Respectful design, contemptuous design

Conversations with many friends, who are building communities for social businesses or are in other customer-facing roles, reveal a shared frustration. It appears that community builders and customer facing persons, and designers in a business are singing from different hymn sheets. Often, once the beta or whatever the business deems a shippable version of the product (web, mobile, app or a physical product) has shipped, some sit back thinking the job is done.

Customer feedback, that then comes in, is often sidelined to make good of the already existing technology infrastructure. Worse, it is sometimes disregarded altogether.

As the face of the business, community builders find themselves in a tough spot.

“It is as if we not only fail to care, but that we are actually contemptuous of the customer,” one said to me.

The contempt for the customer shows in the design of the customer experience with the business. From web design, to the product, to packaging and in all other ways the business and the customer interact.

Often the customer cannot find the information she wants, or she cannot find the product she intends to get to know a bit more, or the worst, she cannot really buy your product. And as seen in the case of frustrating clamshell packaging, sometimes she just cannot get to the product!

Why does this happen?

Because not enough attention is paid to understanding the customer’s journey or her desire behind engaging with the business. Insufficient work goes into testing how the customer might feel while trying to do business with the company. Efforts are made to defend the costs already incurred, not to acknowledge that that investment was not producing any returns.

In other words, not nearly enough respect is accorded to the thought that the business wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for the customer.

This is what I call contemptuous design.

Contemptuous design privileges technology and sunk cost over customer journey, experience and engagement. Respectful design, on the other hand, privileges the customer’s desires and experience over everything else, so the business can continue to exist and possibly thrive.

No checklists are required to distinguish contemptuous design from respectful design. As customers, we know how we are being treated when we make first contact with a business.

As business owners, we need to be honest about the conversations we are having or enabling or hearing about our customers. If the customer is seen as an encumbrance, we are squarely in the realm of contemptuous design.

But if we feel the customer’s pain and want to deliver a good experience to her, we are making strides towards respectful design.

It really is that simple.

Men in women’s fashion — the gender imbalance we don’t talk about

A few weeks ago, rumours abounded about Tom Ford possibly returning to Gucci, after Frida Giannini’s departure. While there is no doubting Mr Ford’s all-round creative nous, from couture to perfume and makeup, and film making, it would have been disappointing if he did return to the role. In the event, Ms Giannini was replaced by Alessandro Michele.

The technology industry isn’t the only gender-imbalanced industry in this world. Women’s fashion world redefines the imbalance between the customer base of women, who spend but where value appropriation is disproportionately made by men.

It is men, who overwhelmingly own stakes in, invest in, and lead companies that serve the women’s fashion market. For instance, Richemont, that owns Net-a-Porter, Chloé , Azzedine Alaïa, Van Cleef & Arpels and Cartier amongst others, fields, at the time of writing on March the 8th, 2015, a board consisting of 18 men and one woman! Doing better is Kering (formerly PPR) led by Francois-Henri Pinault with a board of 11 of which 4 are women. Kering owns, to varying degrees fashion brands such as Gucci, Saint Laurent Paris, Stella McCartney, Alexander McQueen, Bottega Veneta amongst others.

Men are also overwhelmingly the creative leads in many of women’s fashion brands. Here is a roll call for the uninitiated — Nicolas Ghesquière at LVMH, Karl Lagerfeld at Chanel and Fendi, Christopher Bailey at Burberry, Alexander Wang at Balenciaga, Hedi Slimane at St Laurent Paris, Jean-Paul Gaultier at the eponymous brand which is fair enough but he was at Hermès 2003-10, Rodolfo Paglialunga at Jil Sander, Alber Elbaz at Lanvin, John Anderson at Loewe, Olivier Rousteing at Balmain, and John Galliano having recently returned with Maison Margiela (he was earlier at Dior).

Which makes it worth celebrating Miuccia Prada at Prada, Donatella Versace at Versace (with Anthony Vaccarello at Versus), the incomparable Vivienne Westwood, Jenna Lyons at J Crew, and Hermès’s 2014 appointee Nadège Vanhee-Cybulski.

The magazines that serve women’s fashion market, Vogue and Harper’s Bazaar to name but two, are owned by corporations – Condé Nast and Hearst respectively – where almost all board directors and senior executives are male. Hearst has one female board director, Condé Nast‘s imbalance is tipped by the presence of Anna Wintour, the well-known industry heavyweight.

In fact only a minuscule 3% of creative directors in advertising, that drives women’s spend, are women. A staggering minority no matter how one looks at it!

I should however point out that mainly British women are in charge of some of the most influential fashion magazines including Glenda Bailey and Justine Picardie at the Harper’s Bazaar respectively in the USA and the UK, and Anna Wintour and Alexandra Shulman at the Vogue respectively in the USA and the UK. Thank goodness also for Vanessa Friedman, Suzy Menkes, Jo Ellison, Christina Binkley who witness, document and report on the fashion industry from the front row and beyond!

