An article published in Science Magazine in June provides evidence that the Internet has become an “external part” of our memory systems. Rather than remembering information, we seem to have “outsourced” this effortful task to an entity other than ourselves.
On the face of it, this is not an astounding finding in that psychologists have demonstrated for over 30 years that we use outside sources, such as family or team members, to supplement our less-than-perfect memories. What makes this research remarkable, and of interest to the UX community, is that the researchers found that when we expect to be able to access information in the future, we tend to have reduced memory for the actual information, but enhanced memory for where to find the information. Thus, while we do measurably worse at remembering that the capital of Vermont is Montpellier, we apparently remember with greater accuracy, where on the bookshelf the atlas is located. These findings suggest that making sites memorable as the repository of information may be the key to gaining return visitors.
What the Science Demonstrated
The Science Magazine article’s authors conducted a series of experiments that explored whether the Internet actually functions as an external memory source. In the first experiment they found that attempting to answer difficult trivia questions disposes people to think of computer-related terms and brand names such as Google and Yahoo!. In the second experiment they found that memory for information is better if people do not believe they will have access to the information in the future. In the third and fourth experiments they showed that when people believe they will have access to information in the future, they are more likely to remember where to find the information than actually remembering the information itself.
The authors propose that this is an adaptive use of memory—we use the Internet as an external source of memory because it is available as an easy repository for knowledge we do not store in our brains. They conclude that we are using the Internet in a manner akin to transactive memory, a social form of external memory in which individuals within a team or social group rely on one another to be sources of information.
These findings suggest that people are willing to spend more energy remembering the location of information rather than the information per se. What does this mean for the UX community? Perhaps not surprisingly, the answer lies in the three components of transactive memory: specialization, coordination, and credibility.
Transactive Memory and Reliance on a Conglomerate
Transactive memory theory is based on the idea that individuals can serve as external memory stores for others. Typically, the theory relates to groups of people such as families or work groups. Each individual has specialized knowledge, and other group members rely on the “expert” to be the keeper of that knowledge and share it when necessary. Although people often form their own memories of information, they also rely on others to hold that knowledge. For example, one spouse might be the keeper of knowledge about how the furnace works, allowing the other spouse to ask for the information if it’s needed without having to retain the memory him or herself. The memory is transactive in that the content of the memory is passed between the knower and the person with the need to know.
Transactive memory is thought to be composed of three components: specialization, coordination, and credibility. Specialization results from one member of a team assuming expertise in knowledge not held by other team members. Coordination occurs when the team members develop a “metamemory” of each member’s specialization, and credibility describes the extent to which team members believe in the accuracy and trustworthiness of one another’s knowledge. In other words, once a team has developed a transactive memory and each team member believes in each other’s skills, then success of the group is predicted by the conglomerate rather than relying on each individual to remember everything. The gain here is twofold: first, the group can rely on an expert, and second the group gains greater efficiency.
Successful Websites Reflect Elements of Transactive Memory
Singular purpose
It’s spooky, upon consideration, how many successful websites faithfully mirror the components of transactive memory described above. Some of the most successful sites specialize in a particular offering—Expedia does travel, Epicurious focuses on food, and Amazon sells stuff. Even though they are large sites, there is a core offering that is easy to remember. Amazon may sell many products, but they do not offer information about how to use these products or news about the product manufacturers. Similarly, Expedia is known for travel—booking flights, hotels, car rentals, cruises, etc.—but is not known for advice on planning a trip. These sites have a singular purpose and state it unequivocally. We return to them when we want what they offer; there is no need to search for “travel” or “books.” Thus, site specialization may contribute to memorability.
Lack of specialization can potentially hurt a site’s memorability. Case in point: About.com. This site attempts to be all things to all people. Lack of broad loyalty may be due to users’ inability to pinpoint what precisely the site can offer them. Breadth makes it cumbersome.
There is one way, however, where breadth is apparently, powerful: what if people believe a site is the gatekeeper to all knowledge? As a matter of fact they do. Google appears to have become our metamemory and in this way has cornered the information market. Don’t believe me? Just Google it!
