Case Study 3
Equity, Brand and User-Experience
1. The focus on brand and control of user experience are attempts to overcome the "complacency of the artifact." Creating new forms of interaction is a way to escape the push towards sameness.
Qualitative differentiation is one of the keys to tackling this complacency. By creating new and different forms of interaction design it is possible to create a user experience that forms a positive brand view and allows a product to stand out amongst the rest.
I think tag galaxy is a great example (http://taggalaxy.de/). As far as image searches go they're all pretty similar. Google images is okay but a little unpredictable, and there's sites like photobucket and flickr which have the images but aren't the easiest to navigate. Tag Galaxy on the other hand really sets itself apart. It is based off of flickr but contains an interactive element that sets it apart. You can search for a word and be presented with a sphere of images that you can explore and view all at once. You can see related words and explore the galaxy of images. It is a veer unique search engine and provides a excellent user experience.
2. I think this was made quite clear in the article BMW website gives 'best experience' . BMW's website was a stronger web experience because it included many things that customers were looking for such as lists of cars and test drive information. Ferrari's website did not include such information and so scored lower in customer experience.
Customers who visit BMW's website are going to be more likely to purchase a product in the end because of the good user experience. This helps substantiate the brand because a customer will remember the experience they had with the company and their view of the brand will be positive.
3. User-experience design is about consistently representing and delivering the brand values you have led your customers to expect in order to achieve a desired brand perception. Positive user experience has direct correlation to positive brand perception. And to achieve positive brand perception, a user must be able to link your brand values to your brand through effective interaction design.
For example, take FedEx (http://fedex.com/us/). FedEx's brand values are about delivering your mail and packages in a fast and efficient manner. Their website reflects this by putting everything you need right there on the main page. There is a tracking form to check the status of your packages, there is information about shipping, fees and store locations. Their website is efficient and fast, just like how we see their brand.
4. I think the obvious example here is Amazon. Customers were getting annoyed with having to enter their credit card information each time they bought something. Amazon listened to what customers wanted and provided an easy solution. Now you only have to enter your credit card information once and Amazon will remember it.
Another example that can be seen as either good or bad is Facebook. Facebook changes the layout and function of the site unusually frequently (at least three times in the last few years). The apparent reason behind the changes is that it is listening to what users want and responding by trying to make the site safer and easier to use. However, every time the site layout is changed there is an uproar from users who do not appreciate the change. They just got used to the new design and now everything is changing again. They like consistency and familiarity and to them nothing needed changing. It appears that Facebook is listening and responding to some of their users, but it is not listening to those who want things to stay the same.
5. “Brand represents the intellectual and emotional associations that people make with a company, product, or person. That is to say, brand is something that actually lies inside each of us.”
When a user experience is comfortable, intuitive, consistent and trustworthy, then the user will relate the emotions they get to the brand and they will form a positive view of the brand.
I'd like to compare Google to Yahoo in terms of a search engine.
Google's user experience is pretty flawless. You have your main search box as the main thing on the page while other parts of the site are listed neatly at the top left out of the way. Google is intuitive as anyone can use it, it is comfortable because of the clean design and simplicity of use, and it is consistent and trustworthy too. Customers want to be able to find what they are looking for, and Google provides them with the perfect tool.
The user experience in Yahoo's site is very different. The main page is littered with things like news, "my favorites", "trending now", ads, funny videos, and other such boxes. A user feels overwhelmed in the site and the ease of use is not apparent. Yahoo is trying to be too many things at once, and because of this the user experience suffers. And this negative user experience leads to a negative view of the brand.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Case Study 1
What is the Starbucks brand?
A brand is not a company’s logo, or the product it sells. It resides inside the customer’s brain, it is their gut feeling about the company. Customers see Starbucks as an authentic coffee experience, that conveys the artistry of espresso making. It is a place where they can gather and talk over a great cup of coffee, away from work and home. Starbucks welcomes people and rewards them for coming with a layout that allows for both fast service and quiet moments. These are the things that customers think of when they think of Starbucks. This is what the brand is to the consumers.
