CréAtelier au Swiss Creative Center: retour d’expérience "se médiatiser en 2.0" [fr]

[en] I did a workshop on Friday in Neuchâtel around "how to make yourself known in the 2.0 world". Basically, it was about sharing how I'd done it and what could be learned from it. The results were surprising to me, but I had a really great time and I think the participants did too!

J’ai animé vendredi un “CréAtelier” au Swiss Creative Center à Neuchâtel. C’était une expérience extrêmement intéressante et enrichissante, qui m’a donné l’occasion de jeter un regard nouveau sur mon parcours et ce que je fais.

Workshop Swiss Creative Centre

Pour ce workshop, Xavier m’a demandé la chose suivante: faire rentrer les participants dans mon univers en racontant mon parcours, et les lancer dans un exercice de “design thinking” à partir de là. Comment ai-je fait pour me faire une place en tant que blogueuse, me “médiatiser en 2.0”?

Ce que j’ai réalisé en me replongeant dans ces 15 dernières années en ligne, c’est que la plupart des choses que j’ai faites, je les ai faites simplement parce que j’en avais envie, et non pas comme moyen pour atteindre un certain but. Tout ce que j’ai “accompli”, au final, a pour moi un goût d’accidentel. Je n’ai pas cherché à me faire connaître. Je n’ai pas essayé de me lancer comme indépendante.

Du coup, je séchais sur la question de l’exercice de groupe: est-ce qu’on pouvait vraiment tirer de mon histoire des leçons pour “faire de même”? Il me semblait que ce que j’avais fait avait “marché”, rétrospectivement, justement parce que je n’essayais pas de faire marcher quoi que ce soit.

Ce qui me semblait ressortir de mon parcours, c’est l’importance des mes activités “en communauté” (= les gens) à côté du blog comme lieu de publication. Mon blog, en fait, était (tout comme mon site) un moyen d’étendre mes relations avec les gens que je connaissais en ligne. Il n’a jamais eu d’existence dans le vide. J’ai réalisé assez vite aussi qu’il y avait un écho fort entre mes activités en ligne et hors ligne: internet n’est absolument pas pour moi un lieu d’altérité. Ma vie et mes relations sont intégrées, online/offline.

Pour le travail de groupe, j’ai décidé de proposer aux participants d’imaginer qu’ils étaient des passionnés de chocolats à la tête d’une chocolaterie/tea-room de demain. Que pourrait-on faire avec ça?

Je voulais éviter de tomber dans le piège classique de l’entrepreneur-exemple qui vient raconter son histoire, dit “on ne savait pas du tout ce qu’on faisait, mais on a eu de la chance, ça a marché malgré tout, si vous voulez faire de même il ne faut surtout pas faire comme nous, ayez une stratégie, un business plan, et tout et tout”. Vous avez déjà noté ce paradoxe? Nombre des histoires de succès qu’on nous présente reprennent sous une forme ou une autre le refrain de “on savait pas ce qu’on faisait”. La mienne incluse. Et après, on essaie d’en tirer des enseignements pour quelqu’un qui chercherait explicitement à atteindre un objectif similaire!

J’ai donc donné les consignes suivantes à mes “chocolatiers”:

  • se détacher des objectifs
  • partager sa passion
  • qu’est-ce qui serait cool?
  • aimer les gens
  • online et offline

Peu après avoir lancé l’exercice, j’ai commencé à avoir un tas d’arrière-pensées. Je venais de leur dire pendant une heure que tout ce que j’avais fait, je l’avais fait de façon désintéressée, parce que j’étais passionnée, parce que j’avais un élan intérieur qui me poussait à le faire, parce que j’aimais les gens et qu’au fil des mois et des années j’avais créé des liens avec et que ces liens revenaient nourrir ma vie plus tard à des moments inattendus. Et je les lançais sur un thème imposé, pour lequel ils allaient devoir faire semblant de se passionner, et dans un cadre tout de même intitulé “se médiatiser en 2.0” — voilà un bel objectif, non?

