Redefining the relationship between product, users, and tests
Why is this relationship less effective than we desire? Beyond several issues, it could be how companies structure it with users.
Why connecting with users to run a test is so tedious? First, the hunting process may be complicated and too long; when you finally get the people, they don’t show up, or in the best-case scenario, they cancel at the last moment, so we need to reschedule for a future time that can be way too far from what we need. The consequences of not having a smooth connection with users are enormous, especially regarding business design outcomes and incomes.
So why is this relationship (product-users-test) less effective than we desire? In my experience working for companies across Latin America, this connection is affected by several issues, such as cultural behavior, technology access, and digital maturity. Nevertheless, another reason beyond those limits could be how companies structure this relationship with users.
1. The “bottleneck” department.
Thanks to a significant financial muscle, big companies can develop a department focused on research and run tests throughout the year. This approach is good on many levels because you have all the resources, expertise, talent, and team to develop centralized solid user knowledge.
What can be wrong with this way?
- This research unit must provide services to an entire company and probably is separate from the operation teams.
- According to this, they need to prioritize tons of requests, and maybe yours will fallback behind in the queue.
- Disconnection with daily operations: even though the research team reaches out at the beginning of every quarter to understand the test to develop, things may change daily. So what you planned may be obsolete soon.
- Keeping the door closed of what to test will sacrifice the effectiveness of experience solutions.
2. The overwhelming approach.
We need to wear all types of hats in small companies or start-ups. Among many abilities, people develop skills to connect with users. This approach is good because it allows you to connect directly with the user when you come up with an idea. In addition, the distance between everyday operations and user tests is almost nonexistent, so being close greatly benefits this model.
What can be wrong with this way?
- As the contact with users is immediate, we can overwhelm our users and generate the opposite effect with them if we do not control this approach.
- Missplanning of tests may backfire on you; falling into a test without any sense of outcomes discourages users, and results will lead you nowhere.
- You can have tons of test results without significant conclusions for the business and user experience (quantity over quality).
So, what is the middle point of this?
Like many of you, I have faced some barriers when planning tests with users. I spent tons of energy finding new ways to contact users without solid results. Thus I didn’t know that instead of engaging people, I was creating this “advertising effect” in videos that people try to avoid by any means. I was chasing people, and they rejected me.
After a long time of failed attempts, I can participate in a project that may allow me to reinterpret this communication between these three parts. As with many UX solutions, our starting point comes from a hypothesis. First, we detected that some tools we use to “hear” users are no longer influential; the reasoning is simple: as users, we avoid all emerging communications that interfere with our concentration. Second, we detected that in terms of branding activations (especially with a reward as an outcome), users show more interest in doing a task. This behavior needs no further explanations; we all like prizes, no matter how small they can be.
How can we get that attention from users without generating some level of rejection?
So based on that question, we want to run this little experiment we call “The creator’s room.”
The concept.
We consider it a combination of small ideas; first, it is a contact point between the platform and the primary users; in this way, we avoid intermediate areas. Second, this contact is an attribute of the user zone; this way, we avoid emerging windows that impact the user journey in the platform. And third, we can locate some activities such as quick experiments and validations to get insights from users directly, and of course, we can reward them eventually.
From “testers to creators.”
Part of the problem with this disconnected interest from users is that sometimes we use them as tools rather than crucial actors in developing new experiences. Changing this conception may also change the way they perceive us. For example, I had the chance to participate in several commercial presentations to potential customers about acquiring the product. As with any sales pitch, these salespersons focused on volume and functional features. This approach was acceptable, but I wanted to know if we could also sell a working collaboration in building the product as part of the deal. Wouldn’t it be great to be heard by our beloved brands or products? That can make a difference, especially when you pay for a service.
Being a creator sounds incredible; it gives customers ownership and encourages them to consume the product and create ideas actively. So, how do we structure this new relationship properly?
First, we needed concept pillars to ensure we kept the main point.
Principles:
- Let them come freely. It’s all about the user’s decision and not an imposition. We want a space of co-creation, not only validation.
- I win, you win, and we all win. Benefits are equal, not just for us. When users participate, they impact the product and get small rewards. We, on the other side, can build a solid user voice roadmap.
- Effective language (accessible to all). We must be close enough to grant results and include all audiences. Communications, challenges, and intentions should be warm and familiar sufficient to generate joy and expectation.
- Healthy frequency. Not overwhelming is vital, and not being too distant either is our goal. We want this collaboration to be part of a fun but effective routine.
How does it work?
As mentioned above, this experiment will take place in the user zone with a unique layout with the following parts or features:
The interface
- Monthly challenges, which aren’t more than quick user tests such as AB tests, card sorting, forms, etc.
- The possibility to invite other users to become creators. We want the users to be able to expand this idea.
- An open mailbox allows users to express opinions about improving the product according to their experiences.
- A section of achieved rewards and following challenges to keep the interest flowing.
- Evolving Path as a creator. Achieved levels and rewards (gamification experience).
Small challenges and a quick rewards system
Sense of community
Not only answers and validations are our primary goal, but we also want to gather these creators to build a healthy co-creative community. We intend to have group challenges to achieve a big goal for companies. Also, we want to create a natural communication flow to keep them informed about the latest product progress and tracking of issues.
Benefits for users
- Consuming a product is just a tiny part; being part of the conception is an extra perk that can make a difference among similar products.
- Being a creator will highlight you among other users of the same company acquiring benefits such as activations, exclusive communications, and more.
- User voice will be part of the product roadmaps.
Benefits for us, the company
- Another type of interest. As I said, this is more than consuming the product, conversely being part of its creation. The idea is to re-engage users from another perspective to create value.
- Continuous discovery. To generate high-quality feedback, users must interact with the system, which may trigger more time consuming the platform.
- High-quality feedback. Fomenting defiant tests will ensure that users improve their perception of product changes.
- Total autonomy of the users/creators as an emerging community.
- Redefining the product-users-test paradigm.
- Different strategies and activations based on user segmentation.
Incentive model
Every effort is worth a trophy, from the most straightforward notification to complex incentives. Here are some of the ideas we have so far to develop:
- Automatic notifications on the platform.
- Company recognition.
- Calling cards/badges to share on social media.
- All types of merchandising from us.
- Exclusive contents.
- Early features.
- Beta releases.
- Product ideation sessions.
- Access to product dashboard issues.
A final thought:
This communication problem may not be a constant in some companies, but with the emerging growth of new markets and business ideas, it is likely to stumble upon a challenge like this. The “creator room” may not resolve all nuances or difficulties regarding communication between a product and its users. Still, at least it lets me experiment again with a new approach where I intend to change a strained relationship. This idea is still growing; we still need to make all the decisions, or we are still determining if it will work, but we will undoubtedly learn from this and adjust our approach. Results have yet to arrive; we want to launch this experiment next year, hoping to generate value for the business and, especially, for the users.
As with other experiences, this is only one of the many #ShortStoriesOfMyLifeAsDesigner
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
To write this article, I want to credit all the fantastic information sources and other authors who have had the exact reflection as me, all from another exciting perspective.