How did Starbucks build such a successful brand?
There were many factors that went into the creation of such a successful brand. The store location was important; Starbucks spent time choosing the ideal places in cities to set up their stores. Locations that had a desirable demographic and that were easily accessible. The stores were later designed to reflect one of the four coffee making procedures: growing, roasting, brewing and aroma. These involved certain lighting schemes, color combinations and specific furniture. The design of stores was important in the creation of the brand because how the customer sees the store depends on what they see in the store.
What is Starbucks DSI?
On their website, Starbucks mentions “Putting people before products.” I believe this is their DSI. They form good relationships with coffee farmers, they make connections with customers in the community, and they provide support for their employees. It is through these people that they are able to make and sell great coffee.
What role has design aesthetic played in the rise of Starbucks?
How would you characterize Starbucks’ positioning?
Starbuck’s positioning as a coffee seller is probably the highest possible. Their stores are everywhere, allowing for convenient access wherever you may be, especially with their drive-up service. There are a lot of other coffee shops out there who are attempting to rival Starbucks but none of them have come close. Starbuck’s move into supermarket products such as ice cream, canned drinks and their own coffee has taken them another step further, becoming the best of these supermarket products too.
How would you summarize their product and market development strategies?
It seems as if Starbuck’s product development reflects the needs and wants of their customers. They came out with compilation CDs due to customer requests. The artwork on their products also reflects the people in that particular city – with peach-shaped mugs in Atlanta and Statue of Liberty artwork in New York. Customers want cold drinks, tea drinks, low fat drinks, and Starbucks delivers. Not without proper market testing first though. Starbucks makes sure to test each new product first before rolling it out into the rest of their stores. This is important in making sure that most of the general public only gets the best of the best.
Why has Starbucks encountered difficulties in recent years?
There is a thought that maybe Starbucks is becoming too big for it’s own good. “Their level of saturation in some markets leaves community members feeling as though they have been invaded.” Howard Shultz himself says, "Stores no longer have the soul of the past and reflect a chain of stores vs. the warm feeling of a neighborhood store." Starbucks has run into a cost issue, where they are demanding a price that is no longer reasonable for something that isn’t “special” any longer. Most of the early Starbucks goers enjoyed spending a quiet time with their cup of coffee, now they are out numbered by the customers who want their coffee fast and easy. The introduction of many new products has led to longer waiting times, greater skill needed by baristas, and the loss of the “coffee purist” customers.
What recommendations would you make to Starbucks marketing executives to help them moving forward in terms of their use of design as brand?
I would say that Starbucks needs to make their stores special again. I like the idea of new designs reflecting the character of each store’s surrounding neighborhood. Though there may be an issue due to the vast number of stores, causing close stores to appear similar still. I believe they should try to return to their roots and concentrate their store designs on the coffee experience. Making a place that isn’t so overwhelming with products, but is inviting and comforting. They should stick with their current logo and outside store design as it has become recognizable and this has led to a lot of their success. However inside their design should be warm and inviting and speak to the kinds of people who come there. With stores in a busy city center reflecting the urban life and stores out in peaceful suburbs catering to the quieter lifestyle.
A brand is not a company’s logo, or the product it sells. It resides inside the customer’s brain, it is their gut feeling about the company. Customers see Starbucks as an authentic coffee experience, that conveys the artistry of espresso making. It is a place where they can gather and talk over a great cup of coffee, away from work and home. Starbucks welcomes people and rewards them for coming with a layout that allows for both fast service and quiet moments. These are the things that customers think of when they think of Starbucks. This is what the brand is to the consumers.
How did Starbucks build such a successful brand?
There were many factors that went into the creation of such a successful brand. The store location was important; Starbucks spent time choosing the ideal places in cities to set up their stores. Locations that had a desirable demographic and that were easily accessible. The stores were later designed to reflect one of the four coffee making procedures: growing, roasting, brewing and aroma. These involved certain lighting schemes, color combinations and specific furniture. The design of stores was important in the creation of the brand because how the customer sees the store depends on what they see in the store.
