Is this better or is this?

A modern day scenario in desperate need of personalization: I took my wife to the optomitrist this past weekend. We've gone to this doctor/storefront for a number of years because they have a great selection of frames. The process of getting lenses (is this good or is this better?) with one's doctor hasn't substantively changed in decades. Nor has the process of selecting a new eyeglass frame with prescription in hand. Many years ago, I went frame shopping with a girlfriend (way before I met my wife) who couldn't understand why I had to try on so many frames to find the 'perfect' one. She had never worn glasses. I told her that if she had to wear the same shirt everyday, she would spend some time making the selection as well. She nodded, rolled her eyes and wandered away to shop for something else.

So back to trying on eyeglasses... The process starts with just scanning frame candidates, trying them on, and looking in a mirror. Never mind if you are terribly near or far sighted and can't see yourself clearly in a mirror without your prescription glasses. Tedious, at best.

Wouldn't it be great to introduce some modern day personalized technology to this process? Could I upload my straight on head shot to screen with some basic measurements (space between eyes, etc.) and then have the frames appear on my face. I could spin through multiple frames a minute and see how I would look. Then narrow it down to a handful to actually try in front of a mirror to check for fit and proportion. This would be great in a storefront or even better on a website. Somebody make this happen, please!

Where's the 4th dimension?

Most folks consider the 4th dimension to be Time. When we look at the online experience, depth is really metaphorical for an onscreen medium, but by 'depth,' we ask does it have gravitas or substance. By 'time,' I mean--does it make me come back. Does it have stickiness. Is there a retention strategy to make me come back and find it useful and relevant, time after time.

So, looking at the OMMA list of Web Award Finalists in their September edition, it was curious that there we no (or at least explicit) sites that had a prolonged usefulness. Most seemed to be a 'one and done' type of experience--albeit a beautiful and rich experience. It would be great to have a category in addition to Beverage, Automotive, Blogger(?!), and Financial Services which sought out rich experiences that served as an enduring resource and not just a one time, ooh-ahh experience.

Salesmen emulating salesmen

One of the cliches about online personalization is that the customer experience on your website should emulate your best salesman. This is a salesman who has met you, gotten to know you, and can, through explicit questions and inferences, tailor his or her message to you.  It is this promise that some personalization companies give to prospective clients.

As anyone who has attended a conference will attest, you talk to a lot of vendors who are eager to do business with you. I work for a Fortune 100 company so I was prime meat. So we talked--some short and some longer conversations; exchanges business cards; and I assumed there were be a follow up.

Lots of types of followup ensued. Some were quick, others taking 2 to 3 weeks. Some were personal emails; others were generic emails which were quickly trashed.  Some requests to talk or meet were so dogged, I felt like was being stalked. If this were an online relationship, I'm leaving the site and never coming back.

Here's my quick guidelines for after conference follow up. These work well for any online relationship too:

1) Get to know me. The best opportunity is the initial conversation. Ask the right quesitons and remember it.
2) Follow up. Not too fast and not too slow. And don't stalk me or we are through.
3) Offer me something of value. Why should I talk to you again? What do you have that is relevant to me?
4) Come prepared. OK, I will meet with you. When I do, let's not rehash what I already told you or someone else from your company.
5) Ask permission to nurture the relationship. Unlike a typical transactional relationship online, getting your solutiono inside my company will take time. Let's discuss how our relationship will go. I'm open and honest. If there isn't a future, it's only honest of me to say so. Let's not waste each other's time.

If you followed these guidelines while talking to me offline or online, we might have a long term relationship.

Credibility of User Review Writers

Up till recently, one could post a review powered Bazaar Voice or PowerReviews or the like to a product with a blurb and an ID like 'Dan W. Austin, Texas' And that was that. One didn't know Dan's trustworthiness any more than anyone else. Maybe because he was authentic, grammatically correct, a good speller or explicitly gave a clue to his identity that lent him credibility or trustworthiness. For example, dropping the line 'I've tried them all and...' or 'As a medical professional, I appreciate...' or the like.