Niche market segments, products or services, or geographic concentration of resources may be recommended. This strategy may increase the probability that users will remember the location of information rather than the information itself.
Coordination is metamemory
Coordination is the user’s awareness of all the sites needed to get through the day. Supplies, sustenance, and resuscitation easily translate into shopping, food, and vacation. This, in turn, is one step away from Amazon, Recipes.com, and Travelocity. Metamemory, therefore, is the awareness and categorization of all information sources.
Just being memorable is not enough
Finally, credibility of a site is crucial for return visits. Memorability of information location is not enough; users need to feel that a site is trustworthy in order to make it worth remembering. Trust can be generated in multiple ways. Firstly, trust comes through making a site understandable. Understanding provides a feeling of control that results in positive regard for a site and site owner. Trust is also increased when a site functions without errors and appears professional. Credibility is also dependent upon the perceived accuracy of content. Sites like Yelp and TripAdvisor utilize user-generated content, and trust is an emergent property based upon convergence of opinions. Additionally, the authenticity of posted information is subject to questioning by the users themselves and thereby subject to the requisite checks and balances. Alternately, sites like CNET gain their credibility through the use of expert reviewers. Regardless of how it is earned, trust is a critical component of memorability.
The science has offered us a blueprint for gathering and keeping a loyal and satisfied customer base. This is likely to work best when websites use the heuristics of human cognition to allow the customer’s experience to echo their own natural behavior. In this specific case, being a credible information source for a specialized offering seems to form the foundation and framework for loyal customers because of the human penchant to form metamemory systems.
Sunday, November 06, 2011
Metamemory and the User Experience | UX Magazine
Narcissists Feel Like Better Leaders | Psychology Today
Because narcissists are so confident in their abilities and opinions, they may keep group members from sharing information. In situations where shared information is crucial to good performance, a narcissistic leader may cause a group to be very confident that their leader is a good one and yet they may perform poorly.
To test this possibility, groups of three people were asked to evaluate candidate for job. Before getting together as a group, a leader was selected at random. The group leader was the one who had to make the final decision in the task. The participants in this study also filled out an inventory that measured their level of narcissism.
Each group member was given a list of 9 characteristics for each of three job candidates. Some of those characteristics were given to each group member, but some were given only to individuals. The descriptions were cleverly set up so that one job candidate would look best if only the information that all group members shared was considered, but that if the group pooled all of its information, then a second job candidate would actually be the best one.
Two results emerged from this study.
First, group leaders who had a high score on the narcissism scale, were generally seen as more effective leaders than group leaders who had a low score on the narcissism scale. That is the typical result from studies of narcissism and leadership.
Second, groups with more narcissistic leaders tended to share less information than those with less narcissistic leaders, and as a result, they made worse decisions. So, even though the groups with narcissistic leaders felt better about their group leader, they actually performed more poorly than those with less narcissistic leaders.
What does this mean?
There are often two distinct issues in group performance. First, groups do need to have some confidence that they are going to succeed. That confidence can increase motivation to continue with a difficult task. In that way, a narcissistic leader can be good.
However, if the group needs to share information in order to succeed, then narcissistic leaders need to curb their tendency to dominate the discussion and decision making and let others share information. Otherwise, the group runs the risk of rushing to judgment without key information that might lead to better performance.
Follow me on Twitter.
Here's my page on Facebook.
Check out my new book Smart Thinking to be published in January, 2012.
Have a comment? Start the discussion here!
Thursday, October 06, 2011
Friday, September 30, 2011
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Saturday, September 17, 2011
In Paris for Ecommerce Expo
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Ebay And Walmart's Biggest Threat Is..... Groupon?!? | iStockAnalyst.com
Ebay And Walmart's Biggest Threat Is..... Groupon?!?
By: Scot Wingo | Sep 12, 2011 |
There's been so much going on in the world of e-commerce that, unfortunately, I haven't had much time to blog. Over the next couple of days I wanted to share and discuss two big items that I think will have tectonic implications for e-commerce and the incumbent players.
Groupon - changing the game of e-commerce?
