Why I trust designers

My first marketing job was with a website in the pre-dot-bomb era. Back then there was little in the way of reliable analytics, SEO was  as easy as stuffing keywords, and everyone was advertising with banners. Lots and lots of banners.

My boss at the time, whose previous experience was solely in print, fancied himself a designer. As such, it was my misfortune to have to be his go-between with the design department. Whenever they would create a graphic, page or banner ad, he would have me deliver notes about cropping it in some slight way, or making some adjustment to the font. While he would never admit it, he did this so he could put his “stamp” on the work being done.

The worst was the day he actually sent me to them to say, “this banner needs to be more blue.” I remember blinking a couple of times at that, not sure even he would say something so dumb.

“More blue?”

“Yes.”

“There’s something wrong with the particular shade of blue?”

“It needs to be more bluer.”

Yes – he actually said, “more bluer.” It makes me think of this scene from, “Amadeus”:

An idiot trying to give criticism for the sake of giving criticism.

The Lead Designer went crazy when I passed this along, and rightfully so. I calmed him, telling him that yes, my boss was an idiot, and no, I don’t know what the hell that means either. I think this is why I had the job of talking to the Design Team – they respected me, even if it was impossible to respect him.

The point of this story is that marketers cannot second guess designers. When a design is run on a page, marketers can look at the resulting traffic, bounce rates, conversions, etc. to back up an argument that some design choice doesn’t work, especially if it has been run against some other choice in an A/B test. Making such calls based on our intuition and taste, however, is silly.

The designers working for you know what they’re doing. It’s likely they’ve done this for some time. They know what works and what doesn’t, because they’ve seen it work and not work before. Their gut call is worth more than a marketer’s gut call, because they have actually done this work in the past.

The reason people who aren’t designers tell designers how to do their job is they think it’s an aesthetic choice. They may like a font or color for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with sound design. In my experience, when testing what the designer came up with against what the non-designer wanted, the designer’s version always performed better. When you’ve done something long enough, you just know what works.

So if you have trusted designers to do a job, let them do that job. If you know better than them, you should be doing the work yourself. If you can’t, you need to unclench and trust their ability.

And if you really want something, “more bluer,” come prepared with the hexidecimal code for the shade of blue you want.

Why Social Media is bad for Blogging

Don’t get me wrong – social media is great for promoting blog posts. And given how many posts are written about social media these days, there wouldn’t be much to write about without Facebook and Twitter and G+ and everyone’s ideas of what constitutes “important” with all these sites.

The problem is with there being so many ways to share something simply, a blogger can loose steam. If every interesting thought you have is pushed out in less than 140 characters, you aren’t going to put in the work to spell it out in a full post.

The same is true of personal blogs. Why write out 300 words of why your day is going great if you can just make a quick quip, and attach a funny picture you found?

As I see it, part of the problem is everyone feels a responsibility to be entertaining. It’s high school all over again, where we want to be popular by posting the kind of things that get reshared and retweeted and get us more followers.

I’ve definitely fallen into this trap – especially now that Google Plus is on the scene. That is the point of social media, of course. It isn’t for broadcasting long ideas, but socializing. If you’re using all of your best ideas just socializing, though, you don’t have anything left to blog about.

So if you’re trying to blog, cut down on the fun time with friends and research a topic, or share an opinion with explanations of why you’re right.

That’s what I’m going to start doing anyway.

Why we love Google, Apple and Facebook

I didn’t get enough sleep last night – so this morning I woke up so stupid-dumb tired I could barely function. When you’re in a mood like that, you want things to be simple, and just work, so you don’t have to think.

Hence the title of this post. The reason we are so enamored of these three mega-companies of the 3.0 age is that they offer a kind of Orwellian-socialist simplicity: The stuff always works, is always simple, and is always there.

Yes, there are a lot of other designs or tools that could work better. It’s the utilitarian ease behind Google Search, Facebook, or the Apple interface on anything that keeps us coming back.

Consider Facebook – why do we all keep coming back to a site with questionable privacy policies and no content of their own? Because it’s easy. If all of our friends are there, and nothing is ever too terribly broken (like Twitter is with that damn Failwhale,) we’ll keep coming back to it. Facebook doesn’t actually do anything except create a stage where our friends can entertain us, and we can entertain our friends. (Or game companies can entertain us with town and mob simulators, but that’s another story.)

Google was just another search engine, but with more believable results. Otherwise, the concept of search results is universally loved. “I ask it a question, I get an answer, I go on about my business.” It’s the reason Yahoo! and AOL before it were just as beloved: A simple service that let people use it and move on.

