innovation

YouTube Started As A Dating Site

July 25, 2019 Design Technology

When I read this for the first time I cringed. It sounded unnatural that YouTube, the world’s largest online video streaming company with over a billion users each month, was conceived as an online video dating site! So here’s some back story. In March 2016 at the SXSW festival, YouTube co-founder Steve Chen revealed the actual predicament surrounding the launch of their streaming service in 2005. He said…

“We always thought there was something with video there, but what would be the actual practical application? We thought dating would be the obvious choice.”

Source

From Video Dating To Video Sharing

YouTube - Mobile

YouTube was conceived in 2005 by Chad Hurley, Steve Chen, and Jawed Karim in 2005 while working for PayPal. The entrepreneurs initially found a market in matchmaking through video, even taking out ads on Craigslist in Las Vegas and Los Angeles in which they offered to pay women $20 to upload videos of themselves to the site. No one took the offer seriously. It didn’t matter to the founders, because by then, users had begun uploading all sorts of videos from dogs to their vacations and they began pondering over a fundamental question “why not let users define what YouTube is all about?” so they completely revamped their website, making it more open and general. By 2006, YouTube was already the fastest growing website on the Internet hosting more than 65,000 videos. Then on October 9, 2006, Google dropped a bomb by announcing they were acquiring YouTube for US$1.65 billion in stock. It was the second-largest acquisition for the search giant at the time.

Co-Design And User Innovation

Although it might seem like a case of ‘serendipity’ in the first instance with YouTube going from a video dating site to a video sharing one, here’s why I believe it was really a case of oversight. The founders formerly developed a vision to devise a product or service using online video streaming tech as a platform for matchmaking, but in that their vision of connecting with the users was grossly miscalculated because users just weren’t looking at video as a dating tool. Their initial concept could have been refined if they’d involved users in the conceptual stages of design iteration. The involvement of users early on provides the creators with an advantage at mobilising resources towards a focussed area of user’s concerns prior to the launch, although their open-mindedness did save them the day. As opposed to co-design or the user-centred model, it seems like YouTube followed a Linear Innovation Model consisting of research and development of product or service, which is then marketed and sent out to the users.

Speaking of which, co-design or the user innovation process is the act of designing concepts with the users (co-design is often referred to as participatory design by the design community) involving the intermediate users or direct consumers.

In other words, it’s not enough to involve engineers, designers, managers and other project owners into the creative process rather they need to be active co-designers in channelising energies into building actionable plans and implementing prototypes. That’s the way forward to meet some of the biggest challenges we face as humankind.

The innovation process comes with ambiguity and it’s often derailed due to several reasons, notwithstanding management oversight (like in the case of YouTube), misconceived notions about product utilization by end-users and last but not the least, being blinded by or trying to resolve the problems and challenges from a single spectrum thought process. In that, YouTube was created on the basic idea of connecting people through video streaming at cheaper rates but then it ultimately led to overlooking the users’ latent needs, a basic ingredient at shaping customers’ experience.

It’s quite likely, in a participatory design method, and by involving all the stakeholders of the soon-to-be-launching service the founders could have discovered to their surprise that instead of recorded videos users preferred to date using other discreet tools wherein their identities aren’t compromised or misjudged in the first impression. It’s dating after all. Lastly, the participatory design process should not be mistaken for crowdsourcing in which groups of interested parties contribute to the creation of ideas in an open forum, such as the Internet, in achieving a cumulative result. Imagine how different our world would be if end-users were involved as co-designers in every project, end-to-end, not just as research subjects but as an important aspect with any product or service design business. That’d be the true essence of any user-centred design methodology.

Apple Products

Here’s Why Apple’s A ‘Design-First’ Company

June 23, 2019 Design Technology

It won’t come as a surprise for a generic world-class electronics company to squirm at the mere motion of discontinuing any present-day technology that is evidently in rampant use with its current user-base, including peripherals or hardware systems. Imagine the plight of several million loyal customers when they hear how their favourite features and functions have been impertinently withdrawn with immediate effect from the brand’s high-end product line. But of course, we aren’t talking about Apple.

Here’s what everybody, including most designers, gets it completely wrong about Apple whenever the discussion surrounding its deeply intricate ‘design philosophy’ happens. There will be an unequivocal and optimistic pronouncement that Apple’s success is due to its “user-first” mindset. It’s not and it never was. On the contrary, Apple’s innovation strategy is ingrained in making its products future-proof by pursuing a ‘design-first’ framework in a valiant effort to promote and invest in technologies, which in Steve Jobs’ prophetic words, are having an upwards swing. That pursuit of integrating innovative technology is partly the reason why some of their design decisions seem impractical and in complete contradiction to current technical norms. The unpopular decision behind the removal of the headphone jacks from the iPhone 7, for instance, was necessary to make the device thinner and add space for larger batteries in a world that is hankering for more juice. That single design change has virtually turned the tide towards wireless Bluetooth headset manufacturers and prompted iPhone buyers to shop for them (read, ‘AirPods’) and has sparked a wave of innovation in the industry.