What is Starbucks DSI?
On their website, Starbucks mentions “Putting people before products.” I believe this is their DSI. They form good relationships with coffee farmers, they make connections with customers in the community, and they provide support for their employees. It is through these people that they are able to make and sell great coffee.
What role has design aesthetic played in the rise of Starbucks?
How would you characterize Starbucks’ positioning?
Starbuck’s positioning as a coffee seller is probably the highest possible. Their stores are everywhere, allowing for convenient access wherever you may be, especially with their drive-up service. There are a lot of other coffee shops out there who are attempting to rival Starbucks but none of them have come close. Starbuck’s move into supermarket products such as ice cream, canned drinks and their own coffee has taken them another step further, becoming the best of these supermarket products too.
How would you summarize their product and market development strategies?
It seems as if Starbuck’s product development reflects the needs and wants of their customers. They came out with compilation CDs due to customer requests. The artwork on their products also reflects the people in that particular city – with peach-shaped mugs in Atlanta and Statue of Liberty artwork in New York. Customers want cold drinks, tea drinks, low fat drinks, and Starbucks delivers. Not without proper market testing first though. Starbucks makes sure to test each new product first before rolling it out into the rest of their stores. This is important in making sure that most of the general public only gets the best of the best.
Why has Starbucks encountered difficulties in recent years?
There is a thought that maybe Starbucks is becoming too big for it’s own good. “Their level of saturation in some markets leaves community members feeling as though they have been invaded.” Howard Shultz himself says, "Stores no longer have the soul of the past and reflect a chain of stores vs. the warm feeling of a neighborhood store." Starbucks has run into a cost issue, where they are demanding a price that is no longer reasonable for something that isn’t “special” any longer. Most of the early Starbucks goers enjoyed spending a quiet time with their cup of coffee, now they are out numbered by the customers who want their coffee fast and easy. The introduction of many new products has led to longer waiting times, greater skill needed by baristas, and the loss of the “coffee purist” customers.
What recommendations would you make to Starbucks marketing executives to help them moving forward in terms of their use of design as brand?
I would say that Starbucks needs to make their stores special again. I like the idea of new designs reflecting the character of each store’s surrounding neighborhood. Though there may be an issue due to the vast number of stores, causing close stores to appear similar still. I believe they should try to return to their roots and concentrate their store designs on the coffee experience. Making a place that isn’t so overwhelming with products, but is inviting and comforting. They should stick with their current logo and outside store design as it has become recognizable and this has led to a lot of their success. However inside their design should be warm and inviting and speak to the kinds of people who come there. With stores in a busy city center reflecting the urban life and stores out in peaceful suburbs catering to the quieter lifestyle.
Critical Questions 03-09
For Readings: Phase 4, The Case for Brands, Truth in Advertising
Do customers pay more for a brand because it seems to represent a way of life or a set of ideas? Is that why people are drawn to Apple, because of the lifestyle associated with it? Do they see others using the products and see those people in a certain way? A way that peruades them to also want to buy the product? Is it really just about wanting to fit in in the world, to not feel like an outcast because you don’t have the phone that eveyone else has?
Can anti-brand activism really damage a large company? We’ve seen major companies subject to things like alleged sweatshop abuses and predatory business practices, but do these allegations actually hurt them, or are they too powerful to be fazed? Take Nike’s trouble with the sweatshops. The suggestion that this shoe company was involved in such actions led to many people believing it and losing their trust in Nike. But look at the company now… they are still as popular and productive as ever, as if nothing ever happened. Is it because of the size of the company and the power they already had that they managed to survive?
Do customers pay more for a brand because it seems to represent a way of life or a set of ideas? Is that why people are drawn to Apple, because of the lifestyle associated with it? Do they see others using the products and see those people in a certain way? A way that peruades them to also want to buy the product? Is it really just about wanting to fit in in the world, to not feel like an outcast because you don’t have the phone that eveyone else has?
