User Experience (UX) as the Brand
Posted in Branding, UX, User Experience, User Interface on July 16th, 2009 by Dale Cody – Be the first to comment
Lately, I’ve heard a few people in the design community talking about how user interface (UI) should now be considered the brand rather than some of the more traditional descriptions and metrics employed in its definition. The primary reason being that the interface sits between the audience and the content and allows this experience (or not) to take place. This is really the location where the audience or customer experiences the brand. As an example, I recently saw an interview clip of Dale Herigstad, Chief Creative Officer at Schematic and a really superlative creative visionary whom I admire tremendously, in which he posits this exact thing. In fact, this is where they seem to have positioned their company strategically in order to do business.
I think there is a lot of truth to this, but I would also expand it out to include the complete user experience (UX), since I don’t believe any one individual aspect of the online interaction such as the user interface (UI), usability or accessibility fully describe it. I’m pretty confident this is what Dale was alluding to in the clip I saw, but I’ve also heard others take it more literally and I think this would be a short-sighted approach.
Let me explain briefly. Usability is primarily concerned with how well (efficiently, effectively quickly etc.) your intended users can accomplish what they are trying to do during their interactions with your website or other online application. In this respect, it is focused more on task-based operational or transactional activities than broader goal-based pursuits. That is fine, but of course doesn’t tell the whole story. Likewise UI can be looked at as the primary means of interaction thereby becoming the most visible artifact users encounter when dealing with your site and consequently even your company. I think this is probably where the idea of considering the interface as the brand really took hold.
What about those cases where the interface really enables to users to complete tasks quickly, easily and efficiently, but where the overall experience is dreadfully boring or unattractive? For example, the Spartan, utilitarian approach that Google or Craigslist take for their interface work beautifully for their business model, but would the same solution work on a social networking site such as MySpace, Facebook or Bebo? It’s pretty doubtful. Even within these latter 3 websites, there are different degrees of customization and design available to the user that appeal uniquely to their individual audiences.
As another example, when I was Director of Creative and User Experience at CarDomain Network, we had to think very carefully about the UX issues beyond simply the interface. CarDomain’s primary audience is young males 18-34 and if we launched the site say with a pink color scheme, but exactly the same interface features and functionality, we would have severely compromised their overall experience. This ultimately would have disastrously compromised traffic, revenue and site viability. These and many other factors determining the overall user experience are what really defined the brand, not just the UI.
Even though Web 2.0 and other recent changes have really forced a paradigm shift in how business thinks of brands and branding, by considering User Experience (UX) as inextricably tied with the brand, I think you come much closer to branding as understood in the more traditional sense. UX is concerned with the positive and negative effects as well as the attitudes they generate with the audience interacting with your site, service or product offering. I also believe this is a more accurate description, better able to suggest ways in which brand opinions may be improved or influenced through a multiplicity of actions. Considerations such as the interface and usability are simply component parts of the broader concept of user experience. In his book “The Brand Gap” Marty Neumeier defines a brand as a person’s gut feeling about a product, service or company. This seems a much closer metaphor with user experience than it does with simply the interface. The big difference I believe is that in the old model, companies “pushed” marketing to the customer in a sort of one way monologue. With today’s media savvy audience, that approach doesn’t fly so organizations must provide vehicles that fully engage users and promote healthy discussion or dialogue.
Having said all that, I think there is a real business opportunity for companies like Schematic that want to specialize in just the interface for example. Having that kind of focus could be a very profitable business model for designers and others. Aside from Schematic, usability guru Norman Nielsen is ample proof of that idea. At the same time, as much as I admire Nielsen and have learned from him, my personal opinion is that he is far too ascetic in his thinking and recommendations. I’m certainly not alone in my opinion here and there are endless amounts of discussion over this matter.
The point I’m making here is that you could take Nielsen’s advice and deploy an incredibly usable site, but ironically still not end up with something anyone wants to use because it is simply unappealing or unattractive to them. I do think that a lot of marketers, brand managers and other business professionals would do well to consider some of these ideas when they are crafting brand strategy. The user interface is probably the most easily understood by most people because of its visibility, accessibility and function, but it does not work in a vacuum. It needs context. I think we need to look beyond it and consider user experience as perhaps the primary measure of brand.