02
May

A pre-emptive eulogy for Twitter

Posted by: Matt Saler

The Atlantic has a lengthy piece describing what it calls the twilight of Twitter:

Twitter is the platform that led us into the mobile Internet age. It broke our habit of visiting individual news homepages first thing in the morning, and established behaviors built around real-time news consumption and production. It normalized mobile publishing power. It changed our expectations about how we congregate around shared events. Twitter has done for social publishing what AOL did for email. But nobody has AOL accounts anymore.

As someone who is generally a fairly heavy Twitter user, I went into the piece intending to scoff at the premise. But there’s a valid point in there: the service and the feel of it has changed. There are still great sub-networks where the effects discussed in this piece aren’t as evident, but if you’ve spent much time investing into the culture of Twitter, you’ll have noticed these things.

At its best, Twitter can be one of the most fun places to frequent on the web. At its worst, it can be awful in ways it didn’t used to be. I’m conflicted about calling it a twilight when it could just be a phase, but it’s clear The Atlantic is accurately describing something, even if I’m not sure about the conclusions.

01
May

Followup on native advertising

Posted by: Matt Saler

Nieman Journalism Lab points to a recent study into the possible brand-damaging effects of native advertising on journalism sites. The study compared a younger audience’s perceptions of a test news site with those of an older audience. The researchers found that native ads did not damage the site’s credibility as a new source.

But lest you think that is a solid point in native advertising’s favor, there’s this: the younger crowd recognized the ads and had an overall critical, hard-to-impress stance toward the site, while the older participants didn’t notice the ads despite being more positive in their feedback. Critical users who can recognize native ads (and presumably know to avoid them) and uncritical users who miss the ads entirely don’t add up to an emphatic win for the medium.

Obviously, the question requires more research, which the team that conducted the study plans to do next. As I’ve already suggested, the credibility of news sites is at risk — if only because of increased cynicism.

30
Apr

We spend our lives immersed in advertising, indirectly or directly applied. From the branded clothes we wear and the badged cars we drive to the commercials we wish we could skip while watching live TV and the blinking banners we try to block in our web browsers, we’re confronted with consumer choices presented by advertisers and brands pretty much constantly.

For businesses, finding the balance between tastefully promoting a product or service and overselling it has been a challenge met with varying degrees of success. You can probably think of examples from either end of the spectrum.

For consumers, the line between tasteful, acceptable promotion and annoying overselling can depend on personal limits, but in general, the preference is to learn about a company’s offerings in the least obtrusive way possible.

The accommodation of that consumer preference is behind what is paradoxically one of the most intrusive and worrying advertising trends on the web: native advertising.

Also called “sponsored content”, native advertising is mostly seen on content-driven websites like The New York Times, Buzzfeed, The Atlantic and other sites where journalism is practiced in one form or another. Native ads are pieces of content that mostly appear at a glance to be articles produced by the host site, but in reality are either ads directly produced by an advertiser or ads produced on behalf of an advertiser by writers employed by the host site.

How these pieces are called out as distinct from actual content varies, but the idea behind this mode of advertising is to keep it unobtrusive and maintain the reader’s experience. That’s because declining revenues from traditional online advertising have demonstrated a failure of the more obvious ad display options. Users either ignore or block text and banner ads. Advertisers know this and rates go down as a result, which put the long-term viability of online ad-supported publishing in doubt, especially for sites that don’t have an effective paywall in place.

So some sites have turned to native advertising. These ads offer advertisers a way to get in under consumers’ radars, which have been tuned to ignore previous display ads. This increased reach means higher rates, which in theory means a better long-term outlook for these content-driven websites.

What these sites end up with, however, is a muddied user experience. They are risking the dilution of their own brand by incorporating advertiser content in this way. Think of it like this: would you trust your doctor’s recommendation more or less if you knew for fact she had financial motivation to suggest a given drug?