Can anti-brand activism really damage a large company? We’ve seen major companies subject to things like alleged sweatshop abuses and predatory business practices, but do these allegations actually hurt them, or are they too powerful to be fazed? Take Nike’s trouble with the sweatshops. The suggestion that this shoe company was involved in such actions led to many people believing it and losing their trust in Nike. But look at the company now… they are still as popular and productive as ever, as if nothing ever happened. Is it because of the size of the company and the power they already had that they managed to survive?
Critical Questions 03-02
For Reading: Phase 1
Phase one talks about a language audit. In it, it says that “every organization aspires to conduct one, but very few accomplish it or go beyond base camp one.” Why is this? From the information presented in this section, it seems that this language audit is vey important. It mentions the aspects of educational value, navigational ease, customization and loyalty support. All are very important, so if a company is missing this step are they missing out on these aspects? Or are they also touches on in other forms of research?
This chapter also talks about aspects of quantitative research. It mentions how “researchers attempt to project the opinions of a relatively small number of people (the sample) to model the opinions of the entire population.” How easy is it to select the right people to sample to best represent the target market? Is it easy to find the people that you wish to have in your sample? Are they the kind of people who take surveys, or shun them away? How accurate does quantitative research end up being when you don’t have access to the right sample of people?
Phase one talks about a language audit. In it, it says that “every organization aspires to conduct one, but very few accomplish it or go beyond base camp one.” Why is this? From the information presented in this section, it seems that this language audit is vey important. It mentions the aspects of educational value, navigational ease, customization and loyalty support. All are very important, so if a company is missing this step are they missing out on these aspects? Or are they also touches on in other forms of research?
This chapter also talks about aspects of quantitative research. It mentions how “researchers attempt to project the opinions of a relatively small number of people (the sample) to model the opinions of the entire population.” How easy is it to select the right people to sample to best represent the target market? Is it easy to find the people that you wish to have in your sample? Are they the kind of people who take surveys, or shun them away? How accurate does quantitative research end up being when you don’t have access to the right sample of people?
Critical Questions 02-16
For Reading: Brand Forces
How has the consumer become an active participant in the brand building process? This chapter touches on the idea of social media, but I feel it does not delve very deeply into it. I recognize that brand conversations are no longer one way between brand and consumer but now go back and forth. Is social media the only cause of this or would branding have evolved into this without it? What forms of social media have helped make this change and where is it headed in the future?
This chapter also talk about certification. It says that “certification matters because we all want to be able to tell the difference between ‘good companies’ and just good marketing.” Does certification really matter? Does it say something about a company if they are able to rise to the top without attaching one of these certifications to their product? A certification seems like the easy way out. It seems as if the company can’t think of another way to persuade customers, so they just attach a logo to their product instead. Do we as consumers even recognize these certifications and can we tell real ones from fake ones?
How has the consumer become an active participant in the brand building process? This chapter touches on the idea of social media, but I feel it does not delve very deeply into it. I recognize that brand conversations are no longer one way between brand and consumer but now go back and forth. Is social media the only cause of this or would branding have evolved into this without it? What forms of social media have helped make this change and where is it headed in the future?
This chapter also talk about certification. It says that “certification matters because we all want to be able to tell the difference between ‘good companies’ and just good marketing.” Does certification really matter? Does it say something about a company if they are able to rise to the top without attaching one of these certifications to their product? A certification seems like the easy way out. It seems as if the company can’t think of another way to persuade customers, so they just attach a logo to their product instead. Do we as consumers even recognize these certifications and can we tell real ones from fake ones?
Critical Questions 02-09
For Readings: Brand Identity Elements, Phase 2, Phase 3
Phase 2 talks about naming. Is finding a name for a company today that can be legally protected really such a formidable challenge? I have always just been under the impression that a company just chooses a name that sounds good and that represents who they are. I did not realize that choice are limited and names must be judged against positioning goals, performance criteria and availability within a sector. How would a company even go about starting to choose a name if it is 80% political?
