Understanding clients in a Blink
I’ve been reading “Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking” by Malcolm Gladwell. What a fascinating book! It’s not a design book and contrary to the way the title sounds, it’s not a “how-to” book. What it does is help us to understand how/why humans make snap judgements in the blink of an eye. When you think about it, this concept has a lot to do with how we do what we do as designers. It particularly speaks to how clients react to our work as well as to us, personally.
Clients at a Blink
At some point during every project, while selling our work to clients or while our clients’ clients are interacting with our finished product, Blink comes into play. Clients make a snap judgement to the initial design comps we show them based on their own, subconscious feelings/emotions/biases. An award-winning design which we created for one client, a design the client may have loved, could be soundly rejected as crap by another client.
Same work. Polar opposite reactions. Is it really the work the client is reacting to? Maybe not. Maybe they love the work we show them because they love us? More specifically, the love the process we have just subjected them to. Conversely, maybe they hate the work because they hate us or the process leading up to the presentation of work.
Imagine sitting in a five star restaurant where they lost your reservation, made you wait 30 minutes, the waiter talked down to you and wasn’t very attentive. What are the chances that despite the horrible process you’ve been subjected to, you’ll find that your meal was an absolute delight? Not great. On the other hand, you could receive a lesser meal served to you by a friendly staff who remember you and greet you warmly every time you come and think it’s the best meal you ever had.
The “New Coke” of design
One of the examples Gladwell uses in his book is that of New Coke. By now New Coke is infamous as one of the biggest branding and marketing failures of the 20th century. Those of us old enough to remember, know that New Coke had it’s origins in the rise of Pepsi as a solid #2 competitor to perennial soft drink king, Coke. During the 70s, Pepsi started a “Pepsi Challenge” during which it depicted in TV commercials featuring blind taste tests in which consumers would sip both Pepsi and Coke and declare which one tasted better. In Pepsi’s ads (as well as private blind tests conducted by Coke) a majority of consumers tested chose Pepsi.
This set off a panic which led Coke to tamper with it’s #1 selling formula and come up with a new one. New Coke was born. By all scientific reasoning, New Coke should have been a hands down success. Unlike regular Coke, New Coke handily beat competitor Pepsi in blind taste tests by a wide margin. Yet New Coke ended up being an instant and unmistakable failure! Why?
Gladwell explains that New Coke was built to win taste tests. To appeal to consumers who only sipped the cola in small amounts. Of course, consumers don’t sip cola out of small cups, they drink it by the glass, can, bottle or cup. While New Coke did very well against Pepsi during taste tests, it failed to make a positive impression in the arena where most consumers interact with their cola and in the amounts that they drink their cola.
This has implications in design because we do the same thing! We craft designs and initial comps that are built to push clients into a specific design direction and hopefully pick one design over a variety of others we provide for them.
But they are not interacting with our design the way they would normally, just as consumers in the “Pepsi Challenge” were not interacting with Coke and Pepsi the way they would normally. With a set of web comps, clients are not allowed to scroll the page or click on the menu items. For brochure comps, clients are not allowed to hold it in their hands and feel/smell the paper.
So they must make snap judgements based on artificial criteria and in atypical settings that can send us into the wrong direction and lead to faulty solutions. New Coke of design.
Now of course, I understand why it’s not possible to create fully navigatable websites at the comp level or brochure comps that can be printed, held and touched. But understanding how snap judgements are made can help us to understand the gulf between designer and design client and perhaps lead us to better ideas in our process that help us to get feedback that is truly helpful in creating better, more effective design solutions.
.chris{}
Posted on February 3rd, 2006 at 3:31 pm. About 'Understanding clients in a Blink'.
One thing I’ve found helpful is to include clients in the process earlier, in my case trying to show pencil sketches of logos or website designs. This isn’t the full solution, though by inclusion in this process, I find that clients buy into the work and feel part of it, rather than being presented with a “near final” solution or three.