As consumers become more aware of these types of ads and start to learn to screen them out like they have the prior models, the pressure will be on the host sites to reduce the distinction between their content and their advertisers. It’s possible to follow such a trajectory down to a point where ad content is virtually indistinguishable from host site content (who reads bylines any more, right?). That would put all of the host site’s content in doubt.

Not all websites on the native content track will stick it out to that eventuality, but those that do will have bought themselves a few more years of viability at the cost of the relationship of trust they had with their own readers.

This is a game of whack-a-mole that advertisers and websites will have a hard time winning. Users will eventually recognize the signs and force a pivot to a new method of advertising that may hit the scene after trust has already been broken, making it too late for the host site. Traditional ad support for content-driven sites looks like a race to the bottom.

The revenue problem content-driven sites face is real, especially for journalism sites — as the stats show. Content production is expensive and time-consuming, but the expectation has been set by years of the open internet that content wants to be free. Native advertising is just one of the many models these sites are turning to in an attempt to staunch the wound, but it seems like a contaminated bandage if it comes at the cost of your own brand identity.

When I had more time to write my own content-driven website, a blog about the Detroit Red Wings, I accepted text ads in the sidebar. But I refused offers from advertisers that demanded I post their content or include their ads in the main content area of my site. I did that because I felt I had built a trust with my readers over the years. To inject content I couldn’t stand behind in the same place as content I had labored over felt like betrayal of that trust.

I had the privilege of doing that as a hobby and never had to rely on revenue from that site to make a living or to employ other writers. So I don’t envy the choice faced by executives at places like The New York Times, who are tasked with the long-term survival of their company. But I know there has to be another way — a way that doesn’t spite their nose to save their face.

25
Apr

Farhad Manjoo interviewed Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg about innovation recently and ended up touching on privacy and anonymity on the internet. As is usual for me when I see Zuckerberg comments on these topics (like these), I got an uneasy feeling.

Q. We’ve seen a number of apps that are playing with anonymity, and apps like Snapchat that are ephemeral. Are those modes interesting to you? Do you expect Facebook will do things with anonymity?

A. I don’t know. I do think more private communication is a bigger space than people realize. You were asking if I was surprised that WhatsApp and Messenger’s use cases were so different. They fit into this framework of private communication. That’s what people like to do, and that’s why there are so many different services. I think there is going to be even more stuff like that.

Anonymity is different. I’m not going to say it can’t work, because I think that is too extreme. But I tend to think some of these interactions are better rooted in some sense of building relationships. There are different forms of identity you can use to form a relationship. You can use your real identity, or you can use phone numbers for something like WhatsApp, and pseudonyms for something like Instagram. But in any of those you’re not just sharing and consuming content, you are also building relationships with people and building an understanding of people. That’s core to how we think about the world. So anonymity is not the first thing that we’ll go do.

Something about the way Zuckerberg talks about privacy and anonymity strikes me as not how average people talk and think about it. I read his definition of anonymity as extremely narrow—you can only be anonymous if you’re not building a relationship of any sort? Whereas I think most people might define it is as simply not using your real name.

Zuckerberg continues to demonstrate that he doesn’t quite get it when it comes to privacy — yet we entrust him and a company staffed with people who “think about the world” that way with some of our most personal information.

25
Apr

Simplicity is awesome

Posted by: Brion Eriksen

Jazz great Charles Mingus once said something that really gets to the heart of what we do at Elexicon:

“Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that’s creativity.”

I love that. They’re terrific words to not only keep close at hand on your office wall, but to live by as well. At Elexicon, the sentiment can be applied effectively to many aspects of our process, strategies, designs, code and project management.

In this post, I’d like to explore ways we keep the virtues of this philosophy front and center in our work, and how we strive to help our clients incorporate a simplicity-driven approach into their thinking as well. For us, “Simplicity is Awesome.”

This idea is no joke or merely a nice thought. It’s an idea that has been central to some of history’s greatest minds, which I’ll also show. I find it amazing and comforting how many of these giants spoke, often fervently, about the value of simplicity.