The first e-commerce shaking topic I wanted to cover is Groupon's entrance into the marketplace space and it's impact. I'm pretty shocked this has flown under the radar for so long, but I think it's time to really shine a bright light on it as it can and will be pretty big. How big? To quote Justin Timberlake playing the semi-fictional role of Sean Parker from Social Network:
"A million dollars isn't cool. You know what's cool - a BILLION dollars."
Yes, I think Groupon could quickly siphon $1B+++ out of the e-commerce market. Before we jump into my thesis, here's a brief backgrounder on Groupon.
Groupon - brief backgrounder
- In August in an update to their S1 Groupon disclosed that it's subscriber base had mushroomed up to 115m subscribers.
- Groupon's subscriber base is growing on average 17% m/m (so by the time you read this that 115m is probably more like 134m!
- I can't re-itereate this point enough - Groupon emails 134m globally EVERY DAY. No other company on the planet has that type of daily customer direct touch. Sure FB has 750m users, but they don't have permission to put a deal in front of them every day.
- When I say Groupon, I mean 'the daily deal space which is dominated by Groupon' - the second largest is LivingSocial and they have 30m subscribers. Groupon states that 75% of LS's subscribers are also on Groupon, so there's an incremental 10m or so users on LS and maybe another 20m if you count the 'clones'. Suffice it to say that once Groupon comes out with their offering, every clone will, well, clone that too. LS is already well down the path as you'll see.
- There's a big discussion in the blogosphere around if Groupon is a viable business. Everyone remember 1999 when everyone thought that, 'Sure Amazon sells books to millions of people, but they'll never turn it into a viable business'. I don't want to get into the Groupon viability discussion, but personally, I think Groupon is viable on their business today and has an opportunity to really expand dramatically beyond the 'daily local deal' space if they can continue to drive value for subscribers.
Friday, September 09, 2011
Wednesday, September 07, 2011
Jobs Will Follow a Strengthening of the Middle Class
THE 5 percent of Americans with the highest incomes now account for 37 percent of all consumer purchases, according to the latest research from Moody’s Analytics. That should come as no surprise. Our society has become more and more unequal.
When so much income goes to the top, the middle class doesn’t have enough purchasing power to keep the economy going without sinking ever more deeply into debt — which, as we’ve seen, ends badly. An economy so dependent on the spending of a few is also prone to great booms and busts. The rich splurge and speculate when their savings are doing well. But when the values of their assets tumble, they pull back. That can lead to wild gyrations. Sound familiar?
The economy won’t really bounce back until America’s surge toward inequality is reversed. Even if by some miracle President Obama gets support for a second big stimulus while Ben S. Bernanke’s Fed keeps interest rates near zero, neither will do the trick without a middle class capable of spending. Pump-priming works only when a well contains enough water.
Look back over the last hundred years and you’ll see the pattern. During periods when the very rich took home a much smaller proportion of total income — as in the Great Prosperity between 1947 and 1977 — the nation as a whole grew faster and median wages surged. We created a virtuous cycle in which an ever growing middle class had the ability to consume more goods and services, which created more and better jobs, thereby stoking demand. The rising tide did in fact lift all boats.
During periods when the very rich took home a larger proportion — as between 1918 and 1933, and in the Great Regression from 1981 to the present day — growth slowed, median wages stagnated and we suffered giant downturns. It’s no mere coincidence that over the last century the top earners’ share of the nation’s total income peaked in 1928 and 2007 — the two years just preceding the biggest downturns.
Starting in the late 1970s, the middle class began to weaken. Although productivity continued to grow and the economy continued to expand, wages began flattening in the 1970s because new technologies — container ships, satellite communications, eventually computers and the Internet — started to undermine any American job that could be automated or done more cheaply abroad. The same technologies bestowed ever larger rewards on people who could use them to innovate and solve problems. Some were product entrepreneurs; a growing number were financial entrepreneurs. The pay of graduates of prestigious colleges and M.B.A. programs — the “talent” who reached the pinnacles of power in executive suites and on Wall Street — soared.