So why is it that when we talk of gender imbalance, we get stuck at the technology industry and Silicon Valley?

Why not start at the obvious — where women are spending money but where the value appropriation is overwhelmingly not made by women?

It’s not the pipeline for sure. A good 71% or more of the graduates of Central St Martins, the alma mater of late Alexander McQueen, and a reported 74% of the graduates of London College of Fashion are women. The number is 77% for women students at Parsons The New School for Design.

The industry is also traditionally not seen as no place for women.

But the industry does keep up with the tradition of notable wage gap between men and women, so much that there are no women in the top-20 highest paid executives.

So while we sit in the middle of Paris Fashion Week and mark another International Women’s Day, we ask yet again — what gives?

And more importantly, as we seek that elusive goal of gender equality — can we make it happen?

The theme for #IWD2015

The theme for #IWD2015

 

Of subtractive creativity

In an earlier monograph, I wrote about transformation and emergence, the kind of inspiring creativity that everyone thinks leads to beautiful products.

But emergence isn’t intentional. It has a magic that is hard to understand and often replicate.

Intentional creativity and beauty however can come from removing things. But in any such intentional design process, we must begin by asking: what is our goal? What are we trying to achieve?

I have been contemplating subtractive creativity while I soak up some sunshine in the land of Tesla and self-driving cars. So naturally we are going to talk about cars! And since wall-to-wall sunshine makes me miss Britain and all things British, talking of a British car will be the perfect story to ponder.

Cars really just take us from A to B. We want them to do it fast. We want them to look pretty while doing that. And we want them to embody something magical in all that.

Colin Chapman, the founder of Lotus Cars said: “Adding power makes you faster on the straights, subtracting weight makes you faster everywhere.” There in a few words is the philosophy of design — subtractive creativity — at Lotus cars, who also power the Lotus F1 team.

Some high grade engineering and creativity goes into removing weight from a car to make it that noticeable bit faster. Some of that weight subtraction was made to serve a market for a two-seater car and some was powered by innovation in materials.

But as some of you may know, Lotus suffered financial difficulties which may raise the question I often ask about sustainable – which includes profitable – creativity.

Graham Nearn, the founder of Caterham Cars, bought the rights to Lotus Seven, which despite some regulatory challenges in the global markets, continues to be a popular — fast — car for the enthusiast. (Yes it is not for everyone. Just like any other luxury product!)

As environmental concerns become central to how we think about the transportation problem, subtractive creativity wins again. Lotus is a lead player in thinking about the environmental impact of their cars at every component level.

Indeed Tesla, which seems now to be everyone’s dream car, collaborated with Lotus in the creation of the Roadster. The relationship didn’t work out best for various reasons and now fewer than 7% of the components are common between the Tesla Roadster and Lotus’s EV. But as discussions abound about the weight of the Tesla S, mostly due to its battery, Tesla may yet have to rethink some of its design.

It isn’t, in the end, about Lotus or Tesla but about the homage they both pay to subtractive creativity. And by extension, to sustainability – of the creativity, of the environment, and of the human being’s quest for movement, speed and beauty all at the same time.

Best stated in the words of Colin Chapman, Lotus’s founder: “Simplify, then add lightness.”

Unflattered by imitation

Luxury marques trade partly on the tangible benefits of craftsmanship, provenance and history, and partly on exclusivity (i.e. some can only aspire to them not afford them) and the brand name’s signalling value.

While discussing the face-off between the democratic web and the exclusive nature of luxury, in an earlier post, I wrote that the democracy-exclusivity divide may belong in a debate about sales targets but it certainly does not belong in a discussion about building a brand’s long-term value.

Luxury brands like to connect with the fans of their brands on social media but they draw the line at being flattered by imitation such as offered by counterfeit, fake or knockoff goods that some “fans” of the brand may purchase. There may be uncertain brand building gains but there is potentially certain revenue loss. While in most cases, it is expensive and time-consuming to go after sellers of counterfeit or knockoff goods, in other cases, such as the litigation LVMH brought against eBay, it is possible to make a concerted effort to suffocate the trade in fakes.

Museum_of_Counterfeit_Goods_Wikimedia_CC3.0Who buys these counterfeit or knockoff goods, with intent, anyway?

Some are bought by people, who aspire to but cannot afford the brand, yet nonetheless wish to signal their worth to others. In that sense, one could argue, that knockoffs do not really devalue the original brand. They serve a different market. They serve aspirers. These aspirers may or may not have real social influencer status, so their purchases may not matter either way.

A knowing few (hipsters?) often deliberately choose fakes. Someone I know socially, who can afford to buy the real thing, wears a fake Patek Phillipe Calatrava. It is a topic of gossip amongst those, who don’t know him well. On the other hand, a person, who knows Patek Phillipe craftsmanship well can tell immediately and won’t be impressed with his fake watch. His defence was, “I wear the fake ironically.” That makes it alright then.

