• Anything that makes textbooks more interesting can only be a good thing. However, is it possible to turn every book into an amazing visual journey. I notice they only showed introductory science book examples. How complex can the topics become before the book reverts to mainly text? What about drier subjects like some branches of mathematics?
• Does this risk trivialising learning? They’ve taken the study questions and made them more interactive. Fine, but this is just like any web based learning environment, so not exactly revolutionary. And not everything can be represented as a multiple-choice question. It would have been great to see more innovative approaches to learning. Without this, there is a risk that the reinforcement of learning is only very shallow.
• Immersion. There are lots of potential distractions on an iPad. Just how effective will it be as a teaching tool.
• Reading experience. iPads are not e-Ink displays, which means that they will be tiring to read over time. People seem to cope with this, but if kids are looking at a screen solidly for 5 days a week, I’m not sure that’s amazing for their eyes.
• Typing. Nobody is going to claim that an iPad makes a great tool for typing for long periods. The problem is, if a school invests in iPads for each student, then they’re not going to provide laptops too. So what are students going to use to do coursework while at school?
• Exclusion. I echo the sentiment about this being too expensive for most schools/students. It would have been nice if the iBooks format was slightly more open, so it could perhaps work via a browser for those schools that couldn’t afford iPads. This is not in Apple’s interests though, hardware sales are where all their profits are (and why they can make the entire iBooks platform free software. You need an iPad to view it and a Mac to create it).
• Reach. As the article states, cost aside, not all schools will want to move onto an entirely Apple ecosystem. I’m not sure this matters to Apple though and I don’t think they’ll be worried if they only carve out a small niche in the education market. For one it’s great publicity for how socially responsible they are, it also helps to cement use of Apple products into the next generation of consumers and it will drive sales from those wealthy schools that can afford it. Now they’ve made the software, there are no major costs to supporting it (even interactive books are likely to be less costly to host and serve than apps, music or video as they will be smaller files prone to lower levels of demand).

So, there are limitations, but it is likely to see success within those schools that can afford to adopt it. Just don’t expect to see it revolutionise education overnight.

Thought so – and so have a host of other people. There have been two approaches to this – one of which I blogged about earlier which is trying to improve the online experience by using virtual mannequins based on your measurements. Hawes & Curtis has now implemented it and in fact the same company has now released a female form.
The other approach is to set about improving the off-line experience – the dreaded retail changing room.

The latest innovation in the field is the virtual mirror. Possibly the first major retailer to implement a version of this was Macy’s in New York City, who trialled a virtual mirror about a year ago for a limited time. The Magic Fitting Room was set up in the dressing room area and featured a body-length mirror along with an iPad tablet. The shopper stepped in, a photo was taken to calibrate position and body orientation. They could enter their Facebook log-in information, an e-mail address or a mobile phone number on the iPad then browse a (rather limited) selection of tops, bottoms, dresses and jackets. On selecting an item, a digital representation of it appeared on the mirror, superimposed upon the reflection of the shopper as if she were actually trying it on. When they are done, shoppers could share the look via e-mail or Facebook to see what their friends thought. They could also receive a text message or Facebook post indicating the location of these items in the store. “Reaching out to and engaging with the digital-savvy, young consumer is something all retailers are striving to do,” said Joe Feczko, Macy’s senior vice president for innovation.

That’s all well and good – but having gone through this virtual try, you still had to traipse through the store to find the item on the racks and probably try it on for real just to make sure (assuming it was in stock, that is). Not exactly a time saver then.

