:34 AM.

[cre8pc]

And, judging from the lack of interest in the topic, I'd say there's a LONG way to go in getting the message out.

I see it constantly in my work, and the sites in the Website Hospital here. There's a noticable disconnect between the pages and the visitor experience.

Findability, persuasion architecture, momentum, etc. are all fascinating to explore, and then find ways to translate what needs to be done into web site design.

The Eisenbergs are of the few out there writing about this stuff, and they put it in easy to understand language, with examples.

We need more education and studies showing how to implement tactics that persuade and excite people to take action. I still can't get over my eureka moment when the Eisenberg's trained my brain to get the fact that our Internet visitors have agreed to visit our web sites, and its what we do once they get there that's so critical. In some cases, that agreement occurred at the search engine stage, but there are other ways too.

The relationship between marketing and followup is where sites tend to break down.

[bragadocchio]

And, judging from the lack of interest in the topic, I'd say there's a LONG way to go in getting the message out.

I'm not sure that there's a lack of interest in the topic. It's just hard to post in response to a topic that introduces a book, and talks about some of the issues raised in the book itself.

Great example from one of the conference sessions that I saw Bryan speak at.

A site that sold DVDs had a search box on it at the top of the page - easy to see, and easy to use. It was the fifth most visited page on the site, which was a fairly large one. The search box was being used maybe 5 - 10 times a day, in spite of thousands of people seeing the page everyday.

The site sold DVDs of all types, but next to the search box was a graphic that let people know that they site sold DVDs for children. The graphic was changed, to let people know that they sold a wide variety of DVDs, and searches from the search box changed to thousands of searches daily.

One tiny tweak made a huge difference.

Optimizing a page for conversions can involve looking at every aspect of a site, and asking whether or not each element, and it's placement, are helping and hurting. It can be worth doing though - very much so.

[bwelford]

I think it's part of the general disconnect between what I see and what you see. If you're taking it easy, you assume that you see what everyone else sees. That links in with assuming that you hear what I said. Sometimes it doesn't matter very much. Sometimes the other will say, "Wait a minute, I don't get what you're talking about." I would guess that the percentage of times that someone gets precisely what you're communicating is very low, say 1%. Perhaps another 9% get enough that they know what you're talking about.

Now if you're chatting with your mates at the pub, then it doesn't matter. Indeed most of the best discussion may arise when you miscommunicate.

However if we're talking businesses and we're working hard to get the best bang for the buck, then this difference between what I'm beaming out and what you perceive is critical.

Eventually it gets to the whole subject of product-driven versus customer-centric companies. Hello, Google, ... is anyone listening?

[cre8pc]

Yeah, the book is hard to write about because every single page is loaded with information. For a small book, it's a gem.

Another thing they mentioned that stood out was how we often ask, "What did they buy?" and then base design changes and tweaks based on this data. However, asking "Why didn't they buy?" adds more depth and is more of a challenge. The DVD example is one that shows that.

There are several chapters devoted to personas, and how they create and implement them. They have their own system.

Another good guideline is this one, from their book. And that is, "Think of a click as the question and the destination as the answer. This fits in well with Jared Spool's "scent of information".

[dgeary9]

<laughing>The Eisenberg questions are squarely at the center of what most experienced web analytics pros concentrate on, it's hard to remember not everyone thinks this way!!

I can't count how many folks I have talked to, ask how their website is doing, and all they can tell me is how many people arrive and how many people buy. It's harder (but much, much more fun) to quantify - were they happy, frustrated, interested? Did their interest increase or decrease as they browsed? Which visitors got more frustrated, which ones got more interested?

[cre8pc]

Interested is not such a small thing either.

I'm testing a site today that is targeted to teens and their parents/teachers. They are supposedly well known in some target markets, but I had never heard of them. So, since my teen is at home (summer break and jobless), I asked if she'd heard of it.

No. (In the high pitched way they answer, as if to say, "Why are you asking me a dumb question mom?)

So, I have her glance at it, to see if there is any reaction, such as interest.

She got mad at me.

Never mention website, kids, parents and teachers in the same sentence to a teenager.

Could possibly explain why the owners say that after age 15, interest drops.

Back to the question, then. Why are they not coming?

[dgeary9]

ROFL Kim - I don't think teens were ever meant to be a focus group, especially conducted by mom ...

I think the first question is, why does your client assume they are well known? And why is 15 the magic age of dropping interest? (Now that's a fascinating tidbit of information...)

[DCrx]

Back to the question, then. Why are they not coming?

Without some information, it's more an exercise than fruitful answer. It is possible you already put your finger on the answer....

Never mention website, kids, parents and teachers in the same sentence to a teenager.

