How not to ask for a phone number

A real life lesson in simple usability improvements that can improve conversion rates.

My wife and I love the movies, so to celebrate Valentine's Day this weekend we'll be going to our local cinema to see "The Kings Speech".  I've heard it's very good.

I booked online with at the cineworld.co.uk site (@cineworld) and only just managed to book thanks to a rather horrible usability hurdle.  Here follows what I wrote to them using the contact pages after the experience.

Dear Cineworld

"...I wanted to share with you a usability problem I had with the payment pages.  If my experience is anything to go by it will be seriously hampering your conversion rates and if you fix it should improve your bottom line immediately...


It's to do with the validation of the mobile phone number.


I initially put in my number as follows;
077XXXXXXXX


The error message told me to add the country code. So I did;
+4477XXXXXXXX


The error message told me to only use digits.  So I did;
004477XXXXXXXX


Then the was another error message.  Can't remember exactly what it said.  To get through the validation process I needed to actually type;
4477XXXXXXXX


4 attempts!
From someone who works building websites for a living and has done so for the last 11 years!


It's quite possibly the worst validation experience I've ever  had.


Suggestions;
1. If you want to capture the data in that format tell them so in the form up front 
2. Alternatively have a drop down of country codes to select from with UK as default.  Then ask people to enter their number as normal in the field and get your programmers to remove the first zero and any spaces.


In essence - you're making it way too complicated.


Hope you find this useful..."

What's happened here?

I've seen this happen many times.

The developer says, "In order to send SMS confirmation messages, my system needs clean and correct numbers.  I need the country code, then the mobile number in the following format; [XXYYYYYYYYYY] (where X is the country code, no zeroes, no symbols and Y is the number, no spaces, no zero up front)".

The developer does not say, "How do people usually type in their mobile numbers?  How can I help them enter it in a way that is obvious for them and still helps me get the data in the format I need"

Don't blame the developer though.  The producer / product manager should be on top of this during the design process and the interaction designer should instruct the developer.

Cineworld, to be fair have built a pretty intuitive website and it's very easy to find and select a movie to book.

Funnily enough, Cineworld did populate the form with a suggestion format in the field.  I didn't see it, the light grey was so light it didn't register.  Then, when I got it wrong, I didn't have obvious instructions on what the format should have been.

The only way top really test this is to watch real people using it.  People with nothing to do with the design process. Learn from idiots like me, tweak the form, then measure the results.  How many more visitors converted into bookings did I make as a result of that change? Sounds obvious.

Be your own customer.

Teams, Hierarchy, Process and Start-Ups

How to think about structuring a start-up team.

One of the marvels of humanity is how when we work together we can progress so much more than when we work alone.  We all have different experience, skills and talent to offer, and businesses are just one example of people working together to achieve more than they could alone.

The challenge facing fast growth companies and start-ups is that they are in a constant state of change.  Actually, all businesses need to be in a constant state of change if they are to survive at all.  The environment around them changes and to provide value in that environment they need to refine and adapt.  The fact remains however that some businesses move faster than others, and start-ups tend move really fast.

And here's the thing, the bigger your team gets, the more structure you need to make the most of your resources.  By structure I don't just mean hierarchy, I also mean more clearly defined processes. Most people recognise that small companies need less structure and larger companies need more.

Things aren't that simple though.  It's not just size that matters. There are I think four major considerations at play when building an appropriate structure for the business (for that moment in time).

These four are "chunking", "scheduling", "size" and "risk".

1. "Chunking"

By chunking I mean; how easy is it to separate different tasks between different people?   It could be that (in say - a recruitment consultancy) one team looks after London, the other team look after New York.  Or - (in say - a law practice) one legal team looks after client A and another legal team looks after client B.  Where it's easy to do this, we often do because division of labour brings speed, expertise and efficiency.  As long as there are not too many dependencies between these teams, you can still run a fairly flat organisation with limited processes.

2. "Scheduling"

In some instances, many different tasks are required AND they need to be done in a certain order.  This is where it gets more difficult to manage with little hierarchy. Consider a major engineering project such as building a new bridge.  Many different teams are involved in a build process that has to happen in a certain order.  In such businesses, more hierarchy is required to get the job done, create the processes to pass the project along from a multitude of task owners.  It's not just that this is a lot of people, there are lots of complexities with dependencies that require order.