So it was with some curiosity that I read a short article in Internet Retailer this month about porting Facebook info into a user reviewer's signature. See article.  The tool, from consumer ratings and reviews vendor PowerReviews Inc., enables willing shoppers to integrate their Facebook profile content, such as gender and age, into their reviews and their reviewer profiles on e-commerce sites. 

So Facebook is offering to push info to another site in addition to the pull it typically does. And, ever the opportunist, Facebook will ask if you would like to publish the user review on your Facebook page.

Would you be more likely to read a review posted by a doctor, professor or other esteemed professional? Or be biased toward a younger or older poster? One who lives in New York City or one who lives in Wyoming? One is intrigued with how far this could go and whether more than demographic information would be used.

Maybe the review would be signed like this: ".... I wholeheartedly recommend this product" -- Dan W., Austin, TX, age: 52, Computer Programmer, likes pepperoni pizza, Siberian Huskies and photography.

The article states early adopters as Diapers.com, Campmor and Abe’s of Maine but I was unable to see a treatment on these sites. Might be too new.

How much information would you amend to your review? Would it sway you the next time you read a review?  Hmmmm

Trading Privacy for Personalization

I've enjoyed the recent series of posts by IDEO on Fast Company's design site. Their recent article entitled "Why Would Trade Away Your Online Privacy? 6 Case Studies" is a terrific explanation of the trade-off with some relevant examples of companies doing this well. Personalization at most any level requires the input of some information (often provided as behavior at the least, and explicitly provided data at the most) and then we hope there is value in return. Think of a astute sales person who you have done business with over time. And that relationship, whether virtual or personal, establishes trust. To borrow IDEO's succinct explanation:

As people share more, their expectations are evolving from archiving services to personalized services that adapt to them, and even anticipatory services that nudge them in positive ways. This has resulted in services that capture people's history, filter their information, and turn it into tailored recommendations, options, alerts, and connections.

And then provides 4 tenants of trading data for personalization:

1. Make people feel safe
2. Support the moment of decision
3. Nudge, don't push
4. Don't be obtrusive

This list could be lifted from a recent Sales 101 training brochure but is well articulated for use in the online world. Sounds so basic but so difficult to execute, particularly in the online world. The article proceeds to give some great examples of new apps or sites that utilize these tenets to craft a more personalization user experience--mint.com, flickr, Netflix, FoodFlex, and Zumelife.

The web on a Hunch

Great story yesterday on NPR on Caterina Fake, the CEO of Hunch.com. Fake was also recently featured in an article in WIRED.  Hunch's 'decision engine' collects answers to seemingly random questions to help visitors answer their own queries. She states that the average number of questions answered is 120. That's an amazing level of contribution to the collection of data hunch has amassed--for free. And if participants don't give enough info in these 120 responses, the login is through Facebook or Twitter (although Twitter wasn't work when I just tried it.) I imagine that if you got an opportunity to ask someone you had never met 120 questions and poke through their Facebook page, you could infer quite a bit about someone's life!

In any case, it's a provocative business. I'm curious to learn more about their business model.

700 billion minutes a month

Wow, that's over 11 billion hours! What does this time represent, you ask? Amount of time the US population sleeps in a month? Maybe watches TV? Or amount of time Spongebob episodes occupy the airwaves?

No, it is the number of minutes the world population spends on Facebook. Per Month.

This was the most astonishing stat I heard at shop.org last week as stated by Facebook's VP of Global Sales, Mike Murphy.

Assuming that time spent on Facebook is not a measurably productive past-time, that number is a serious drag on the world's GDP. Sure, there is value in creating and maintaining relationships, in many cases over great distances, but there is no economic benefit to reading what friends had for lunch--except maybe to Facebook. Do we really have the time to spend on Facebook given the world's current economic doldrums? Can someone find a way to make that time productive and benefit people and places (other than Facebook employee stock options?)