Phase 3 talks about typography. It suggests that “limiting the number of fonts that a company uses is cost-effective since licensing fonts is legally required.” Many companies use a few different fonts while others just use one. Is it better to invest in more fonts so that you play around with your designs more and not let your company feel repetitive and boring in the hopes that your company will become successful and the cost of the licenses will be covered by the increased earnings? Or is it safer to stick with one font to save money? Are there axamples of companies who only use one font and that are successful at it?
Phase 2 talks about naming. Is finding a name for a company today that can be legally protected really such a formidable challenge? I have always just been under the impression that a company just chooses a name that sounds good and that represents who they are. I did not realize that choice are limited and names must be judged against positioning goals, performance criteria and availability within a sector. How would a company even go about starting to choose a name if it is 80% political?
Phase 3 talks about typography. It suggests that “limiting the number of fonts that a company uses is cost-effective since licensing fonts is legally required.” Many companies use a few different fonts while others just use one. Is it better to invest in more fonts so that you play around with your designs more and not let your company feel repetitive and boring in the hopes that your company will become successful and the cost of the licenses will be covered by the increased earnings? Or is it safer to stick with one font to save money? Are there axamples of companies who only use one font and that are successful at it?
Critical Questions 02-02
For Readings: Brand Strategy, Brand Identity Ideals, Blank Look
In Blank Look, the featureless faces of the people in the NatWest bank commercial are said to be template people. “Generic men and women rather than distinct individuals.” They lack passion and appear as dummies. Is this method of leaving the characters blank so that the viewer may place themselves in that space effective? Are people really able to envision themselves carrying out the same actions as those in the commercial? The link between the graphic style here and the airoplane saftety instructions suggests that these are routine, sensible and necessary actions. If this connection is made will people be more likely to want to do it? Can a similarity be made with clothes store mannequins? They are usually blank so that we may envision ourselves wearing the clothes. If that works, will this work?
In the Brand Identity Ideals section of Designing Brand Identity, it talks of meaning and how “symbols engage intelligence, imagination, emotion, in a way that no other learning does.” Is this really true? Sure I can make some connections when I look at symbols; I can see the reference to the stars and stripes in Obama’s O, and I get the connection of Apple’s apple with education. But there are plenty that I don’t understand and that I’m sure most ordinary consumers don’t get either. I didn’t understand that Mercedes-Benz had a logo that symbolized domination of land sea and air, and I had no idea that the Nike swoosh represented a wing. How are symbols meant to engage intelligence and emotion when we don’t understand what they really mean?
In Blank Look, the featureless faces of the people in the NatWest bank commercial are said to be template people. “Generic men and women rather than distinct individuals.” They lack passion and appear as dummies. Is this method of leaving the characters blank so that the viewer may place themselves in that space effective? Are people really able to envision themselves carrying out the same actions as those in the commercial? The link between the graphic style here and the airoplane saftety instructions suggests that these are routine, sensible and necessary actions. If this connection is made will people be more likely to want to do it? Can a similarity be made with clothes store mannequins? They are usually blank so that we may envision ourselves wearing the clothes. If that works, will this work?
In the Brand Identity Ideals section of Designing Brand Identity, it talks of meaning and how “symbols engage intelligence, imagination, emotion, in a way that no other learning does.” Is this really true? Sure I can make some connections when I look at symbols; I can see the reference to the stars and stripes in Obama’s O, and I get the connection of Apple’s apple with education. But there are plenty that I don’t understand and that I’m sure most ordinary consumers don’t get either. I didn’t understand that Mercedes-Benz had a logo that symbolized domination of land sea and air, and I had no idea that the Nike swoosh represented a wing. How are symbols meant to engage intelligence and emotion when we don’t understand what they really mean?