3. "Size"

Size is more obvious and is where we started out - the more people involved, the more hierarchies and process are needed.  Just because two businesses have the same number of people though, it doesn't mean they should have the same depth of hierarchy or body of process.  A recruitment consultancy with 10,000 staff will not need as much hierarchy and process as an oil exploration company with 10,000 staff.  In the first instance the recruitment consultants can work in small teams to independently mange their customers, develop business and attract candidates.  Maybe there's a central payroll system, CRM software or a local marketing team, but it can be quite a flat hierarchy.  The oil company will have far more specialists all needing to interact and more hierarchy depth is required.

4. "Risk"

Compare NASA to a theatre ticketing company.  In one case if a process fails, someone dies. In another case, the guest might not get a ticket.  In situations of high risk, it's likely that more controls are in place to manage resources tightly.

What about start-ups?

I find the four considerations above a useful starting point when thinking about structures that are needed for a start-up.

Some learnings;
- Understand that as you grow you'll need process, but only just enough to make it work.  Too much will suffocate productivity
- Build a foundational structure based on your thoughts around risk and scheduling considerations. Figure out how much scheduling is required to make things work.  Reduce dependencies where you can.
- Chunk work if you need to, but understand the different between "could chunk" and "should chunk"
- Accept that different parts of the organisation may require different levels of hierarchy and process.  Many people assume a company requires a standardised set of levels of management, this is a mistake.  Tech may need a totally different level of depth and structure to (say) sales
- when hiring people, try to understand what types of environment and culture they thrive in.  Hire not only for your current structure but try to anticipate what you'll need as you grow

Building an organisation framework requires understanding your current state, anticipating your future state and being able to find a balance between the two.  As both are always changing, you're never done.

Local Business SEO - The Game Has Changed For 2011

Local businesses need to realise that for 2011, there is a step change in search engine marketing.

The old rules of SEO no longer apply. I'll explain why, then I'll suggest some key points that local businesses need to think about.

So - what's changed?

This morning I noticed that the traffic to one of my most visited pages on my blog had seriously dropped.  In early 2008 I wrote about "Raja-Fashions Tailor-Made Hong Kong Suits, Online Meets Offline". It was an experiment, to see just from copy writing using the right keywords I could achieve a good search ranking for "Raja Fashions". Just for kicks.  And it worked.  Number 2 in Google for "Raja Fashions" after the business itself.

In the last two weeks, traffic to this site has halved.  Looking at the reasons why made me realise that as far as Google is concerned, the game has changed.

What's happened now is that instead of being number 2 in the results, high up on the page, Google has massively increased the amount of screen space it uses for the relevant local business result.  Now the "place page" has taken centre stage.

Now as you can see, my blog isn't seen on the screen.  I can count already 17 links to the Raja Fashions site, 4 links to their place page and a two links to "more results from rajafashions.com".

(Now - I am stuffing this blog entry with lots of Raja Fashions keywords, but in this case I'm just doing to tell the story, I'm not doing it to try re-claim my ranking, that's for sure! Although, I can recommend having a high ranking page with lots of opinion on it to use as leverage when you're dealing with a Chinese salesman and you're negotiating on price - but that's another story...)

3 important implications for local businesses...

1. Claim your place page.

Local businesses need to claim their place page more than ever.  These pages will get more traffic, make sure the information is complete and accurate.

2. Design your website navigation with Google in mind. 

Local businesses need to make sure that their website navigation has key call to action and information categories on the menu so that these links are the links shown on the Google results page under the main result.  For example if you were a restaurant, you would want a "Book A Table" link on your primary navigation and a landing page for that purpose.  As well as having the booking interface on the homepage as well of course.

3. Bid on your own brand name

This will push all the aggregators even further down the page because you're claiming the top slot on the page. More real estate for you.

Strategically, here's how I read the situation...

Google has always struggled to sell to local businesses.  They've not got a sales force, unlike yellow page companies or Groupon.  So - they need an automated touch point.  By pushing the place page they do two things.  They drive more traffic to place pages so that local business owners start to take notice.  In parallel, aggregators have to pay to be seen because if you're aggregating local businesses, you're not going to get the same returns that you used to on SEO as there's less and less first page screen real estate to be seen on - so better PPC revenues.  Then, they develop their own automated promotions engine on the platform, coupons, vouchers etc.  Groupon, watch out.

Meandering Meetings and Excessive Email

Recently I saw a debate on an online forum about productivity.  A strange place to debate perhaps given that online forums are possibly one of the best ways to be unproductive. Part of the discussion questioned the value of meetings (meetings are toxic, a time-waster, just don't have them) and one contributor advocated that email is best - that you get more done by email than by meeting face to face.  This, in complete contrast to one of my colleagues who detests email and prefers to meet face to face - for just the same reasons.

