[Sigia-l] Why Good Content Must Suck: Designing for the Scent of Information - Jared Spool

[m o r r y]

I totally agree. I don't think most intelligent people want to think that
they have been pushed or pulled in any direction. The terminology reeks of
being manipulated or cajoled against our will.

 I wrote a piece called Enter At Your Own Risk: Unstick the Internet
(ironically it was published by a PR agency)  in which I argued against the
push/pull idea of content sometimes called "sticky".  Ultimately unless you
are creating interactive or web art and are primarily concerned with
expressing yourself and don't even care if you communicate anything to
anyone- perhaps even to yourself-  then you have to be concerened with the
audience.  There is a certain irony in the argument becuase what we are
essentially saying is that if you build a user-centered site it will give
users what they want which will get the mesage to them becuase they are
attracted (pulled) to it on their own as they are in control.  The goal of
course is the same- to communicate but the methodology is different.  This
is basically what Chomsky calls manufactured consent and reminds me of
Douglas Rushkoff's analysis of  Sprite commericals. Sprite ads say don't
listen to advertising messages that soft drinks will do all kinds of amazing
things just "obey your thirst" This of course amounts to Drink Sprite.  At
the end of the day architecture and design are rhetoric and good rhetoric is
very different from forcing people to do what you want them to do against
their will.

An excerpt of the original article as published follows. Feel free to read,
delete or print out and use as a dart board.


------------------------------------------------------
"The problem with stickiness lies in its attitude and approach. The word
conjures up an assortment of images-from flypaper to rodent traps to any
variety of adhesive that is used to force something to stay where it
otherwise would not. Stickiness is therefore combative; it attempts to
wrestle control from the user, which is often a short-sighted if not fatal
strategy in a user-centered medium like the Web.

 The concept of stickiness did not coincide with the rise of the Internet.
It was used, and subsequently abandoned, by retailers long before the Web
and e-tailing were ever conceived. Chain stores, shopping malls, and
department stores all created "sticky" environments in physical spaces in
much the same way that websites are now creating them in virtual spaces. The
most popular technique was a maze-like architecture-mirrors, ostentatious
displays, and escalators that made it impossible to physically navigate a
store without canvassing entire floors.
...
These techniques reached their peak of success during the 1950s and 1960s.
My grandmother tells stories of spending an entire afternoon in one
department store-leisurely browsing, socializing, and being entertained.
Back then, shoppers enjoyed the experience and were thus willing to spend a
great deal of time (and, ultimately, money) in one place. But as the
percentage of double-income households surged in the 1980s, Americans began
shopping differently. When free time became a rare and precious commodity,
the roundabout "sticky" design and merchandising displays of malls and
department stores no longer seemed entertaining. Consumers felt trapped.

"Malls have been in decline since their heyday in the 1970s, with fickle
consumers spending less time, on average, per shopping trip," reported The
New York Times on July 25, 1999. Eager to salvage their businesses, malls
and department altered their mindsets. Hours were extended year-round-not
just during the holiday season-and many stores began to open on Sundays as
states repealed blue laws. More importantly, retailers across the country
began redesigning their physical architecture to help people get in and out
of their stores with greater ease. Today, even the Mall of America-the
largest shopping mall in the United States and perhaps the
world-breathlessly describes itself on its website as "big, [but] easy to
navigate." Ultimately, easy navigation is the key to keeping customers
happy.

So if sticky is out, what exactly is in? In contrast to broadcast and print
media, the beauty of the web is its inherent interactivity. Users freely
pick and choose the things they want to experience. Better still, the web
empowers site owners and visitors to interact with each other, providing the
opportunity for a dialogue. And as the history of commerce has taught us,
the lifeblood of any company, organization or institution is just this kind
of symbiosis: a relationship between two parties that is both interdependent
and beneficial. Successful sites follow user-centered principles that
promote repeat visits, while "sticky" ones ignore everything savvy marketers
have learned about merchandising, public relations, and customer service
over the last 20 years.

Will stickiness prove as fleeting a concept as dot-com companies that barely
even tried to turn a profit? It's too early to tell. But as consumers come
to trust websites for information and buy from e-tailers, companies which
embrace the interactive quality of the Internet and acknowledge the
symbiotic relationship between businesses and consumers will be the ones who
survive. So the next time someone asks why your website isn't especially
sticky, ask them why they've stopped shopping at the mall.

by Morry Galonoy (c)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------











----- Original Message -----
From: Derek R
To: SIGIA-L
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 4:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Sigia-l] Why Good Content Must Suck: Designing for the Scent
of Information - Jared Spool



>| Turns out that the content itself has to
>| pull the user to it. *The stronger the pull,*
>| the more likely the user will find it.
>| ... Jared discusses how to organize your
>| site to pull users to the right place


I don't know about you, but I don't want to be pushed, or pulled, or
otherwise prodded, thank you very much. That kind of action seems to be
how we treat livestock. The cowboys even have *electric-prods* for that
'strong' pull/push effect you're looking for.

Yeeeooww! Watch that cow dance!


Wouldn't it be nice if it 'turns out' that the user (themselves)
navigate content? Insight moves sight to the site? (Something like a
green pasture.)

This way your content doesn't have to have a *stronger pull* than your
competitor's content. The content does not require the *inherent need*
to market itself, and we can do without a 'market of marketers' selling
us 'wisdom' on how to market our content.

Instead of pushing and pulling users you could *present,* honestly and
definitively, so that the user is *oriented* and can *choose themselves*
(freedom) which way to go.

Nah. Maybe Information Architecture does *need* to be a marketing
gimmick. It sure would be easier (requiring less ability) than taking
the time to create/form a structure for use (A=A=A).

And it would be more fun too! -- Think of all the kinds of kewl new
marketing buzzwords we can use to market ourselves and our discipline!
Like 'information scent' and 'findability!'

What a wonderful world it will be! Yeeeooww!




------------
When replying, please *trim your post* as much as possible.
*Plain text, please; NO Attachments

ASIST SIG IA website: http://www.asis.org/SIG/SIGIA/index.html
Searchable list archive:   http://www.info-arch.org/lists/sigia-l/
________________________________________
Sigia-l mailing list -- post to: Sigia-l at asis.org
Changes to subscription: http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigia-l