I’m not certain of the exact event or circumstance that inspired Mingus’ words, except that the context was musical composition and improvisation. In the most basic terms, it’s harder to create music than it is to make noise.

Applied more broadly to my world, I see him describing an apparent paradox: that simplicity is hard to achieve, requiring a great deal of creativity; and that complexity is easy to achieve, requiring only the commonplace ability to keep “adding stuff” in an attempt to solve a problem. When you spin this concept forward into the context of architecture, design and engineering you recognize it’s harder to create something that’s easy to use, and easy to create something that’s hard to use.

With that in mind, here are some examples of how simplicity drives our strategic and creative thinking, and our design and development processes.

Establish clarity of purpose for both the project and the product. Focus on what is most important. If you have too many priorities then you don’t have any. Stick to the primary goals and objectives and don’t allow superfluous influences and distractions throw you off course.

“It is astonishing as well as sad, how many trivial affairs even the wisest thinks he must attend to in a day; how singular an affair he thinks he must omit. When the mathematician would solve a difficult problem, he first frees the equation of all incumbrances, and reduces it to its simplest terms. So simplify the problem of life, distinguish the necessary and the real. Probe the earth to see where your main roots run.”

Henry David Thoreau

Set clear expectations, and keep them concise. Have a clearly communicated plan that is supported by research and has solid buy-in from all stakeholders.

“If you can’t explain it to a six year old, you don’t understand it yourself.”

Albert Einstein

Research users and interview customers. People place a high value in a truly simple experience, both in brand loyalty and real dollars spent. A big part of this is delivering an experience they can trust, one that speaks to them in a familiar visual language, relevant taxonomy and consistent voice that they can clearly understand. Inconsistency and complexity, on the other hand, breed distrust and uncertainty.

“Truth is ever to be found in simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.”

Isaac Newton

Ask “why?” about everything. This is a straightforward but often overlooked practice in both content strategy and UI design.

  • Why include this content?

  • Who is asking for that?

  • Why is there a submit button at the top and bottom of the form?

  • Did that design result directly from user feedback?

These are often tough questions for marketers and developers to ask because many fear leaving something out. Taking this hard look at content and functionality priorities will ultimately help reduce clutter and cut through to the most important content and UI elements.

Web content and interfaces are often driven by the loudest voice in the organization — the classic “squeaky wheel getting the oil” — and not necessarily the most important in terms of brand or customer value. We’ll drill into this topic in a future post, but this is an area where asking “why?” pays dividends, especially if you have solid user research and site analytics data to reference.

“Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated.”

Confucius

“Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.”

E.F. Schumacher

Iterate, iterate, iterate. Establish solid research and a well-organized content plan first before you design a single pixel of a website or UI. This guidance will get the experience design off to a great start.

Once underway, however, resist the temptation (or the directive) to quickly crank out a final design on the first attempt. Create a layout, iterate with clients and colleagues, user-test it, create revised and alternate designs based on feedback. Each time, ask the “why” questions and always consider ways to keep simplifying the experience.

  • Do we really need this?

  • Should this go here?

  • How would a user interpret this?

Each iteration will distill your design down to its essence, putting the most important messaging, the most demanded content, and most frequently-used features at the forefront.

“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.”

Albert Einstein

“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.”

Leonardo da Vinci

Keep the virtues of simplicity and clarity top-of-mind in all your planning, projects and designs. Your key message will be further amplified above the noise. Once-hidden opportunities will reveal themselves, with powerful results. Conversations with your customers will become more clear. Superfluous distractions will fall to the wayside, and you and your users will focus on what really matters.

Simplicity will give both you and your customers confidence: confidence that they’re reading the right information, that they’re using the product properly, that they are on the right path.

Simplicity is not generic blandness or “lots of white space.”

Simplicity is your user’s visual language, spoken concisely.

Simplicity is awesome.

Back to Top