The Denny’s Menu vs. The Iceberg Approach

By Mark Evans in Startups No Comments Tags: , ,

Earlier this week, I talked about how many start-ups stumble when they focus on trying to attract users with a variety of services rather than getting people onboard because a product or service is able to delight them.

Another slant is something I call “The Denny’s Menu vs. The Iceberg” thesis. For anyone who has patronized a Denny’s, the menu has an inspiring number of choices but, at the same time, it can be difficult and time-consuming to decide what you want because there are so things to think about. In the end, many people stick to a small handful of choices because it makes life easier.

Unfortunately, many start-ups embrace “The Denny’s Menu” approach because they believe many features is the way to attract users looking for different things. Rather than offer a one-size-fits-all service, these start-ups offer a rich menu of services that could, in fact, make it useful but also challenging to access because there are so many options.

The contrasting – and what I think more effective – approach is “The Iceberg” in which only a small number of features are visible and promoted, while other features are hidden beneath the surface. The advantage of the “The Iceberg” is it makes it easier for people to understand what a start-up is offering them.

In a world where there are too many choices and distractions, an effective way to get people to pay attention to what you’re doing is showing them something they can quickly get without having to work too much. Once you hook them, then you can slowly start to show them other things and features.

In some respects, it’s a slow sell vs. the hard and fast sell. By showing people something they can easily nibble on rather than making them think there’s a big meal on the table, it is get people to taste what you’re doing.

Web Sites Aren’t Cheap or Easy to Create

By Mark Evans in Startups 1 Comment Tags: , ,

I’m in the midst of a redesign and quasi-pivot, which involves the redesign of this blog and corporate site.

It’s a time-consuming process that involves many moving parts and, of course, the fact Web design can be a very subjective exercise. In that respect, I’m probably far from the ideal design client because I have – or think I have – a strong feel and knowledge for good Web design and usability.

As well, building or reloading on a Web site is not a cheap process, although admittedly there are ways and tools to create an inexpensive, no-frills, down and dirty Web site. But for people and companies who want to build a Web site that looks good, that’s easy to navigate, meets the needs of users, and has some or many bells and whistles, there is a solid investment that should be made. I’m not suggesting blowing your brains out financially to build and design a Web site but making enough of an investment to meet your short and long-term needs.

This is something that has been lost in the mix as online services make it easy to do things. There’s a tendency to believe Web sites have become commoditized products in which prices are continually being driven down. While costs are definitely lower than they were five years ago, I strongly believe in the adage that you pay for what you get. For a minuscule budget, you’ll get a functional and basic Web site. For anything that has more features, better design, beautiful graphics and intuitive navigation, you obviously have to invest more.

Understanding the different approaches is important because far too often cost is front and centre, particularly for smaller businesses. The downside on being too focused on price is you may get something that may not meet your needs in the best way possible.

Function and Structure Are Key Issues

The other key consideration when building a Web site is taking the time to figure out its function and structure. Who are the target audiences? What kind of information do you want to provide them? What do you want visitors to do? Is the goal to get more information, make a transaction, ask for quote, check out cases studies? These are questions that need time to get your head around before starting the process of building and designing a Web site.

The “cost” to build a Web site boils down to time and money. And the challenge for many businesses is determining how much to invest in each “pot”. The more time spent on what a Web site should do, function, who it should serve, and what kind of content to provide, the easier and more efficient its development and design.

Some interesting links:

- A Web site that caught my attention recently for good design was VanCity Bride.

- A makeover guide/infographic on Pushing Social.

 

 

 

 

 

Does Everyone Have to be on Facebook?

By Mark Evans in Social Media No Comments Tags: , ,

I was listening to Jesse Hirsh interviewed yesterday on CBC radio about the new features announced last week by Facebook. The host, Matt Galloway, asked Hirsh if there could come a time when everyone would have to be on Facebook.

Hirsh’s reply was surprising but intriguing: he said in the short-term not everyone had to be on Facebook but it would be “absolutely” necessary in the long-run to access new Web services and show companies that you were credit-worthy and trustworthy.

Given my tepid embrace of Facebook – I’m mostly on it for professional reasons – the idea of having to be on Facebook is fascinating and troubling. It speaks to Facebook’s power and the role it plays within the digital landscape. But at the same time, it raises the spectre that Facebook is becoming too powerful and dominant, particularly if everyone will eventually need to be on Facebook. If you worried about Facebook before, Hirsh’s prediction should make you even more concerned.

Personally, the idea of having to be on Facebook is bizarre because it suggests people won’t be able to operate digitally or, at least, they will have a neutered experience. To effectively use the Web shouldn’t be predicated on being a member of a particular service, particularly one such as Facebook, which is in the business of data-collection to drive revenue growth.

If there comes a time when Facebook becomes a necessary evil, you know the Web has wandered into a bad place that will make Net Neutrality look like a walk in the park.

The thing is Facebook is a Web Goliath but it’s not the Web. As much as Facebook is driving to create a one-stop shopping ecosystem (AOL, anyone?), it is not bigger than the Internet and, as a result, it shouldn’t be allowed to attain must-have status.