Si je pressentais une petite dissonance entre ce que j’avais prévu en matière de discours et d’exercice, je n’avais pas vu venir ça aussi fort. Un exemple de plus de l’irréductibilité de l’expérience humaine: on a beau préparer son speech, sa classe, ou son workshop, le faire “pour de vrai” colore tout différemment. Je pense d’ailleurs que quand on enseigne des choses aussi expérimentales que ce que je fais habituellement, la capacité à improviser et à s’adapter à ce qui se passe dans la salle est capital, même s’il faut jeter son plan de cours par la fenêtre. Etre à l’aise avec ça m’a sauvé la mise plus d’une fois.

Les retours des groupes étaient extrêmement créatifs — mais se situaient tous au niveau entrepreneurial. On va offrir tel service, etc. Un exercice extrêmement réussi, au fond, pas celui que j’avais essayé de lancer! Peut-être que mon cadre n’était pas assez bien défini — ou peut-être aussi simplement était-ce impossible. Je penche pour la deuxième solution.

J’ai expliqué ça et soumis le casse-tête à la classe. Une proposition de la salle rejoignait exactement l’exercice “bis” que j’avais concocté durant le premier travail de groupe: un des participants allait se porter volontaire pour partager une de ses passions avec le groupe (première partie de l’exercice: comment communiquer une passion à des quasi-inconnus autour d’une table, les intéresser, les faire “rentrer” dedans?), puis le groupe allait réfléchir ensemble à des sujets d’articles de blog sur cette thématique, pour en préparer une petite liste.

Cet exercice s’est avéré beaucoup plus réalisable que celui d’avant. Mais la fin du workshop approchant, certains étaient perplexes. “Bon alors, comment je me médiatise en 2.0?” — “Concrètement, je fais quoi maintenant?”

Oui, c’est ça qui fait un peu mal. Le succès d’untel n’indique pas nécessairement le chemin à suivre pour autrui. Beaucoup de mon parcours (et de mon “succès”) est lié à ma personnalité, ou à des concours de circonstances. Comment on peut reproduire ça? Difficilement…

Toutefois, il y a, je crois, quelques “take-aways” exportables à partir de mon histoire. Quelques clés que je peux partager.

  • La base, ce sont les gens. Ecrire un blog dans le vide n’avancera à rien. Et quand je dis “les gens”, je pense à de véritables relations, pas à des contacts-networking empilés sous forme de cartes de visites.
  • L’authenticité. On ne peut pas bâtir ces relations si importantes sur une image. Il faut oser être soi un peu, se dévoiler, être un peu vulnérable. Cela n’implique pas la transparence totale, absolument pas, mais ça invite à laisser tomber un peu le masque et à être humain et faillible.
  • Suivre ses intérêts, partager sa passion. C’est lié à l’authenticité: si les montres m’indiffèrent, je ne vois pas comment je pourrais écrire un blog à succès ou devenir une référence dans le monde des montres. La passion contrefaite, on la sent à 15km. Il suffit d’ouvrir une brochure marketing pour s’en convaincre.
  • Et ça prend du temps. C’est Xavier qui a relevé ce point. Dans mon cas, des centaines et des centaines d’heures à chatter, à trainer dans des forums, à bricoler en ligne. Parce que j’avais du plaisir à faire ça — je n’aurais jamais pu y passer autant de temps si c’était juste une “stratégie”.

Deux autres articles que j’ai envie d’écrire suite à ce workshop: un récit de mon parcours (bonjour le cours d’histoire), et peut-être un autre sur la “blog attitude”, comme l’a joliment mis un des participants au workshop.

Merci encore à Xavier et au Swiss Creative Center de m’avoir donné l’opportunité d’animer ce workshop. Et si vous y avez pris part, j’adorerais lire vos retours dans les commentaires!

Parler comme un être humain [fr]

[en] I write a weekly column for Les Quotidiennes, which I republish here on CTTS for safekeeping.

Chroniques du monde connecté: cet article a été initialement publié dans Les Quotidiennes (voir l’original).

Dans un article publié hier, Dan Pink (que vous avez déjà rencontré dans ma chronique “Carotte et créativité ne font pas bon ménage“) lance un défi à ses lecteurs: parler comme un être humain dans le monde professionnel.

Il relève le fossé qui existe entre la façon dont nous parlons aux gens qui nous entourent dans un contexte privée et le language utilisé dans le monde professionnel. Un bon exemple est celui des excuses. Qu’est-ce qui vous paraît le plus crédible? “Nous nous excusons pour tout désagrément que ce retard aura pu occasionner” ou “Oh, excusez-moi, je suis vraiment, vraiment désolée”?

