Matthew Ingram on Gmail Labs

Matthew Ingram is weighing in on Google's new "Google Labs" service on their gMail application:

”Labs” allows users to try out all kinds of new features and then immediately let Gmail developers know what they think.

As a User Experience practitioner myself, one of the biggest misnomers I have to overcome personally and with those I work with is the idea that User Experience Design (UXD) must be approached by asking users what they say they want rather than by what users actually do.

Mr. Ingram disputes this idea, saying:

"Obviously, anyone who uses any Google app or service can send an email to a support address, check an online forum, use something like GetSatisfation, or check support groups or FAQs. But how many users give up before they do all of those things? That’s feedback a designer or developer could use — and eventually, they will probably get it... I don’t think Gmail Labs is that different — it’s just more feedback, faster."

The above examples focus on what users want, rather than what they actually need. Think about it this way. Let's say you put together a shopping list based on a dinner you might hypothetically serve. Without looking at a guest list, you might buy either too much or too little, and run the risk of serving things most of your friends wont eat.

If you call each potential guest and ask them what they'd like to eat, you'll get a myriad of answers, and most will be based on whimsical desire of the moment rather than something that'll work for everyone. Consensus in this case will only serve to satisfy the few and potentially annoy some guests as well.

But if you look at a guest list, understand what your guests actually eat, and then plan the meal, you'll be closer to the mark. It's the same with developing new features. Understanding the experience from the user's perspective means observing the user and drawing conclusions from those observations.

Ultimately, Mr. Ingram seems to come round, stating:

"The lesson, in other words, is not to try and anticipate all the ways someone might want to use your service — see how they use it, and then focus on that."

Link

Ad firm Spot Runner lands $51 million in funding

B2B Long Tail company Spot Runner has secured a 'war chest' of $51M to fend off challenges from deep pocketed competitors Google and, yes, Microsoft.

It's an interesting model they've got. Democratize production and distribution of television advertising through pre-fab TV spots (Customized with a business's photos, logo and Voiceover) and localized (inexpensive) TV buys.

It begs the question asked by a colleague of mine some time ago: Are they building a business, or simply paving the runway for Microsoft and Google to land on. This gets more interesting when you consider IPTV in the mix, something outside the scope of their (visibly apparent) business plan.

Link to Yahoo/Reuters Article
Link to Vallywag snippet

In Play... New Media Consolidates (again)

Yahoo is still in play, according to Jerry Yang, Cringely has suggested that Adobe is in the cross hairs of Apple's sights, Adobe has opened up Flash (and Air) as a service-based platform, Amazon & Apple both have rich-media pervasive devices, Microsoft is 'meshing' up Live, and Google is holding Verizon's feet to the fire. Are these related? I think so...

New media as a concept is comprised of three critical pieces that have been touted and revisited for as long as the Web has been commercialized:

Content - User- or -corporate generated, Content is the killer app of new media; and it's the reason that people want pervasive broadband access.

Commerce - The monetization of content, Commerce (either via advertising or retail) represents the underwriting of all content in new media.

Conduit -As the method of connecting consumers with content (so traffic can be monetized), the Conduit is the way that people engage with new media.

Yahoo!, as the 800 lbs Web 1.0 gorilla, represents access to vast amounts of users and traffic that can be monetized. They have consistently placed themselves as a media company, even going so far as to hire traditional media mogul Terry Semel as their CEO. While recently deposed and replaced with interim CEO (and Yahoo! founder) Jerry Yang, Semel's implemented strategy remains largely unchanged: Continue to 'portalize' their offerings and function as the entry point to the internet. If they can be the starting point after the conduit, they can commercialize or monetize the traffic they draw.

Google and Amazon, both of whom have made a business connecting commerce and content, are each exploring ways to extend themselves out into the ether; providing services to better draw and convert traffic into dollars.

Microsoft, Apple and Adobe are all engaged, in their own unique ways, in generating the mediums by with which the content and commerce connect with the conduit - i.e. the OS (Microsoft & Apple), the hardware (Apple and to a degree, Amazon), and Adobe (The rich-media platform).

Finally, Verizon (along with Comcast, AT&T and T-Mobile) in the US, along with major wireless and terrestrial providers around the globe are regarding themselves as the gatekeepers, and are beginning to recognize that access fee revenue (while perfunctory and profitable), are ultimately being threatened by commodification. They are seeking methods to monetize the traffic they deliver to content and commercial interests. This has led to the Net-Neutrality fight, and the rise of IPTV as a conduit.

Microsoft is waiting and seeing, as is their way, ready to use their muscle when they need. They made a (as-yet-incomplete) play for Yahoo!, hoping the union of their Web 2.5 vision and Yahoo!'s Web 1.0 stability would lead to security in the marketplace. Google is pressing Verizon to make good on its wireless ambitions, knowing they're in the best position to deliver next-generation services. Adobe is opening up itself to wireless and, yes, IPTV partners to secure its position as the content and commerce platform that can provide the richest end-user experience. and Apple? Well, as Cringley points out, they just want to control all three (consider the power of an Adobe-Apple-AT&T version of Content-Commerce-Conduit trifecta).

This ain't over, by a long shot. A laissez faire marketplace assures us a competitive landscape. A consolidated 3-C landscape assures us that only those with the right relationships or the right value will reach consumers. Devices like the iPhone (mobile/pervasive access), the XBOX360 (IPTV/Terrestrial access), and Verizon's proposed pervasive broadband network (upon which, of course, Google can deliver their own services), will ensure that these closed and semi-closed networks can control each of the 3 components of monetization. Moreover, they are seeking, in no small way, to dismiss the home-brew and open source communities.

By locking down the networks, not only do they each control the flow of information, they are also seeking to control the flow of cash across the Content-Commerce-Conduit value chain.