Some people might counter that Facebook could be akin to e-mail given it is difficult to have a full Web experience without an inbox of some kind. But the difference is there are thousands and thousands of e-mail services so no one is dependent on a single entity to get the benefits of e-mail.

There are a few flaw in Hirsh’s suggestion about Facebook. One is the idea that Web services will not be available to anyone without a Facebook account. I would counter that any Web services that wants to make itself accessible to offer a variety of ways to join – Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and e-mail – rather than go exclusively with Facebook. Second, there will be ways other than Facebook to demonstrate your credit worthiness and trustworthiness.

Bottom line: Facebook is a dominant player but it is doesn’t have that much power despite Mark Zuckerberg’s ambitions to rule the world.

Focus on Delighting More Than Features

By Mark Evans in Startups No Comments

Perhaps it’s because many start-ups are created by developers that having a variety of features is often embraced as the way to capture users.

As a result, many services offer a menu of features to engage and attract users. And more features are added on a regular basis based on the assumption that more is better.

The problem is it’s not the number of features that users find compelling but whether a service delights users, which, of course, is easier said than done.

The reality is a service can be delightful by offering a single feature as opposed to a Denny’s-size menu of services. It can be a tough pill to swallow for start-ups because it means focusing a service on usability, design and marketing rather than creating more bells and whistles

So how can developers thrive when less (features) is seen as more? The answer is they need to make the existing services more robust or create enhanced versions of the core services.

So what are good examples of services with a narrow focus. Perhaps the best example is Dropbox, which offers online storage online and filing share. DropBox delights users despite its simplicity. But the way that DropBox has maintained to delight users AND offer more (thereby keeping its developers happy) is by enhancing its core service with add-ons such as premium services (more storage) and mobile applications. DropBox could offer more features but it may not necessarily mean a lot more users.

The other element of delight is accessibility and user-friendliness. Every step along the way – core messaging on the home page, the registration process, demo videos, customer service and payments – need to be intuitive and grit-free.

For some more insight into how to delight users, check out this Smashing Magazine article on the elements of a viral launch page.

David Bowie Would be Proud of Facebook

By Mark Evans in Social Media No Comments Tags: ,

In David Bowie’s “Changes”, he sang that he didn’t want to be “a richer man” but was “Just gonna have to be a different man” – a song that seems to epitomize Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook.

There’s a tsunami of coverage that analyzes, dissects and explains the changes unveiled by Facebook at its annual f8 conference yesterday but what strikes me as the most interesting angle is Facebook’s willingness to keep changing and evolving.

Like a kid so jacked up on candy they can’t sit still, Facebook has little interest in maintaining the status quo. Everything within the organization seems to be a constant state of flux as Facebook looks to reposition itself strategically and tactically to maintain its competitive advantage.

Maybe Facebook reflects Zuckerberg’s personality that combines brilliance, creativity and paranoia. Maybe change is what keeps Facebook so vibrant, dominant and seemingly impervious to competitive threats.

However you want to explain it, one thing that’s clear is how Facebook doesn’t seem too fussed about whether these changes are enthusiastically embraced by its 700 million users.

There always seems to be squawking about the changes but Facebook just shrugs them off as part of the process. It’s like a parent making a decision their child doesn’t like in the short-term based on the confidence it’s the best thing for the child in the long-term.

The thing about the technology world is change is constant. To keep consumers engaged, competitors at bay, and encourage new sales, a core part of the technology landscape is new features, upgrades and refreshes. To stay still in technology is akin to a death sentence.

Facebook, however, has taken change to a completely different level. To Facebook, change is not only constant but a frenetic activity that appears to be gaining more momentum the bigger Facebook becomes. It’s like Facebook wants to keep its army of developers happy so it lets them go to town with new features.

From the outside looking in, it’s fascinating but, at the same time, it feels like Facebook constantly takes two steps forward and one step back.

What do think? How do you explain Facebook’s willingness to changes it stripes?

If I Had a $100K, I’d Buy Me a Startup

By Mark Evans in Startups 1 Comment Tags: , , , ,

I concede the title is a bad riff on the Bakenaked Ladies’ “If I Had a Million Dollars” but it seems $100,000 makes the world go round these days if you’re a startup.

It is hard not to get this impression given TechStars will now provide every company within its portfolio with a $100,000 convertible note, which is an awfully nice gesture after it raised $24-million from a group of investors.

“During our last program two or three of our strongest companies were a month away from being out of business. They needed to go raise $50,000-100,000 in the middle of the program and that’s a massive distraction,” said David Tisch, a managing director with TechStars said.

With TechStars happy to spread the love and $100,000, it got me thinking about how nice it would be to have that kind of money thrown around in Canada. Heck, I could happily spend $1-million or so providing seed capital to start-ups. I’d even throw in some free consulting services and a set in Ginsu knives.

Excuse the attempt at humour but the bottom line is $100,000 could go a long, long way for many, many Canadian startups. A healthier flow of seed capital to a variety of startups would be nirvana to entrepreneurs and the startup ecosystem.

In a previous post, I talked about how great it would be to have a Paul Graham/YCombinatator in Canada so the news of TechStars’ new financing clout just makes my interest for more seed-elicious investors that much compelling.

One thought before I sign up: If 40 is the new 30, is $100,000 the new $10,000 for startups?

 

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
1 2 3 4