We all have opinions it seems.  Some say meetings are effective and that email is counter-productive, others say that email is highly productive and meetings are a waste of time.  I simplify of course.  There's other interaction methods such as IM, telephone calls, SMS, faxes (remember those?), conference calls... etc!

If anyone tells me that one belief, faith, method or product is categorically better than another - I don't believe them.

This world has been built on oversimplification.  We simplify because the world is too complex. Some say an Apple Mac is always better than a PC?  Is it?  Always?  Sometimes maybe it is, sometimes not - it depends on what it's been used for.  Context.  A is better than B only some of the time, but B can sometimes be the best way.

Emails or meetings?  Learn to know the difference. I believe that if a message doesn't get through, it's not the fault of the recipient.  The sender needs to communicate in a way that the receiver understands.  Some people respond well to email, others don't.  Understand your audience and figure out which channel to use to get the job done.  If a meeting will get the job done, have a meeting.  If email will work best (for that audience) - use email.

Getting things done requires time to focus, time to collaborate, time to be challenged, time to ask for feedback, time to make decisions.  Saying one method of communications is bad or better is totally missing the point. Context matters.  You're sending or receiving a message.  This is basic marketing communications; understand the audience, select the best channel to engage with them.  Adapt.

One more closing thought.  Being productive does not equal being busy.  I've found that good work is rarely done in one sitting.  Starting a job and seeing it through are important, but equally important are the gaps in between where free thought (say - in the shower, in bed, walking to work) allows ideas to cascade, collide and connect.  Returning to the job in hand, your ideas are firmer, maybe you have new ideas - or see new methods.  My mantra is to focus, but be free.  I try to give myself time to explore my thoughts with others, (say - in coffee shops, or at lunch) - and not feel guilty about it.  It just might not look like I'm busy.

Judge me on the output and not the input or the method.

Habit - The Enemy Of Evolution

If evolution is a natural state, so is habit. They're a tricky pair, evolution and habit - but in my view, they are remarkably prevalent.

Evolution needs to be understood to understand how business value is created and sustained.  Good business ideas (that create value) are rarely thought up out of nothing - they build on what came before - they are the product of evolution.  Evolution brings constant change and adaptation to the changing environment - and this can generate new value.

Habit needs to be understood to realise why value gets eroded.  Habits are repetitive, with no change and adaptation to the changing environment - and habits can erode existing value by failing to adapt to changing circumstances.

We typically think of evolution from a Darwinist perspective - that is - we relate evolutionary theory to how species have changed over time.  Even people who don't agree that this is how we came to be (e.g. have a creationist bias), they still understand what evolutionary theory proposes.

Evolution can be summarised in three words: "differentiate, select, amplify" - are these three words our code not only for surviving, but for progressing, succeeding and winning?

To recap, Darwin suggested that "Favourable variations would tend to be preserved and unfavourable ones to be destroyed".  Note the word "variations".  This is the essence of evolutionary theory.  Take something, create a few variants, see which variant works best in that environment.

I suggest that anything created is built upon what was created before.  We see ideas, we merge them, we use tools and techniques to re-purpose those ideas into something new.  However, the "new idea" that takes the market by storm is only new and relevant at that moment in time for that market in those conditions.  Just like pop stars, if they are to survive they must continually anticipate and adapt to the market.

How to adapt? A simple method: evolution.  Differentiate, select, amplify.

Differentiate.  Do something different.  A new product, a new service, a new model, a new flavour.  Test the variants.   Lots of variants.  Constant iteration.

Select. Figure out which one of the variants hits the sweet spot and gets good results.

Amplify.  Do more of this.  Push resources into building / marketing / selling the new variant.

The point is though is that the new variant will never be the best it can possibly be.  It can always be even better by evolving some more.  Keep changing.  Because with evolution, we never design the "best" up front - we continuously discover "better" by trial and error.

The environment in which we operate changes on a daily basis.  What was the best effort 3 months ago is probably less likely to be as good as it could be now.  As someone once said to me "doing more of what you did to get you here isn't enough to get you over there".  So we need to constantly change and adapt.

In this changing world habit is our worst enemy.  Habit holds back evolution because we stop creating new variants.  Of course, there's a reason for habit.  It helps efficiency and for repeatable tasks, processes get tighter and more effective.  That is - if the environment in which they operate remain constant.

The world is innovating faster and faster.  As the world accelerates with new technology, innovation and social trends, we will need to be even more nimble if we are to adapt and succeed.  Failing to adapt means our ideas, our business models or solutions will become dinosaurs - extinct.

I believe this thinking can be applied on so many levels.  To corporate life, to product management, to government, to family life, to careers, to sport.

To live in the present, to evolve and adapt - it requires having some process (habit), but only just enough.