Amongst those, who knowingly choose to buy fakes, some find social embarrassment mortifying. If you carry a fake Birkin, but move in circles where many have the real thing, that embarrassment will find you sooner than later.

Some others I know socially first bought counterfeit goods because of the aspiration value of the counterfeited brand, and because they coveted the brand’s beautifully made products. But then they found the quality satisfactory for their purposes and have continued buying those counterfeit products.

This is where it gets tricky for luxury brands.

How do luxury brands then stand out so that they can bring these people seeking quality into the fold or at the very least make the genuine article stand out so dramatically that the aspirers move away from fake goods altogether?

I see three flavours of a new kind of exclusivity emerging.

The first kind, that has been running for a few years now, is to make the brand aura accessible via collaboration with a high street brand, as Alexander Wang, Isabel Marant and others have done with fast fashion H&M. Such collaborations create a kind of desire and exclusivity within the mass market milieu, satisfying some aspirers while probably nudging others into exploring the real thing.

Then there is the use of technology to create and enable an inclusive form of exclusivity, such as Burberry enabling customers to buy off the catwalk and have goods personalised for a limited period after a fashion show.

But above all, luxury turns to its roots in craftsmanship, the exclusivity of custom-made novel fabrics and materials, such as practised by Mary Katrantzou, who is having a special kind of lace and embroidered jacquards specially made in Swiss mills. This is near-impossible to knock-off and the goods are certainly far from anything the mass market can access.

Luxury will always have an uncomfortable relationship with the democratising effect of the web and emergent technologies. In exclusivity lies its allure.

What will emerge is innovation in ways of keeping that exclusivity alive. And in ways of influencing the intent of fans and potential customers towards the real thing and away from fakes.

Craftsmanship is the reliable foundation luxury can always turn to.

But will that suffice?

Pretty and other things about tech wading into luxury

I see a lot of chatter on Twitter about how some lollipop/ icecream/ sundae update on Android doesn’t work on this device or that from different manufacturers. Then there are the workarounds, the fixes that one needs to learn, and consequent boasts on Twitter. And the many exhortations to do factory reset and start from scratch.

And I wonder.

This is 2015.

I have been using a mobile phone for 20 years now.

A technology that is pervasive and unarguably central to our lives, like water and oxygen, needs to be easier than this Android malarkey. It needs to be low cognitive load. I think often and a lot about cognitive load because I research and teach masterclasses in better decision making. That is my beat. The decisions can cover a vast scope — from organisation design, to product design, to making it easy for a customer to find, buy and use the product.

My iDevices — the iPhone and the iPad in particular — are low cognitive load. The UI is intuitive, and the capacitive touch screen is sensitive and easy to use for older and younger persons alike.

Some may say these iDevices are dumbed down, and use derisive words such as Mactards (!) for people like me. Frankly I would rather use my cognitive surplus (thanks, Clay Shirky, for that wonderful coinage!) on things more productive than making my mobile phone work.

If one wishes to create a business or a product for high frequency or pervasive use, making it easy to use is essential.

Then there is designing for human follies. And real world use. And end-of-life considerations. In business speak, these are considerations for process and incentive design.

Have you ever lost an iDevice? Then again, have you ever lost any other mobile phone or connected device? Let me know how you got on with the latter!

Recently I have misplaced a device, and had a device stolen. The lost one was found because I could locate it and track its movement from the time the loss was registered with the authorities in charge to the time it was found and returned. The time one was stolen, at least I could trigger the remote wipe as soon as the thief tried to get in.

Insurance companies replace the device not they can not replace the data, which is far more valuable.

Which brings me to back-up and synchronisation.

Yes, the iTunes UI could be much improved. It is far from being the best showcase for user friendly design. But the back-up and synchronisation happen easily. Without much effort (or cognitive load, see above).

Then there is seamless recycling for old or end-of-life devices. Apple’s recycling partner agrees a sum of money during the online registration process. I wipe the data on the old devices and ship it free-of-charge to the recycling partner and receive the money. Apple is in compliance with the WEEE Directive in Europe. As a consumer, I am happy not to have old devices cluttering my shelves, and as a citizen, I am pleased I am not contributing to environmental garbage in the world.

JeanPaulGaultier_Barbican2014

Then there is pretty.

The iDevices are pretty. There is no getting away from it. I work in luxury. Pretty is luxury’s calling card. The iDevices fit the bill.

When a consumer spends a considerable chunk of money on one’s product, it behooves us as businesses to deliver a seamless, satisfying, low effort and pleasant consumer experience all round.

It is harder than it looks, it costs money, it needs a lot of imagination and profound understanding of the consumer’s journey with the business.But above all it takes commitment.

For the tech companies looking to play in the luxury or premium markets, there is a lot to learn from Apple. As well as from the fact that the best regarded luxury sector players demonstrate that serious commitment at every step of the customer’s journey with them. Those that don’t may not and often do not last. More’s the pity.