Style me  has also come up with an interactive virtual mirror, slated to appear in stores sometime next year. It is not meant to replace the changing room but rather augment it or enhance it. After the system calibrates your body size and shape while you stand still a few seconds, the user standing in front of the mirror can browse by brand or clothing item the same way they would with a Kinect (e.g. swiping the air to turn a page, hand hovering over an icon on the screen rather than touching it). The next thing is to try it on virtually – so the item appears “on” you. You can then save, take a picture to share by email or on Facebook, and decide if you want to actually try on or not. It’s an opportunity to share a laugh with your friends, they say. Really?…

I can see quite a few things “wrong” with this. For one, this comes across to me as a “digital savvy young consumer” approach to shopping – an afternoon out with your friends, you try on a lot of things – some quite unlikely – have a giggle, post a funny pic on Facebook. For grown ups, the perspective of standing in the middle of the shop floor virtually trying on clothes probably does not appeal so much – nor do I know many adult women (let alone men) who shop with friends all that much or who have the time, especially those with children, to virtually try on a bunch of things before deciding which to take into the changing room. And if I have to do this in the privacy of the changing room I might as well be trying the clothes on anyway.

I also seriously doubt that calibrating by just standing a few seconds in front of the mirror will provide an accurate enough body image – you still need to try the item on for fit. While I see the sense of having an online virtual me based on my measurements (see above, fit.me) to help online ordering, I suspect the technology is still not sharp enough to make it reliable enough in helping select a size. The one technology which currently seems to offer real benefits in this area is the Intellifit system which actually scans your body to tell you what size and model to buy.

Other companies doing similar things:

Using Kinect:

TC2

Glasses to You

Frames Direct 

Finally, what about men? Would they use this?…

This report looks at how a total of nearly 5,000 consumers (spread across five separate surveys) regard their experience with companies in the retail, travel, online banking, mobile phone and gaming (gambling) sectors.
Our consumer research shows that the relative importance of different attributes varies by sector, as does the frequency of overall interaction and use of different channels (including online and offline).

• Customers are increasingly moving online, however, the face to face experience is still important, the call centre and brochure being relegated to less important ways of buying
• Mobile experiences are weak – even if you’re a mobile phone company!

To download the whitepaper a valid e-mail address is required, however Foviance will not contact you unless you specifically request it.

• World’s first* neurological experiment into poor online customer experience proves existence of ‘web stress’
• Brain wave analysis indicates that consumers need to concentrate 50% more than normal when using a badly performing website
• Two most stressful points of the online sales cycle are search and checkout

* Based on extensive desk research in February 2010.

London, UK February 24, 2010 – CA, Inc. (NASDAQ: CA), the world’s leading independent IT management software company, today announced the first ever neurological study of consumer reactions to a poor online experience. The research proves that many consumers experience ‘web stress’ when trying to make an online purchase. The stress levels of volunteers who took part in the study rose significantly when they were confronted with a poor online shopping experience. In order to retain customers, attract new ones and prosper during the economic recovery, CA is calling for European businesses to focus on giving their customers the best possible online experience.

CA partnered with Foviance – a leading customer experience consultancy – to explore ‘web stress’ in relation to application performance, and its impact on consumer behaviour and buying habits. Brain wave analysis from the experiment revealed that participants had to concentrate up to 50% more when using badly performing websites, while facial muscle and behavioural analysis of the subjects also revealed greater agitation and stress in these periods.

During the study, volunteers were wired up to sophisticated neurological and physiological testing equipment, including an EEG (Electroencephalography) cap which was used to monitor brain wave activity. The volunteers then carried out a series of everyday online tasks such as finding and buying a laptop PC and travel insurance. Using all the data gathered, CA and Foviance identified the two most stressful points of the online sales cycle were search and checkout. At these two points, subjects experienced heightened levels of ‘web stress’. During the experiment, volunteers persevered and completed the purchase but in reality, more than three quarters of customers will abandon the site. The study also revealed that after a bout of heightened ‘web stress’, on average it took each participant up to a minute to return to a relaxed state.

“The results of this study sends out a clear message – businesses need to reduce ‘web stress’ and improve the online experience of their customers if they’re going to maximise returns from their web channel,” said Kobi Korsah, Director, EMEA Product Marketing at CA. “It’s not just about website design or internet connection speeds – the performance of a website is dependent on the performance of the web applications that support it. Businesses need an Application Performance Management (APM) solution which not only provides real insight into how customers are experiencing their web applications, but will proactively manage the performance and availability of these applications. This translates into better customer service, improved brand loyalty and increased sales.”