Ou bien, si vous ne pouvez pas prendre un appel, diriez-vous quelque chose comme “mon cerveau est en ce moment entièrement mobilisé par une autre tâche; merci de me rappeler plus tard ou de patienter en ligne — votre appel est important pour moi”? Pour ma part, j’opte plutôt pour “désolée, je suis en ligne avec quelqu’un d’autre juste là, est-ce que vous pouvez me rappeler dans une dizaine de minutes?”

Je crois que vous voyez l’idée. La “parler professionnel” crée de la distance entre les gens. Les formules toutes faites, les e-mails de réponse standards, les messages enregistrés dans les files d’attente, les communiqués de presse ou les réponses stéréotypées que nous donne le robot à l’autre bout de la ligne ou au guichet d’information — rien de tout ceci n’est fait pour renforcer les relations entre les gens.

Quand j’essaie de mettre l’accent sur l’importance de l’authenticité dans l’écriture en ligne, c’est à ça que je fais référence. Parler comme des êtres humains et non comme des robots professionnels.

Savez-vous encore le faire? Je suis souvent consternée de constater à quel point la plupart des gens trouvent cet exercice extrêmement difficile.

Passion et authenticité [fr]

[en] I write a weekly column for Les Quotidiennes, which I republish here on CTTS for safekeeping.

Chroniques du monde connecté: cet article a été initialement publié dans Les Quotidiennes (voir l’original).

A l’heure où blogs et médias sociaux se commercialisent et se professionnalisent de plus en plus (et parfois à outrance), il n’est pas inutile de rappeler l’importance capitale de deux ingrédients qui tendent à passer au deuxième plan: la passion et l’authenticité.

Dans un monde sans public captif (essayez donc de forcer quelqu’un à lire votre blog ou à vous suivre sur Twitter), la passion et l’authenticité restent les arguments les plus persuasifs pour se faire sa place dans les médias sociaux.

Certes, un minimum de compétence côté communication (écrite surtout) et relations humaines, ça aide. Mais sans passion, sans authenticité, votre présence en ligne bien calculée ne sera qu’un canal de plus à travers lequel fourguer l’éternel blabla marketing et promotionnel bien lisse et fatigué qui ne nous émeut plus depuis longtemps.

Si c’est ça que vous voulez, allez-y donc, mais soyez conscients que vous passez ainsi à côté de ce qui fait la spécificité des médias sociaux. Et lorsque votre “stratégie médias sociaux” aura fait chou blanc, blâmez vos oeillères plutôt que Facebook, les blogs, ou bien Twitter.

La passion et l’authenticité, cela ne s’achète pas, et cela ne se fabrique pas. C’est là, où ça n’est pas là.

On les reconnaît au son de leur voix, et elles nous attirent irrésistiblement.

Working For Fame Or For Cash [en]

[fr] En organisant la journée de conférences Going Solo, je me trouve directement aux prises avec mes difficultés face à l'économie du peer. J'organise un événement qui dégagera je l'espère assez de bénéfice pour que je puisse me payer, ainsi que mes partenaires. En même temps, j'espère trouver des personnes prêtes à donner de leur temps en échange de la visibilité que leur apportera leur association avec Going Solo. Mais je ne sais pas trop comment m'y prendre. Je trouve difficile de rendre les choses claires.

I’d like to introduce this reflection by quoting Tara Hunt, who writes the following in a post titled Please Stop Crowdsourcing Me:

I came and I thought, hey, this is kind of neat-o and it empowered me at first. I thought, “Awesome! They want my opinion! They listen!” and I offered it and the feedback was, “Great idea!” and I watched as you implemented it, then benefitted from it and I felt good. I was great at first, but then after a while, I started to feel a little dirty…a little used…a little like cheap labor, replacing people you probably laid off or decided to save money on not hiring because you were getting so much great value out of my time. Maybe it was because it seemed that you believed you could ‘tap’ my well of ideas or ‘pick my brain’ endlessly? Maybe it was because my generosity goes so far and you overstepped your bounds? Maybe it was because you had a chance to reward my efforts, but dropped me like a wet rag as soon as I asked?