Targeting adults automatically makes the site lose its appeal for teens. Myspace has been "found out," so migration is to next-new-things like Bebo.

It is going to take an entirely different kind of site to straddle segments.

[dpam]

Hi everyone. Great to see this thread, as like you I'm totally captivated by the book. I wrote a full review a week or so ago (http://blogs.commerc..._to_bark_r.html) and am posting thoughts chapter by chapter now. But look forward to adding to this thread as well.

In terms of the first question in this thread, about the realization that visitors are volunteers, I made the point in my post yesterday that a great way to think about your site is as if you're Bill Murray in Groundhog's Day and trying to make it through the night with Andie MacDowell - every day they come and you get to try and get them one step closer to completion.

Using the persuasive techniques in the book certainly can shorten the process, but it also requires great analytics and the ability to watch and learn from users behaviour. Most sites have at least a fair amount of traffic, yet let these prospects fail in the same ways day after day after day.

In my comments on Chapter 4 I proposed a new rule for dealing with site design decisions - 'what would the customer do?' Historically site design (and content) decisions have been made to satisfy the marketer's view of how they should present themselves. Recently some people have decided to make decisions to please the Algo's above all else. I think WFYCTB challenges us to make these decisions as if we're trying to please only the visitor - which we should be!

As Kim mentioned, the book has too many important concepts and provokes too many thoughts for one post, but I look forward to discussing them here.

[Ruud]

And, judging from the lack of interest in the topic, I'd say there's a LONG way to go in getting the message out.

I think it is not a lack of interest. It's a lack of knowledge how to do this whole "thing". HTML, CSS, PHP, SEO, even marketing is more concrete, seems more accessible. But which program do I download to do this "thing"? Is it a "make it up as you go along" type of thing? If so, how is that different from "just" me seeing the website just as I would experience it?

Example:

However, how many of them were *satisfied*? We don't often think about their emotional or mental well being.

So how do we do that? And with "we" I mean; us little guys. Even if we had the money to have a focus group study, we know those are 10% truth, 90% well indented lies. People say one thing and then the eyelabs show they do another. People might not want to offend and prefer to say "I hope it was as good for you as it was for me" when in fact they're having a mental puke moment.

Thinking out loud ... I could do a simple 1 question, scale of 5 answer quiz. Present it to every 5th visitor or so. Immediate thought: Ruud, you virtually always click on the "No thanks - continue browsing" link... And if I still were to got with the idea, how best to present it? An interstellar or a popup?

I see some sites with this little [+] sign in the corner. They collect feedback all the time. Rate this site.

What am I measuring then? Aren't the people who take time to answer my questions more likely to be the ones who want to help out, are eager to please? Does that skew my research (too much)?

If my sites sells items I could (e)mail people. Doing research under the buyers leave out all non-buyers, the bouncers...

On a content site I can have a "rate this article" but what is it they rate? Primarily the content. And if I would ask people "Did you feel satisfied by this site" after they just read one of the saddest stories around -- what would they really be answering to?

So right now most of us are exposed to the message of what it is, how that is so, how it could be done -- but the steps in between to go from your me-centric site to an us-centric site ... that remains somewhat of a mystery.

[cre8pc]

Craig,

Thank you for joining in this discussion. Your blog coverage of the book is exceptional, to say the least. It's further validation at how amazing the book is. I was blown away with Call to Action, but this new book has more packed into it, and yet is written in a language that I think more people will understand, so they can apply the practices and understand the logic.

Analogies like the Bill Murray one help a lot too!

I have much to present to the client, whose site I'm working on. I had more fun watching my teenager use it, in a very informal user test. I wanted her first impressions, especially since she's very comfortable with the 'Net and kid oriented sites. The feedback from kids is precious. Easy to understand terms like "boring" and "dumb" are not what adults often say I assigned her a task and watched her try to do it. She understood what certain terms meant, that I think some adult users might not understand.

The site has many "Bill Murray's" to focus on. I see this often, where a company has large demographics that can be related, but have clearly different needs for the site. Like employement sites (for seekers and recruiters), or education (students, parents, teachers), and even ecommerce, (young persons merchandise but parents have the credit card).

[cre8pc]

I think it is not a lack of interest. It's a lack of knowledge how to do this whole "thing".

Indeed! And I knew that. To provoke an emotional reaction, I pushed a button with my remark (which if anyone knows me, seems a bit out of character).

This is related to the discussion of persuasion. The comment I made got you and Bill charged up. However, it could end right here unless there's momentum. There has to be answers to the questions you've asked, or at minimum, the hope that some will come.

The Eisenberg's have made this whole thing fascinating and in the book, there are examples of how they solved such problems. I don't expect everyone can hire out for user persona development though. But, if we can introduce some new thinking, we are helping web follks to think outside their box...to design to satisfy.