Catriona Campbell, leading behavioural psychologist, Director and Founder of Foviance, said: “Consumers have very high expectations of web applications and web sites – to be always available and instantly responsive. This experiment simulated the experience of underperforming web applications for our volunteers. The results show that when online expectations aren’t met, people quickly become agitated, confused and have to concentrate 50% more than normal. All these problems can be detected and prevented as long as businesses take a proactive approach to measuring the customer’s experience of web applications.”

The experiment builds on the CA 2009 Web Stress Index published last year which examined the frustrations associated with underperforming web applications. The research found that more than three quarters (77%) of European consumers blame either website owner or the website host (which is in any case chosen by the website owner) when an online application fails. It also revealed that if consumers encounter problems online, 40% will go to a rival website and 37% will abandon the transaction entirely. Only 18% said they would report a problem to a company, which means companies need to have their own measures in place to understand how their website is performing from the customer’s point of view.  

About the Experiment

Foviance carried out the study on behalf of CA at the labs of Glasgow Caledonian University in January 2010. Thirteen volunteers took part in the study – eight female and five male participants, aged between 22 and 42. The participants were from the UK, Italy, Spain, France, and Germany. During the study, volunteers were wired up to sophisticated neurological and physiological testing equipment, including an EEG (Electroencephalography) cap which was used to monitor brain wave activity. They then carried out a series of everyday online tasks such as finding and buying a laptop PC and travel insurance.

Download the study here

View video below: 2 minutes 34 seconds

www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmYSLWGYZzA

Press contacts

Catriona Campbell – Foviance  info@foviance.com +44 (0)845 054 6500

Press Coverage

Financial Times podcasts: ‘The stressful side of web surfing’ featuring Foviance founder Catriona Campbell

Using an EEG (Electroencephalography) cap and sophisticated neurological and physiological testing equipment, volunteers were wired up during the study and had their brain wave activity monitored. Everyday tasks online such as finding and buying items were tested by the volunteers.

The results revealed that search and checkout were the two most stressful points of everyday processes carried out online, resulting in the volunteers exhibiting a heightened level of ‘web stress’. This type of stress results in more than three quarters of customers abandoning websites before they have completed the task that drove them to the site in the first place. To download the whitepaper a valid e-mail address is required, however Foviance will not contact you unless you specifically request it.

At an event for Social Media Week London last week, a question was raised over whether responding to people on Twitter and similar social media sites would encourage more customers to air their complaints in public. In my opinion, the answer is that it probably does, particularly if people see others being responded to effectively. However, this should not be a reason to ignore disgruntled customers. People will still have their grievance, whether or not they choose to voice it. If the alternative is having an annoyed customer that walks away in silence, it is much better to have one that shouts from the rooftops and offers up the opportunity to open up a conversation. People who vocalise their problems provide a way for companies to gain insight into the problems their customers have, and it is likely that if one customer has had a negative customer experience, that there will be a lot more in a similar situation. With the information being out there, it is up to a company to find a way to harness it to improve the customer experience they offer.

Another point raised was about placing this kind of customer service in context with other business priorities. Within many companies resources are limited, so it should be these priorities that decide where resources are used. If it is a choice, should the customer who rants on Twitter be prioritised over the customer who has been left waiting for 10 minutes on the customer service phone line? The challenge is understanding what levels of communication are appropriate for a particular company, how these should be implemented, and how these can fit in amongst other concerns.

Economics has not fared well in the current financial crisis. Economists placed too much of an emphasis on people’s likelihood to act rationally when making decisions. People do not always act in their own self interest and this is largely a consequence of biases that affect our ability to make decisions.