Tara Hunt, Please Stop Crowdsourcing Me

I just came upon her article a few minutes ago as I was aimlessly clicking around in my newsreader. It’s funny, because I’ve been thinking of this post I wanted to write for a few days now, and it’s right on the same topic.

I’ve already felt uneasy about the “Peer Economy” (if I may call it like that before). About the fact that certain businesses actually get a lot of stuff for free from their enthusiastic users — stuff they would have to pay for, otherwise. The point I understood about a year ago is that the fact that people contribute voluntarily to help improve services like WordPress, GMail, Twitter, and countless others is what allows us (the community) to benefit from great tools like these free of cost or way cheaper than what they’re worth. I’m comfortable with that.

However, I agree with Tara, there is a fine line to tread. As a company, you don’t want people to feel used. And like Tara, I’ve had more of my share of people/companies who want me to “take a look” at their stuff and “tell them what I think” — picking my brain for free. And I don’t like it. If I’m passionate about your product, then yes — I’ll give you feedback. You probably won’t even have to ask me. I’ll blog about it. If you’re smart, you’ll point out what I wrote, give me credit and link-love, thank me publicly. But I didn’t do it for that. I did it because I liked your product, or because talking about your product fulfilled one of my agenda, in a way. I’ve given products/companies like WordPress, Dopplr, Twitter, coComment, Seesmic and a bunch of others valuable feedback because I wanted to, because I loved their stuff.

That doesn’t mean that I’ll do it for any product or service that crosses my path. If you’re one of the lucky ones, well, good for you. If you’re not, you’ll have to pay cash (experiential marketing is one of the ways a company can use cash to make up for lack of immediate passion on the part of this particular human being). Just like I’ll help my friends out for free and open blogs for them just because I love them, some companies out there benefit from “free intelligence”. Others need to pay for a similar service.

You get the idea, I think.

Now, here’s what I really wanted to bring up with this post.

As you know, I’m putting together an event for the month of May, Going Solo. (If you’re a freelancer or a small business owner, you should plan to come, by the way ;-).) This is my first event. I’m not going to be doing it alone. Thing is, I realised I’m a bit shy about asking my friends to help me out, because on the one hand, I want to keep the event expenses to a minimum, and on the other hand, I don’t want people to get the impression I’m trying to “crowdsource them” — as Tara expresses above.

This is made worse (and way more uncomfortable for me) by the fact that this is not a non-profit venture. I’m going to be investing quite a lot of time in this adventure, and I hope to be able to pay myself enough to have made it worthwhile. Ditto for my sales and logistics partners. So, yes, we’re hoping the event will make a profit (against all odds, it seems — everybody tells me that if you’re first event breaks even, you’re very lucky).

So, I know that part of the difficulty I’m facing here is my own inner workings. Despite what some people on IRC may think 😉 I’m somebody who doesn’t find it easy to ask for help/stuff. I always feel I owe people (except when I feel I’m owed, in a kind of weird back-swing dynamic).

There are certain things that I need for the conference, where I’m hoping I’ll manage to find somebody who is willing to “work for fame”. Taking care of the website is one. Design is another. Similarly, I’m hoping to strike up a partnership for the WiFi and bandwidth we need for the event.

In fact, there is some similarity between “working for fame” and being a sponsor/partner. You provide stuff for free (or almost), and in return you get visibility. So maybe I need to switch mindsets. Instead of looking for “people to help me”, I’m looking for “individual partners” for the event.

I feel like this is a thought in progress. I’m not exactly sure what I think, or what to do, or what is “right”. I’m particularly embarrassed when I start talking with friends or contacts about this or that they could do for the event, because it’s not clear from the start if we’re talking about a partnership (work for fame) or Real Work (work for cash).

Any insights appreciated. I feel like I need to step out of my mind a bit to find a way out, and you can help me out with that by sharing your thoughts.

Kathy Sierra: Creating Passionate Users (Web2.0Expo, Berlin) [en]

[fr] Workshop de 3 heures animé par Kathy Sierra. Comment rendre ses utilisateurs passionnés.

Disclaimer: theses are just my live notes of Kathy Sierra‘s workshop. Though I try to be accurate, they may contain mistakes or be incomplete. Please don’t hesitate to link to other notes, reviews, or relevant material in the comments.

Not passion like being attached to your iPod, but more passion like how we invest energy into our hobbies.