It is more challenging because it requires explanation of what’s what and opens the door to possible impact of the design by the client — however I also find that clients trust me more because they can see clearly what I’m thinking and can read my written defense of the ideas presented.
I think of it as “showing my work” like I used to do on math class tests in school; the teacher always wanted to see how I arrived at my solution!
Thanks for some good, thoughtful application to design!
Posted on February 18th, 2006 at 1:36 pm. About 'Understanding clients in a Blink'.
Hey Chris,
Excellent book recommendation — I’ll definitely have to pick it up!
Here are a couple of other thoughts about the “New Coke” example, based on some things I discovered while researching some of my own blog articles:
One other big factor to the demise of New Coke had to do with Coke making the decision to discontinue the “traditional” Coke flavor. The reason was pure marketing — Coke wanted to maintain its number 1 status, and therefore didn’t want to compete against *both* Pepsi and their own product. One of them had to go. Since the taste tests showed and overwhelming preference for New Coke, old Coke was to get the boot.
The problem was, Coke never explained to taste test participants that they were, essentially, choosing one over the other. In many ways, this probably influenced their “snap” decision to pick New Coke over old Coke — they thought they were choosing a preference of taste, not a preference of product.
This all ties into how the consumers were going to interact with New Coke — the test subjects assumed it would be a product *in addition* to old Coke, not as a replacement for it. Therefore, by choosing New Coke in a taste test, they weren’t being asked to sever their emotional and historical ties to the old Coke brand, which is exactly what consumers were forced to do when New Coke hit the market.
So what I’m really trying to say with all of this is, great post and a great subject! It’s a good reminder that part of our job is not just to present designs, but to try to present to experience, so that the design has context.
– Robert
Posted on April 24th, 2006 at 12:48 am. About 'Understanding clients in a Blink'.
are you saying the experience of the process can be a key factor in whether or not your comp is loved or hated?
If so, I agree.
I previously worked as a production web designer. This meant the client had no connection to the initial process, and was presented a mock site (screenshot) of what their website would be based on my own gut feelings of what the clinet MAY want; at which point the rest of the process became a game of snap judgements until the comp becomes a game of follow the leader client requests. This usually resulted in blown budgets, dissatisfied clients, and a frustrated designer (me).
Whenever I approached the subject of more client interaction, more designer interaction, more ‘project manager’ interaction, I was told that the time lost in all this ‘interaction’ would mean lost money for us. I would counter, ‘more than the money lost on already blown budgets and unhappy clients’? To which I was told “We’ll think about it.”
My own personal belief is that the sales team would bid low on a project to get it, and then rely on the designer (me) to magically hit a succesful comp the first go round (which did happen, but not often enough for my tastes).
My suggestions never happened. The production line thinking was too ingrained in this company’s sales method. For every blown budget, another project would go through without a hitch resulting in plenty money for us.
On my own freelance projects, I try to keep the client in every step of the process. We have plenty of roughs and imagery thrown around before a comp is made so that when the comp IS made, the client REALLY understands ‘what’ is going to be happening ‘where’. I have also become better at recognizing snap judgements. If I think I hear an emotional bias, I will ask ‘why?’ or ‘what makes you come to that realization?’ If I can get the client to talk about why they feel the way they do about something…you get the picture.
uhm, I think i got on a soapbox somewhere.
good post chris
Posted on June 1st, 2006 at 10:16 pm. About 'Understanding clients in a Blink'.
If you haven’t already read it, I highly recommend Gladwell’s The Tipping Point, which I think is a superior book. He talks about trends in social behaviour, how trends begin and the tipping points in their growth and demise. One example he cites is the resurgence in the popularity of Hush Puppies in the early 90’s, the way hipsters began the trend and eventually turned around a previously bankrupt shoe company.
Anyways, Tipping Point is probably less design applicable, but it’s an equally fascinating read.