[…]Apple is a company that doesn’t have the resources that everyone else has. We choose what tech horses to ride, we look for tech that has a future and is headed up. Different pieces of tech go in cycles… they have their springs, and summers and autumns, and…then they go to their graveyard of technology. And..so we try to pick things that are in their ‘springs’ and if you choose wisely you can save yourself enormous amount of work versus trying to do everything, and you can really put energy into making those new emerging technologies be great on your platform rather than just ‘ok’ because you’re spreading yourself too thin. […] So we have got rid of things..we were one of the first to get rid of the optical drives with the MacBook Air, and I think things are moving in that direction as well. And sometimes when we get rid of things like the floppy disk drive on the original iMac people call us crazy. But sometimes you just have to pick the things that look like they’re gonna be the right horses to ride going forward.

Steve Jobs – D8 conference, 2010.

So, where modern PC brands were feverishly banking on the ubiquitous USB Type-A on the basis of its adoption rate and the competition Apple boldly moved forward to replace them with USB type-Cs on their Mac devices. It’s a debate for another day that Apple’s ‘design-first’ decision on the 2015 MacBook also prompted an extravagant usage of physical adapters to attach almost any 3rd-party Type-A peripheral on almost every major device launch.

Continue reading…

Defining Memorable Customer Experiences

May 7, 2019 Happenings

I can think of no other way to empathise with customer behaviour and interpret their concerns & needs other than stepping into their shoes. This primarily happens through my interactions at retail stores, coffee shops, or malls, and enables me to observe the standard of experience amongst various brands across the city.

I believe, the sales drive at a store level constitutes to be the most difficult segment for a brand when you consider its complicated customer experience. Sales executives have to constantly walk the tightrope in balancing between actually selling the product on one hand (purchase) and convincing the customer to buy the product on the other (pre-purchase / post-purchase). You may have noticed, in most cases, sales reps begin by courteously asking if you need any help today and go about their jobs promising you assistance when you want it, it’s reassuring for individuals who may not like to be hassled during the pre-purchase stage. But I also find going into some stores like jumping into a lake full of alligators without any respite from the constant nudging and tailgating although customer experiences need not be so painful.

First Experience

Let me narrate a store incident that went so well it defines how some customers might like to be serviced. I was at a MEC outlet recently and I was looking for a particular camera brand to strap to my body and shoot videos on a vacation. The idea behind this was to keep my hands free so I can enjoy the time with my family while it kept getting the shots. I found a lone sales executive who initially hadn’t heard about the camera brand but was enlightened after searching for the product through the internal portal, and soon after, I realized it was going way beyond my budget for a 4-day vacation. Sensing my disappointment; maybe the sales rep sized me up, she began narrating her personal experience to me. So it turns out, she was as an adventurer and an avid photographer who occasionally shoots videos using her Canon DSLR while bungee jumping! She not only impressed me with her knowledge for photography & adventure but convinced me that if I owned a DSLR it would serve the purpose of shooting high-quality videos at no cost. On that day, I may not have purchased that camera at MEC but the executive’s friendly advice and interaction left an impression on my mind enough to pay the store another visit in the near future.

I am respectful of how my relationship with the brand wasn’t just outlined on a professional level as a “customer” only. Letting customers like me into their personal space and treating them as guests by not persuading them to make a purchase, at the same time addressing their latent needs and concerns while being courteous makes the brand come across as more humane and leaves a lasting impression. It makes the customer’s visit memorable and they’re more likely to visit the store again with the intention to make a purchase. Personally, it’s the delight and the knowledge gained from the interaction that matters.

Second Experience

This was at a Nike store in an upscale Toronto mall. I wasn’t looking for anything in particular, just visiting my favourite brand’s store. As usual, I was approached by a sales rep with whom I struck a conversation out of the blue — it started when I asked her curiously about the pins she was wearing and I was told that Nike gifts them exclusively to high-performers. So amidst all the talk about fitness and training, etc., I discover the sales rep I’d befriended a while ago was a CrossFit trainer and an athlete! During all my visits to Nike stores, what’re the odds of meeting an actual sports enthusiast, a real athlete? She also told me about her fitness regimen and how she manages time between coaching and store hours and so on. In fact, her dad was a marathon/triathlon athlete, and even her grandpa was into fitness training at some point. It’s worth noting here, that we’re simply having this conversation and she showed no signs of frustration or desperation to sell anything or push me into buying a product, she kept responding on her fitness and so on! I was ready to leave the Nike store after that enriching interaction but she got me interested in the apparel and I eventually ended up making a purchase.

One of the tenets of a ‘memorable experience’ is to have a fortuitous interaction that creates a personal appeal for the brand being represented. The interaction could revolve around things that define a product’s experience, for instance, not putting the focus solely on the purchase value itself. Perhaps, I was lucky to discover a fitness trainer within a Nike store but it was a fantastic and delightful buying experience, to say the least.