Web 2.0 Expo, Kathy Sierra 2

There are techniques we can use to achieve that…

Kathy is going to draw techniques from many domains, who all have a piece of the puzzle:

  • hollywood 🙂
  • cognitive science
  • neurobiology
  • psychology
  • learning theory
  • design
  • game design
  • advertising

Web 2.0 Expo, Kathy Sierra 3

Passion: music, photography… that level of passion. Think of something that you have a passion for, or have had a passion for. Here’s how to tell if it was: you want to keep getting better, you want to learn more, practice more… that’s a real passion.

People with a passion:

  • show off
  • learn
  • continuously improve
  • spend time

Reverse-engineering passion. Look at common attributes of things people have a passion about (e.g. people want to keep learning and getting better). How can we drive passion rather than wait for it to happen?

Where there is passion… there is a user kicking ass. Nobody really get a passion about something they suck at. Challenge: what to do in the period where users still suck.

One of the reasons people pursue passions is that it gives them a higher resolution experience. You see things differently when you’re passionate. You see more details, things that others don’t notice.

The Kick Ass Curve:

Web 2.0 Expo, Kathy Sierra 5

Between the first time and the suck threshold is the real challenge, because that’s where we’ll lose people. Strategies to keep pushing our users up that curve, and not just when they get past the point where they no longer suck. The faster you can get your users past the Suck Threshold, the more likely you are to have passionate users.

So, how fast can we do that, and how?

But… the problem is that people don’t want to be experts at a tool, but experts at what they can do with the tool. They use the tools to do something. That explains why documentation is all wrong, because it focuses on teaching the tool.

Good example: photography site which focuses on the results people want, the photos they want to be able to take, instead of on the camera.

Kathy, seeing slow-shutter speed photo of waterfall, understands why she needs to ditch her point-and-shoot, because she needs control on the shutter speed to be able to take those kind of pictures. And that’s what she wants to be able to do.

We don’t want to be tool experts.

Before our customers buy, we treat them well with glossy brochures, and as soon as they buy they get an unpalatable tech manual for their camera.

Web 2.0 Expo, Kathy Sierra 6

What if your product isn’t something people can use to do really cool things? (Showing a picture of Coldplay.) If we look, we can see what people might be able to use it for that they’ll get excited about. So, Chris Martin of Coldplay is very interested in fair trade. He helps people get involved in the cause. (Oxfam.) A band can help people become passionate about their work, their music.

Another example: Red Bull. Kathy likes Red Bull, but she doesn’t want to become an expert at what’s in it! So Red Bull are helping people become passionate about other stuff, not the drink — music, for example.

Bottom line: whatever you have, whatever your business is, you can have passionate users. They don’t have to be passionate about your product.

Imagine Nikon sets up a really cool site to teach people about photography. Learning is a drug for the brain, so this feel-good feeling is going to be linked to Nikon, who is behind the site. Passion spills back to the tool/brand. (That was a bit of psychology…)

THE important question: what do (or can) you help your users kick ass at? (answers are not: the tool, the interface). The stuff your tool allows to do.

What if you make trash bags? Well, you can sponsor a festival, do something completely unrelated. But you could have little films with creative use of trash bags, and then you create tutorials to teach people to make kick-ass films with those trash bags. (steph-note: sounds way more lame when I write it than when Kathy says it.)

Big question: how do we actually make that happen?

It all starts in the user’s head, and the user’s brain is not our friend.

Our brain has a little logic, and lots of emotion. Our brain thinks we’re still cavemen. Our brain has a big crap filter, and not much gets through. Your brain cares about that which you feel. Chemistry! Mind has one agenda, but brain has another. Imagine, trying to learn from a dry textbook even though committed to studies and the test… but the brain isn’t into it. Any moment though, something could wake the brain up (smell of pizza, cute guy).

What does the brain care about?

  • things that are just a little weird, that are just out of expectations
  • scary things
  • sex
  • little young helpless innocent things (baby, puppy)
  • play, joy
  • humour (bunny suicides…)
  • faces
  • things that are not quite resolved, some mystery, want to know the rest of the story (hand hiding face)

To keep people reading, you need to make sure their brain stays awake.

The brain doesn’t care about

  • generic clichés (bride and groom kissing, no-no, whereas groom biting bride’s shoulder…)

Trick the brain!