So many developers today think they need to reinvent the wheel to get the public’s attention, and have the next can’t-live-without-it product offering. It would be great if someone could figure out a need we have but aren’t aware isn’t being fulfilled: Search engines did that too, as did Wikipedia, e-mail, SMS/instant messaging… things we didn’t know we needed, but now that we have them can’t live without.

Apple did the same thing with personal computers instead of information retrieval or communications. I’ve used PCs all of my life, so you’d better believe I understand the appeal of Apple: Their stuff always works, all of the time. It’s easy to use and always looks pretty. PCs don’t work that way. PCs break, they’re usually poorly designed, there’s no consistency from one machine to the other, all of the really great viruses are written for PCs….

And don’t get me started on mobile! That iPhone is so easy to use, you have to wonder why all mobile interfaces aren’t required by law to mimic it.

Apple’s appeal is readily apparent to those of us who use PCs and wish they would just Goddamn work. If they managed to bring their price down to something approaching reasonable, I’d probably own one – but that is neither here nor there.

This is for the website and app developers: If you really want to innovate, innovate a simple solution that lets us get what we need and move on. All of the big, high concepts aren’t what we need. We need simple. We need something we can still use even when we’re horribly sleep deprived. We need something that makes our lives easier.

That’s how the big boys roll, because that’s all we really want.

Google vs. Facebook? No. Google vs. Bing

We love the horse race in America. Whenever there are two choices that even appear to be in competition, we choose sides. Such is the case this week, now that Google has unleashed what everyone (except Google) is calling a Facebook killer, Google+.

In this case, picking a favorite to “win” isn’t really the point.

There isn’t any point (read as: money) in Google killing Facebook. Google makes their money from their search network. Facebook makes their money from… well, no one’s quite sure of that yet… maybe venture capital sources that don’t ask too many questions?

Anyway, the most likely point of Google+ is to keep people on Google, performing their searches on Google, which include their paid search ads, which makes Google money. If people continue to search with Google, they aren’t doing it somewhere else.

So Google+ isn’t about beating Facebook, but beating the Bing/Yahoo junta.

Google has been the absolute leader in search for years because they developed a better search algorithm than what already existed. This meant better search results, and a better product.

The methodology they created is now used by sites like Bing and Yahoo, and to many the variations in results between the three aren’t important. If that were to continue, Google might not be able to prove that they are better than their search rivals.

Enter Google+, something that will keep people close to their search product. They could actually trump Facebook with this. Personally,  I doubt it’s really their goal.

Can Facebook and Google+ both be popular at the same time? As long as Google+ members find their way to ads via their Adwords program, I don’t see how Google could possibly care.

Google+

I got my invite for Google+ tonight. So far so good – it has some great features, but there’s one problem: No one is on it!

So with little to review off the bat, these are just some of my thoughts on Google’s new social site off the top of my head:

Google+ is in that persnickety “Invite Only” mode, like back when they debuted Gmail. Of course, I could use Gmail to get in touch with anyone. Here, I have to add my contacts to Circles – collections of friends – and hope they see this in their e-mail, join, then (I suppose) add me back so we can chat.

So like Facebook, there’s no public chatting area – everything revolves around your existing contacts. In fact, there are a lot of things about this that are very Facebook, but I don’t blame them for that. Wave was original and brilliant, but no one used it. If people don’t respond to original, by all means steal what has worked in the past.

Something I like off the bat with this that isn’t on Facebook is the ability to create chat groups that use webcams called Hangouts. I don’t know how willing most people will be to use their webcam, since so few people are as unabashedly into their good looks as I am. It’s definitely a good feature though, and I can’t wait for someone I know to join in with me already! One thing is for sure, though: Free web cams, on a social media site, means there is going to be a lot of porn on Google+ before long, unless there are some seriously draconian terms and conditions in place.

It uses Picasa for the photo album, which I suppose means I’ll need to start actually using Picasa. It also uses Gtalk for IMs, which I like, because I’ve been using that forever. (It has been kicking the ass off of Yahoo! Messenger since it first arrived.) I expect all of Google’s purchased properties will turn up here eventualy – and maybe even their failed concepts, like Buzz and Wave.

Also, that +1 feature is, as you’d expect, all over this site. It’s their version of +1. Another Facebook rip-off? Maybe. But remember, Facebook ripped off Likes from Friendfeed – and they didn’t even bother to use a different word.

Anyway, it’s just the first night, so it’s hard to judge Google+ just yet. I have high hopes, though – I’ve been a Google fanboy for years, and I’m praying something can finally kill Facebook.