Economists and psychologists have been exploring our perceptual biases since the 70′s, but these biases have come to assume a new prominence in the most recent crisis because of the writings of behavioural economists such as Richard Thaler, Dan Ariely and Robert Shiller. They argue that, as consumers, we are subject to a whole host of biases that distort our thinking and decision making processes. We have a tendency to accept evidence that confirms our preconceptions over evidence that contradicts them (confirmation bias), to weave concurring facts into one single causal narrative (narrative bias), and to attribute our own successes to skill while suggesting the success of others may be down to luck (fundamental attribution error).

Why are these biases so prevalent? Quite simply our brains evolved to accommodate a world that is far less complex than it is today. We use these biases as shortcuts that enable us to navigate a complex world. These biases may seem efficient but at times they frequently work against us. With brand and product choice proliferating there is evidence the people are being influenced by these biases more than ever before. Our view is that brands can play an important role in simplifying and aiding consumer decision making. By doing so they can benefit from greater brand equity and customer loyalty.

Let’s consider one of these in the context of customer experience: the framing effect. This says that presenting people with the same choices but in different formats affects how people make decisions. Some of the organisations we are working with are paying more attention to the concept of ‘choice architecture’ in customer service decisions – carefully nudging people towards the right choices. Not in a manipulative way I might add but in ways in which both the brand and consumers benefit. One of these companies has previously struggled to move customers from high cost / high touch service channels to self-serve channels.

Rational economics would suggest that people would use the self-serve channel as it is quicker and cheaper for customers. But as I’ve said people aren’t very rational. An understanding of the choice architecture and consumer behaviour, along with its inherent biases, will lead to better customer strategies.

Back to December newsletter

Customer experience is not a fad. Yes the terminology is bandied about much more than before but before customer experience we had customer satisfaction and customer engagement. Using the words ‘customer experience’ implies that an organisation is looking at how consumers experience the brand in a more strategic way. Indeed we’ve been gratified to see a large number of organisations really grasp the concept and value of customer experience. Some initiatives have delivered excellent returns on investment and have proven very effective, but we now believe such initiatives are no longer enough in themselves, and here’s why.Modern customers and consumers have an unprecedented ability to communicate with each other. As a result of the comments, interactions and opinions of customers published across every digital channel, there now exists a vast knowledge pool of insights into every business, and almost complete transparency in every marketplace.

Before this ‘revolution’, it was very easy for businesses to dismiss singular voices. If a consumer had a poor experience that a company did not recognise, it was reasonably futile for them to complain because they simply disappeared into a media smokescreen of customer-orientation speak. It’s hard to remember sometimes just how difficult it was for consumers to gang up and rebel over their treatment by big companies. But now the ever evolving web is continually finding new ways to exploit collective voices in order to call corporations to account. Customer opinions both good and bad spread much more quickly and with more weight than ever before. There is a new ability to harness an amplified voice capable of reaching tens of thousands or more like-minded consumers very quickly indeed.

Add to this mix numerous fresh analyst statistics that prove people are more sceptical than ever before of marketing messages, and you can quickly see that the collective consumer voice is becoming all-powerful. Measurements such as the Edelman Trust Barometer indicate that we are all far more likely to listen to our fellow consumers and peers than any amount of carefully sculpted corporate PR. Recent research conducted by Penn State University analysing more than 150,000 microblog posts showed that 19% of all posts (or tweets, mainly) mentioned brands. Of these 50% were positive and 33% were negative. What we are seeing is that people ultimately trust each other more than businesses, and readily share their opinions. They just haven’t been able to capture the opinions of others so readily before now.

Businesses are in the novel position of having to influence consumer behaviour largely through actual deeds, and not through hollow marketing. They need to positively affect user engagement through actions, and enhance customer experience by delivering on promises. Business reputation is no longer a one-way communication, and instead hinges on how companies actually behave.