Critical Questions 01-26
For Reading: Product Positioning
This reading mentions how consumers rank brands in their minds. They know who the number one brand is in their mind and do not care much for anything else. This makes it hard for the number two brand to stand out. It gives the example of the car-rental companies Avis (#2) and Hertz (#1). It states that the number two company must relate itself to the number one brand, and so Avis came up with the line “Avis is only No. 2 in rent-a-cars, so why go with us? We try harder.” Is this really effective? Do I really want to choose Avis over Hertz now? To me it is like they are admitting defeat to Hertz and agreeing that Hertz is indeed number one. I believe there are other strategies as discussed in the reading that Avis could have used to become more successful other than this.
Is repositioning the competition okay? And can comparative advertising be justified? To me it is a little below the belt, and possibly only a U.S. thing as I don’t recall seeing much of this in English commercials. The reading gives the example of Wise potato chips listing some of Pringle’s non-natural ingredients that sounded like harsh chemicals even though they were not. Sure they were able to gain market share because of this, but I think it says a lot about the company if that is their only tactic of making themselves look better. Personally, I am less likely to want to buy something I see in a commercial if they are making another product look bad just to make themselves look better.
This reading mentions how consumers rank brands in their minds. They know who the number one brand is in their mind and do not care much for anything else. This makes it hard for the number two brand to stand out. It gives the example of the car-rental companies Avis (#2) and Hertz (#1). It states that the number two company must relate itself to the number one brand, and so Avis came up with the line “Avis is only No. 2 in rent-a-cars, so why go with us? We try harder.” Is this really effective? Do I really want to choose Avis over Hertz now? To me it is like they are admitting defeat to Hertz and agreeing that Hertz is indeed number one. I believe there are other strategies as discussed in the reading that Avis could have used to become more successful other than this.
Is repositioning the competition okay? And can comparative advertising be justified? To me it is a little below the belt, and possibly only a U.S. thing as I don’t recall seeing much of this in English commercials. The reading gives the example of Wise potato chips listing some of Pringle’s non-natural ingredients that sounded like harsh chemicals even though they were not. Sure they were able to gain market share because of this, but I think it says a lot about the company if that is their only tactic of making themselves look better. Personally, I am less likely to want to buy something I see in a commercial if they are making another product look bad just to make themselves look better.
Critical Questions 01-21
For Readings: Design Is Advertising, Design In The Future,
Welcome To The Credibility Loop
For those of us who have grown up living ‘the advertised life’ it is becoming harder to imagine what the condition of no advertising would be like. We are so saturated with advertising that it has become part of our lives and we expect to be bombarded with advertising throughout our everyday lives. Can we really imagine ourselves in an advertising free world? Would it be for the better? ‘Design Is Advertising’ reminds us that there are television channels in other countries that do not show commercials. Two of these channels are in England, and when I go back and watch these channels it feels a little strange to not see a commercial every 15 minutes.
There is a lot of talk of ‘identity’ and how we are all individuals and have different needs. Ilkka Suppanen from the ‘Design in the Future’ reading states that “When I design a product, I want to think about the human being that is going to use it, instead of a target group or segment.” Is it really possible to design for one human being in particular and still have a successful product? If you are designing for the one person who wants his chair to have five legs, what about the rest of the population who want their chair to have four legs? Do you lose business or are you content with being able to give at least one person what they want?
Welcome To The Credibility Loop
For those of us who have grown up living ‘the advertised life’ it is becoming harder to imagine what the condition of no advertising would be like. We are so saturated with advertising that it has become part of our lives and we expect to be bombarded with advertising throughout our everyday lives. Can we really imagine ourselves in an advertising free world? Would it be for the better? ‘Design Is Advertising’ reminds us that there are television channels in other countries that do not show commercials. Two of these channels are in England, and when I go back and watch these channels it feels a little strange to not see a commercial every 15 minutes.
There is a lot of talk of ‘identity’ and how we are all individuals and have different needs. Ilkka Suppanen from the ‘Design in the Future’ reading states that “When I design a product, I want to think about the human being that is going to use it, instead of a target group or segment.” Is it really possible to design for one human being in particular and still have a successful product? If you are designing for the one person who wants his chair to have five legs, what about the rest of the population who want their chair to have four legs? Do you lose business or are you content with being able to give at least one person what they want?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