You Can’t Block Facebook Questions

In case you were hoping for a way to block Facebook Questions from your account, you can’t – thanks to the typical enthusiasm for the ideas they’ve chosen to steal all by themselves, Facebook won’t allow you out.

block facebook questions

Facebook Questions

Facebook Questions, if you haven’t already used it, is a simple way of polling your friends. It’s a good idea actually, one that several thrid-party developers had already created, and millions of others had been using.

The problem was, as is the case with most third-party Facebook apps, you had to give it permissions to access your profile. Many people weren’t comfortable with this. So when Facebook created its own feature, it effectively killed using any of these third-party solutions.

The one real benefit of a polling app not made by Facebook is that you can block it if you want to. If you’d rather not receive them on your Facebook Wall, or have them sent to you, you are out of luck. Facebook considers Questions as integral to their experience as Photos or Events.

The big difference being I can prevent individual friends from sending me Events. They can be blocked easily enough in my privacy settings. Not so with Questions. The only solution for keeping someone from sending you a Question is to unfollow them.

One thing you can do keep these notifications from being e-mailed to you:

  1. Go to your Account Settings.
  2. Click on the “Notifications” tab.
  3. About halfway down the page, you’ll see the notification settings for Questions. Start unchecking boxes!

Are we done with Paper.li yet?

As The Thing would say if he had been a blogger, “It’s complainin’ time.”

For the last year, all of us who use Twitter have seen posts that look like this:

“The CRAP I’M INTO SO YOU MUST BE INTO IT TOO Daily is out! bkt.ly/blahblahblah Top stories by: [Insert hapless Twitter followers who've had their content scraped here.]“

If you’ve clicked through on any of these links, you’ve seen a nicely designed page, full of stories credited to some people on Twitter.

The way this all works is, when you create one of these “dailies,” or weeklies or what have you, you tell paper.li to sift through your Twitter followers and post to this pretty page anything they post or tweet relating to a specific subject. If you want to create a “Star Trek” daily, anyone who posts a link with “Star Trek” in the destination, or tweet about “Star Trek,” will be placed in your daily.

Okay – useless explanation done. Onto the problem: Paper.li is a crutch for people who want to post to Twitter regularly, but don’t have enough to say themselves.

I really thought this trend would have burned out by now, as there are SO MANY people posting these things. Paper.li posts don’t provide any new information, and frankly if I really want to know what my friends are posting about Star Trek I’ll do a search to find out.

Some might argue it’s a way to cluster interesting nuggets together in an easily digestible format. I disagree. For one, you have to “luck” into these paper.li dailies when they hit someone’s Twitter feed. Maybe you could probably set up an alert for when they are published, but anyone willing to do that could also set up a Google Alert to find the same information.

No, Paper.li is not about providing useful content – it’s about getting around content. It let’s people abandon their social circle for a few days, but know that the hard work of creating posts is being taken care of by, effectively, a bot that scrapes RSS feeds.

I stop short of calling this plagiarism because Paper.li does credit the original authors. The point with these posts is not to pass off someone else’s content as your own. The real problem is still posting other people’s content so you have something – anything – for your followers to see.

Let’s say I’m a stand-up comic, but I have no jokes. Would it be acceptable for me to perform George Carlin’s, “Ice Box Man” in my act, even if I credited him as the original author? If the Carlin estate went along with it, at least it would be legal. Still, as an audience member, wouldn’t you still feel kind of cheated?

If you’re as tired of this crap as I am, join me in doing something about it: Block paper.li from using your posts to help other people’s laziness, and remove yourself. It is simple to do. Just tweet:

@NewsCrier please stop mentions paper.li/stop-mentions.html

This will get you off of their system, and keep these posts from showing up in your menitons when you’re in one.

“But why would I want to keep from being mentioned?” I can hear you ask.

Well, it’s like #FollowFriday – no one really follows anyone on the basis of a #FollowFriday post. People just do this to let some of their followers know they are loved.

In the same way, mentioning people in a, “The WHO THE HELL CARES Daily is out” doesn’t promote the people mentioned in it. It’s actually designed to get those people who were mentioned to click on the paper.li link itself.

Getting this kind of mention doesn’t help grow your social circle as much as it fools you into giving paper.li – and the user who, again, is riding on the coat tails of whatever interesting stuff you shared – more traffic.

Let us all band together and end this cycle of content rehashing by removing ourselves from the paper.li roles.

And if we can’t all do that, let’s at least agree that these dailies are really pretty lame.