All of this of course means that customer experience is more important than ever before. It’s no longer just a project that ought to be carried out. It’s now a critical strategic imperative. The task of continually maintaining and enhancing a very high level of customer experience must be integrated into the very fabric of organisations, and one-off projects or initiatives must be consigned to the past. Likewise customer experience can no longer be a task assigned to junior committees, but instead a vital strategy tackled at the very highest level and imbued in business culture. The very best manifestation of any brand will now prove to be actual positive customer experiences felt through multiple touch-points and across a range of channels, ensuring that when people talk about brand in favourable terms, it will have genuine credibility and clout.

Back to October Newsletter

Since the advent of the internet, the ways in which people choose to communicate have changed dramatically. With the evolution of social media, these changes have accelerated even faster.

Changes in online communication affect the fundamental ways that people interact with each other. Social aspects now dominate a large proportion of internet content which is tagged, classified, reviewed and commented on by people all over the world. Increasingly people are seeking out this type of content on the internet.

Social media has revolutionised consumer interactions with companies and brands. One of the first changes brought about by social media was its impact on consumer voice. Social media empowered consumers and provided them with a voice that would be listened to by other consumers. Dialogue also opened up between consumers and businesses and as a result, consumers now expect a more personal relationship with businesses in the social media arena.

In a recent McKinsey Report, 87 percent of executives report using Web 2.0 applications to communicate with customers. Of these, over half use Web 2.0 technologies to encourage customer participation in product development, a similar proportion use Web 2.0 to enable customers to communicate with each other. Consumers are becoming increasingly familiar with the process of interacting with strangers who share a common interest. For a business to be successful within this environment they must interact honestly and show accountability.

According to social media marketing statistics for 2009, analysed by Nielson Online, social networks and blogs are two of the most popular online activities, even more popular than personal email. Through social media, people are systematically expressing openly what was previously deemed to be private information. For instance, it’s very common for social networking users to advertise personal information such as political views, religious views or sexual orientation.

An individual’s personal and professional networks share the same online realm and are laid out for other network members to see. This often highlights the disparity between how people represent themselves to and communicate with the different social groups in their life. Indeed, there are now measures in place on social networking sites to segregate these groups, for example, separate out colleagues, family and friends, and only show each group information that is appropriate to them.

One-to-one private email conversations are now publicly communicated through social networks and it’s even possible to be updated on a friend’s activities without ever having to communicate with them directly. Users of sites such as Facebook or Twitter are becoming used to receiving very detailed notifications of their friends’ lives, including those with whom they may have no offline contact. Conversations with strangers are also becoming common through applications such as flyChat, an iPhone based network that allows the user to randomly send and receive messages from people all over the world in order to build networks.

Another newcomer to the social media scene is Google Wave, due to be released later on this year – its purpose is to ‘unify’ communication on the web. It combines email, web chat and instant messaging to enable people to have ongoing conversations with others. Conversations can at the same time be synchronous and asynchronous due to the ability to see conversations in real time, but also to be able to leave a thread and return to it later. It features the ability to replay conversations and to easily distribute files.

With new technologies entering the market all the time, the ways in which people communicate with each other both personally and professionally look set to continue evolving.

Back to July /Aug newsletter

The rise of the power of user generated content is leading organisations to offer new ways of enticing participation, and an innovative example I will be following is that of Simon Seeks.

There are plenty of sites vying for participation, in the form of user generated content: some offer to pay up front for the content, while others hope that by linking into other successful social networking sites, that they will boost their usage, and a confident few are content to start by carefully seeding, hoping that the community will grow, simply through brand, interest or both.

However Simon Seeks offers rewards based on both conversion and loyalty. Registered users of the site write reviews. If their review leads to other users booking a holiday, they are then given financial rewards back. Conversion and loyalty are not new, but it’s a model of encouragement that I have never seen before.

I guess the hope is that if reviewers are rewarded with something in context, it should lead them to have another experience, and in return, for the site can hope for loyalty, and more crucially, another review posted of that new experience.