Here's one idea, from the book:

The secret to creating personas is creating "real" people with whom everyone involved with managing your persuasive system can emphasize. Empathy is the ultimate value of a persona, from which all else flows.

Granted, persona creation is a detailed operation. But, imagine how much better it would be if everyone on the team truly emphasized with the people they are building a site for? If they understand what those people want and need, why they come and leave sites, what satisfies them beyond immediate gratification?
We get few chances sometimes. (Think of the movie, "What Women Want" and Mel Gibson trying on lipstick, waxing his legs and wearing pantyhose, to understand his target market.)

There are different types of people and characteristics. I use the "Methodical" person the most in my work. They are detail oriented, want to know how things work before they use it, they want proof of credibility, they're price conscious, read product specs, etc.

By studying behavior and habits, design choices can be applied that make logical sense, rather than shooting darts at the wall.

[Ron Carnell]

I'm afraid I'm with Ruud on this one.

Anyone else here gone through a divorce? Been completely surprised when an important relationship failed? Had their teen answer a question in a high pitched way, as if to say, "Why are you asking me a dumb question, Mom?"

Satisfying people isn't such an easy thing, I think. Of course, that certainly doesn't mean we shouldn't try, and I will always welcome anything that helps. I just don't hold out a lot of hope for major success. At some point, whether it's a visitor to my web sites or a potential wife, it's more productive to find someone who likes me as me than to try to change to what I "think" they want. I still want to change the things that make me a better person (or result in a better web site), but I need to make those changes for ME, not for someone else. Shoot, even then, most of the time I can quite articulate what I want; trying to pin down what everyone else wants from me just too exhausting to contemplate.

[cre8pc]

Ah. As in, don't get married thinking you can change the person

The sub-title of the book is "Persuading customers when they ignore marketing".

I feel a pre-nup analogy coming on....heh

[Ruud]

This is related to the discussion of persuasion. The comment I made got you and Bill charged up. However, it could end right here unless there's momentum. There has to be answers to the questions you've asked, or at minimum, the hope that some will come.

Yes. Link bait. Post bait. Bait. "Ten 10 minutes steps to financial freedom", "Learn PHP in 21 days", "Instant web site creator" - those kind of promises.

So then you need to deliver. Or in case of some of the titles mentioned above, create the illusion of delivery.

The marketing angle I get. The sales angle I get. The wed design thing... that's something else.

I agree that creating one or more persona, even rudimentary ones, and walking through your site "as if" is a very, very helpful tool. A writer can connect with the idea that these persona will start to act by themselves and will limit what they can and cannot do.

So, here's Hank. Hank is 42 and lives with his mother. He is not so popular but halfway fools himself into thinking he is. He ignores negative remarks. Hank spends a lot of time on the Internet and is an expert among Internet newbies.

When Hank wants to learn how to get more numbers on his visitor counter on his free web host page (he has a real domain name that comes free with an iframe...) he lands at Cre8asite Forums.

Used to full, commercially loaded pages (Hank is very familiar with networks such as MSN's) he finds the page very empty, non-tempting, not engaging. Used to "text bites" scattered around a page, decorated with photos, his normal scanning pattern fails. He clicks on the first link in his main view, scans the community-members centered intro and double-back clicks to Google...

Hank is not happy, not impressed.

So? I could also make Persistant Edna who digs deeper and finds true gold. Or Slow Juan upon whom it dawns. Or ....

So, doing this and much, much more Coca Cola created New Coke. The "down the drain" product.

What is important, or more important, is true users. How do we get to that data? And what do I do with it? What does it all mean?

I install a free heatmap tool on my page (great tip: PageHeat "eye tracking" for the poor). I wait two weeks and look. Now what? Look at the demo at that site: the heat follows the page design... Erm... OK, so I am trying to learn about my design by tracking what people do/see ... but what they see and do is largly my design.

Example: I see all the heat is on my searchbox. Wow! Cool! I put an ad there. Two weeks later, no results; the heatmap shows that now people are looking elsewhere the most. Where? At my searchbox.

... dang ...

I learn from reading online research that people want to know where they are in a registration process. I chop up my one page 20 fields form into 4 x 5. Add a nice clear indication: 1/4. Will abandonment go up or down? Hank is happy with the nice progress indicator graphic and buys but Persistant Edna is bugged because she rather chomped through those 20 fields all at once. Hmmm....

So poor folks, the one-owner ecommerce sites, have just two solutions to get to this stuff.

One; read online research and hope it somehow applies to you.

Two; always think of things you can change, improve or try and run A/B tests for the rest of your life.