In a nutshell, empathy works both ways because our inborn tendency is to be drawn into personal experiences which are fueled by an insatiable thirst for curiosity and interest. Hence, skilful use of personal experiences during a sales cycle both offline and online (testimonials, persona stories) could create a vibrant and memorable customer experience by lending a human touch to something totally routine and lifeless. At the same time, one must be aware, that an individual who’s also a potential customer might judge these interactions from a different perspective. It’s important to keep up with that friendly approach in letting the customer decide on the valid time for making the purchase and to totally avoid coming across as negative and judgemental. Lastly, it’s not every time that customers are curiously looking to know your background during a sales journey, but it wouldn’t be a wasted effort to keep your cerebral antennae ready, just in case.

Wait Times Management For The Digital Age

December 12, 2018 Design Technology

I am involved in an engaging organizational innovation exercise with a team comprising business consultants and senior leadership of one of the top healthcare companies in Canada that own and operate over a 1000 pharmacy locations across the country. Apart from several themes one of the aims of this 3-month long exercise is to understand the barriers in the delivery of timely services to patients and finding an innovative solution to wait-times. So, what exactly is a ‘wait-time’ in the context of a pharmacy? In simple terms, it is typically that period in a given service parameter in which a pharmacy customer (patient or caregiver) has to wait before he/she is dispensed the prescribed medication and depending upon the traffic of a specific pharmacy location that period could sometimes run into hours. The current demographic of pharmacy patients consists largely of ‘baby boomers’ who were born in the 40s-60s but that won’t be the case forever because more millennials, the cohort of people generally born in the 80s-90s, have begun to emerge as an influential group not just for healthcare but the retail industry at large. This segment is most prominent for its early adoption of digital apps and automation but the ‘boomers’ aren’t laggards either with adopting a digital lifestyle. As we gather around in focusing on and exploring various options I wanted to present some of my views on tackling wait times (WT) in the incumbent age of digitization. Additionally, I also wanted to share some of my observation and learning on wait times with other brands, in particular, IKEA.

Basics of Wait Times

wait times in pharmacy

I would continue with my comprehension of WTs in the context of pharmacies. So, to begin with, what is a wait time and why is it important? In technical terms, a ‘wait-time’ is a crucial factor from the perspective of implementing the prioritization order in a customer queue to ensure that one person’s isolated need/demand does not gain precedence over the others waiting in the line. If managed efficiently on a consistent basis, WTs also play a major role in managing the working time of the pharmacy staff and also helps bring productivity and efficiency into the work culture, such as preparing the medication while the patient waits in anticipation. From a pharmacy standpoint, despite all the clear advantages, there are prevailing challenges which prevents pharmacists from meeting their stated goals. Some of those challenges include lack of team coordination and overlapping (or the lack of) of responsibilities. Then from unskilled staff to complicated digital systems and sometimes even the unavailability of medications at pharmacy locations can not only affect wait-times considerably but could also drastically lower a brand’s value over a period of time. On the other hand, it might be harder to realize but customer wait times are not just limited to pharmacies alone. In fact, in Canada, it’s common for patrons to wait for their turn while availing any form of service just that and experience levels of anxiety and anticipation. Services which have lower levels of expectation generally escape the customers’ ire from bad service experience, whereas others like IKEA have developed a robust & orderly mechanism for addressing wait time challenges using a combination of digitization and environmental factors (store). I have described my experience in IKEA in the post a little later. 

Continue reading…

Strategic Design As A Business Offering

December 7, 2018 Design

Not so long ago, McKinsey published an insightful article on the importance of strategic design in delivering business value called ‘The Business Value of Design’, it was based on a research study conducted on the design practices of 300 big corporations. I was so enthralled by their findings that I published a post in dissecting its virtues.

Recently, they published another piece titled ‘Why design means business’ in yet another attempt at defining the value of design in relation to business. However, I found this article to be a rejoinder to the previous one listing the key themes from that research study. There was one thing though which stood out for me from this post which was the definition of design as a strategic tool.

Organizations have garnered their own individualistic approach for interpreting ‘design’ based on its overall positioning in the hierarchy of the business. The fact remains that that interpretation is widely based on 3 key elements which complement each other, that is, 1) the positioning of design in the current operating model for delivery, 2) the perceived value that is derived from the design activities, and, last but not the least, 3) the integration of design in the organization’s future strategic focus. In creating a justifiable acceptance of design as a standard for building a strategic vision and in proving how companies have delivered value through this approach McKinsey has defined ‘strategic design’ for innovation in an easy to understand terminology in its latest article.

What exactly do we mean when we talk about “design?” Well, much like “strategy” and “analytics,” design is a term that suffers from misuse. Design is not just about making objects pretty. Design is the process of deeply understanding customer/user needs and then creating a product or service—physical, digital, or both—that addresses their unmet needs.

If there’s anything that the twin McKinsey articles have uncovered its some organizations which have woken up to the cadence of strategic design for innovation and delivering striking results. It’s a slow process but it’s not for too long that the corporate world would sit up and take notice and accept this new age phenomenon for innovation. ‘Design’ has the potential to bring that change.

Source: Why design means business | McKinsey & Company