Web 2.0 Expo, Kathy Sierra 7

Conversational beats formal every time. It can be subtle!! steph-note: this what I try to explain to people about writing in “blog style”.

Leading theory about that: the brain can’t tell the difference between a real conversation and something written in conversational tone. “God, a conversation, I have to keep up my end, pay attention.”

Rule: talk to the brain, not to the mind.

To read: “A mind of its own” by Cordelia Fine (How your Brain Distorts and Decieves)

Prepare the brain so that when people see this they think “ew, bad”:

Web 2.0 Expo, Kathy Sierra 8

Hey… all this was just about getting people’s attention! We still need to get past the Suck Threshold.

Where are my users on the suck / kick ass curve? If your tool is easy to learn, can they spend a lifetime getting better at what they do with it?

Who do snowboarders go back the second day? The first is so awful! Because there is this picture in their mind of what it’ll be like to kick ass at it. People persevere because they have an idea in their head of what it will be to be really good at it. Another reason is that they see a path, a series of steps to getting there.

People stick at something that’s stuff because there is:

  • compelling picture
  • clear path
  • easy first step

How easy depends on how much value they perceive they’ll get. Sometimes just giving an e-mail address is too big a step.

Who is describing this “compelling picture” for your users?

Why? Who cares? So what? If people are to learn something, they have to keep turning the pages of the book. We need to get past the brain’s crap filter when we’re explaining.

It’s an exercise:

  • My tool does X
  • So what?
  • Well, if you can do X, then it means you can do Y
  • And so what?
  • etc…

(when you feel like killing the other for being so thick, you’re getting close t the meaningful stuff: “you’ll never have sex again”, “you’ll lose your job”)

Keep asking why.

Now, we need to get users to learn.

Learning increases resolution.

“RTFM” expresses how we feel about our users. If you want them to RTFM, make a better FM!

All the money goes to enticing, sexy, motivating, advertising brochures. And after… when it’s time to learn, nothing left.

Learning Theory

Facts — information — understanding. Need more understanding. We tend to teach too many facts. steph-note: cutlery noise from outside coming in through open door is really annoying me

The more they understand, the less they need to memorize.

Because a choice is asked, our brain starts doing more processing.

Smackdown Model: throw two equally compelling, strong, arguments at somebody, and the brain is forced to start processing.

Words + pictures > words. Even drawing a picture on a napkin and taking a photograph of it.

Look for “oh crap!” and “oh cool” moments.

steph-note: tiring

“just in time” is more effective than “just in case” learning. But be careful, you don’t want to always prevent them from scraping their knees.

Who can help you help your users learn? Where are the resources? steph-note: other users! Kathy: “community” 😉

However, nothing of that matters unless you manage to keep your users engaged.

steph-note: break-time, good!

Should read the book “Flow, The Psychology of Optimal Experience”.

Web 2.0 Expo, Kathy Sierra 10

What is it like to be in the flow state? You don’t really notice that time is passing. If you have lost time, either you were abducted by aliens, or you were in the flow state. You just keep going. For people to be in the flow state, a very delicate balance needs to be achieved:

  • knowledge and skill
  • challenge

Web 2.0 Expo, Kathy Sierra 11

What turns the brain on?

  • discovery
  • challenge
  • narrative
  • self-expression
  • social framework
  • cognitive arousal
  • thrill
  • sensation
  • triumph
  • accomplishment
  • fantasy
  • fun (?)

Fun does not have to mean funny.

What breaks flow state, state of enchantment? Think of the user as under a spell. Suddenly realising that they’re using this tool to achieve what they’re doing. (Oh, crap, where’s that button?)

Web 2.0 Expo, Kathy Sierra 12

Don’t make me think about the wrong thing. Just make me think about the interesting stuff. Make it hard to do the wrong thing, and easy and natural to do the right thing.

Techniques to make the flow state happen and remain there. How do we keep them coming back?

Nobody does this better than game developers. Video games! Always trying to get to the next level.

User experience Spiral:

Web 2.0 Expo, Kathy Sierra 13

Motivational milestones. Make sure the users know where they’re going.

Differences between girls and boys and video games:

  • boys: getting to the next level is the aim
  • girls: getting to the next level, but what for?