If human visitors would have a DOCTYPE it would be one that triggers quirks mode

[dpam]

I think it is not a lack of interest. It's a lack of knowledge how to do this whole "thing". HTML, CSS, PHP, SEO, even marketing is more concrete, seems more accessible. But which program do I download to do this "thing"? Is it a "make it up as you go along" type of thing? If so, how is that different from "just" me seeing the website just as I would experience it?

Rudd: Great question. Several of them actually. Let's me try to answer them, in reverse.

How is that different from "just" me seeing the website just as I would experience it?

It's different because the exercise is to find out/guess/ask who are the people who are visiting the site and then flesh out their backgrounds, desires, psychological makeup, etc. Simply the premise that there are four behaviour modes (methodical, spontaneous, humanistic, and competitive) adds all types of clarity towards the type and sequence of information a site needs to provide.

Is it a "make it up as you go along" type of thing?

No, and that's the gift the Eisenberg's have given. They've 'made it up' and turned it into a process and at least large documented it in a $20 book. Said another way, it's a process - you follow it. It's actually very specific and detailed.

HTML, CSS, PHP, SEO, even marketing is more concrete

I'm with you on the first four anyway! I think the way to -start- employing or deploying the ideas of Persuasion is to simply take the idea (from Chapter 6, which I just blogged tonight) that the goal of the site is not to sell, but to help them buy. Think about what specific thought might be in the mind of a visitor and then look at a page and decide if anything on that page specifically addresses that desire, and then determine if it's clear and prominent enough.

When talking to ecommerce type sites about this, I often use this example - someone coming to buy a gift vs someone who is a subject-matter-expert who is coming to purchase for themselves. Imagine the difference in those two heads when they hit your home page (or any page). The most appropriate thing for one is very different than the most appropriate for the other. Yet most pages have these two plus several other unique flavors arriving. They all need different things - yet today in most cases NONE of them are getting exactly what they need. The process of Persuasion aims to correct that.

As the book says (at the end) it ain't easy. I'm often reminded of what Steve Martin said when hosting the Academy Awards, after Haley Berry and some model-looking-guy left the stage. He said "I'd do anything to look like that - except diet and exercise". Sometimes the path is clear yet somehow it's still hard to muster the will or stamina. PA is a lot harder than the alternative. But the alternative is (generally) crappy sites. Over time I bet the concepts if not the literal process of PA becomes commonplace.

Hope that makes it a little clearer.

[Ruud]

That's a really helpful post, Craig. Thanks for taking that time. It's not yet at the "aha!" point but it nudges something in me... This is going to be one of those 2 steps forward, 1 step back learning processes...

the goal of the site is not to sell, but to help them buy.

See, that clicks something. I'm a bit afraid though that what it mostly dislodges is marketing ideas

They all need different things - yet today in most cases NONE of them are getting exactly what they need. The process of Persuasion aims to correct that.

OK, I'm actually 2 steps back now And yes, feel free at any time to tell me to just read the book

First, a site can't be everything to everyone. It's why so many major brands have several sites for several products and audiences, no?

At best the site can be unobtrusive so the marketing can take its course and, using a combination of landing page and conversions paths, do its work for distinctly different audiences.

Second, isn't persuasion already an inherent attribute of marketing?

Finally (this would be point 3 or step back #3 .. if I continue at this speed I'll be 14 years old by the end of this post...), how exactly does this apply to a web site? Maybe Kim's post has put me on the wrong track and we're not even really talking about sites here...

One of two, even both, might work; a walk through of a site as I attempted in my previous post -- or an example of what is really good persuasion and how it is different from "regular" marketing.

ps: I'm ordering this book ... you persuaded me

Edited by Ruud, 26 June 2006 - 11:23 PM.

[bragadocchio]

I think the way to -start- employing or deploying the ideas of Persuasion is to simply take the idea (from Chapter 6, which I just blogged tonight) that the goal of the site is not to sell, but to help them buy.

That's something I came away with from a class on equity law in a class I took with one of Delaware's vice chancellors. A lawyer's job isn't to present an argument, and the "adversarial" legal system that we might think exists isn't really an adversial system. It isn't the person with the best argument that wins a legal case - but rather the one that is more persuasive. How can you be more persuasive?

By making it easy for your listener to be responsive to what you are saying or writing. In a legal situation, that may mean to present the problem, and provide an informed solution. Make it easy for the judge to respond positively to what you are asking for.

When you sell a product or a service, how does it help the person visiting your site? What benefits does it provide them? How much should they trust you? How do you eliminate concerns about shipping, security, privacy, returning products that are the wrong ones, other ways to solve the problem they have or the need they might want fulfilled, or what others might say about the service or product? What information do you provide them to make the decision to do business with you an easy decision? How do you present that information?