Are there any new superpowers that I’ll get at the next level? If done right, the payoff gets bigger for each level. Gives you a chance to paint the next compelling picture of what they’ll be able to do.

Web 2.0 Expo, Kathy Sierra 14

Levels have to be small at the start.

What are levels for web development?
Online communities?
Flickr users?

What are your level superpowers?

Frequent rewards. Lots of small benefits. User as hero. Who/what is the helpful sidekick/mentor? How will the hero be changed?

The Tribe…

e.g. 37 signals: “getting real” — so people who are into 37 signals products identify with this “getting real” attitude. Mac: “think different”.

Music video, shot just in living-room and shows what all the money that could have gone into making it could be used for in the third world:

What part of your product is (or could be) part of a user’s identity? (meaning)

Site where people photograph their iPod in various settings. People holding one company’s book in various locations.

So, how can your users show that they belong to the tribe?

If you want them to talk… give them something to talk about. LOTR stuff in calendar OSX (steph-note: dig around that).

e.g. on cover of one of Kathy’s series books, same girl as on this site— lots of talk!

Figuring things out (insider info) is social currency (whuffie). Everyone loves to be the one to tell you about… X.

Find interesting stories. Give users treats. Things that they can talk about. Give them social currency that they can use elsewhere. Legends, stories, people. Where there is passion, there are people.

Once you get to a certain level, people start trying to figure out who will play you in the movies 😉

founder/creation stories, user-as-hero stories? You don’t want to make it about you… people are passionate about themselves. First thing to look at: testimonials. They should be about how great these users are as a result of using the products. People want to see themselves reflected in the testimonials.(Not about the product of the founders.) The more first person language in reviews (about a book, eg.), the better. What’s important is if something good happened to the user, not what they think about you.

Community

  • forums?
  • study groups?

at the least, a blog with comments…

Javaranch registration terms of service: “Be nice”. Users have to agree to that. If people aren’t nice, how do you get them to answer and ask questions? How quickly can you make it possible for people to ask and answer questions?

No dumb questions. Don’t allow people to say “that’s already been answered 50 times”. It’s OK to ask a question again. Never shun somebody for asking a question.

But the most important factor is actually no dumb answers. Try to get people to convert to answerers as fast as possible. Information on “how to answer questions”. When people answer a question, make sure they feel encouraged because they’ve done it.

Tutorials on how to make tutorials.

How to know you’ve got passionate users

When people stop criticising you, but criticise your users. A bit unsettling, but that means you have passionate users. “Cult?” “Sheep?”

Then, give your users some sort of defensive weapon.

If you try to satisfy everybody, you delight and inspire nobody.

Tips and trouble on the road to passionate users

Levelled products (iMovie is free, FinalCut isn’t — so you start with iMovie thinking you’ll never need more, and at some point you’ll outgrow it; problem though: big gap between the two from a usability point of view). Good strategy, however.

“Dignity is Deadly”

Web 2.0 Expo, Kathy Sierra 15

Startup: individuals
Corporate: consensus

Apes become smarter as they work together. Humans become dumber as they work together. (“Wisdom of Crowds”)

We tend to think our ideas are amazing, but our users think they’re tolerable.

Web 2.0 Expo, Kathy Sierra 16

Listening to users: what they say is not what they want.

Web 2.0 Expo, Kathy Sierra 17

User priorities

Web 2.0 Expo, Kathy Sierra 18

When you ask them to prioritize, and when you ask them to also explain, you get very different results.

The greatest cause of user pain:

Web 2.0 Expo, Kathy Sierra 19

Making things better can in fact make them worse. If a simple thing is nice and flow-inducing… No need to improve it by adding tons of features.

Web 2.0 Expo, Kathy Sierra 20

Web 2.0 Expo, Kathy Sierra 21

The Secret…

It doesn’t matter what they think about you… (It’s not about you, and it’s not about what you do). All that matters is how they feel about themselves as a result of their interaction with you, your product, your company… steph-note: thinking that Lush testimonials are spot-on, they really have passionate users and I’m one of them.

The user must have an “I rule!” experience.

Web 2.0 Expo, Kathy Sierra 22

Remember: your users are real people.

Thank you, Kathy. It was great to have a chance to see you.

Web 2.0 Expo, Kathy Sierra 23