The middle class nonetheless continued to spend, at first enabled by the flow of women into the work force. (In the 1960s only 12 percent of married women with young children were working for pay; by the late 1990s, 55 percent were.) When that way of life stopped generating enough income, Americans went deeper into debt. From the late 1990s to 2007, the typical household debt grew by a third. As long as housing values continued to rise it seemed a painless way to get additional money.
Eventually, of course, the bubble burst. That ended the middle class’s remarkable ability to keep spending in the face of near stagnant wages. The puzzle is why so little has been done in the last 40 years to help deal with the subversion of the economic power of the middle class. With the continued gains from economic growth, the nation could have enabled more people to become problem solvers and innovators — through early childhood education, better public schools, expanded access to higher education and more efficient public transportation.
We might have enlarged safety nets — by having unemployment insurance cover part-time work, by giving transition assistance to move to new jobs in new locations, by creating insurance for communities that lost a major employer. And we could have made Medicare available to anyone.
Big companies could have been required to pay severance to American workers they let go and train them for new jobs. The minimum wage could have been pegged at half the median wage, and we could have insisted that the foreign nations we trade with do the same, so that all citizens could share in gains from trade.
We could have raised taxes on the rich and cut them for poorer Americans.
But starting in the late 1970s, and with increasing fervor over the next three decades, government did just the opposite. It deregulated and privatized. It cut spending on infrastructure as a percentage of the national economy and shifted more of the costs of public higher education to families. It shredded safety nets. (Only 27 percent of the unemployed are covered by unemployment insurance.) And it allowed companies to bust unions and threaten employees who tried to organize. Fewer than 8 percent of private-sector workers are unionized.
More generally, it stood by as big American companies became global companies with no more loyalty to the United States than a GPS satellite. Meanwhile, the top income tax rate was halved to 35 percent and many of the nation’s richest were allowed to treat their income as capital gains subject to no more than 15 percent tax. Inheritance taxes that affected only the topmost 1.5 percent of earners were sliced. Yet at the same time sales and payroll taxes — both taking a bigger chunk out of modest paychecks — were increased.
Most telling of all, Washington deregulated Wall Street while insuring it against major losses. In so doing, it allowed finance — which until then had been the servant of American industry — to become its master, demanding short-term profits over long-term growth and raking in an ever larger portion of the nation’s profits. By 2007, financial companies accounted for over 40 percent of American corporate profits and almost as great a percentage of pay, up from 10 percent during the Great Prosperity.
Some say the regressive lurch occurred because Americans lost confidence in government. But this argument has cause and effect backward. The tax revolts that thundered across America starting in the late 1970s were not so much ideological revolts against government — Americans still wanted all the government services they had before, and then some — as against paying more taxes on incomes that had stagnated. Inevitably, government services deteriorated and government deficits exploded, confirming the public’s growing cynicism about government’s doing anything right.
Some say we couldn’t have reversed the consequences of globalization and technological change. Yet the experiences of other nations, like Germany, suggest otherwise. Germany has grown faster than the United States for the last 15 years, and the gains have been more widely spread. While Americans’ average hourly pay has risen only 6 percent since 1985, adjusted for inflation, German workers’ pay has risen almost 30 percent. At the same time, the top 1 percent of German households now take home about 11 percent of all income — about the same as in 1970. And although in the last months Germany has been hit by the debt crisis of its neighbors, its unemployment is still below where it was when the financial crisis started in 2007.
How has Germany done it? Mainly by focusing like a laser on education (German math scores continue to extend their lead over American), and by maintaining strong labor unions.
THE real reason for America’s Great Regression was political. As income and wealth became more concentrated in fewer hands, American politics reverted to what Marriner S. Eccles, a former chairman of the Federal Reserve, described in the 1920s, when people “with great economic power had an undue influence in making the rules of the economic game.” With hefty campaign contributions and platoons of lobbyists and public relations spinners, America’s executive class has gained lower tax rates while resisting reforms that would spread the gains from growth.
Yet the rich are now being bitten by their own success. Those at the top would be better off with a smaller share of a rapidly growing economy than a large share of one that’s almost dead in the water.
The economy cannot possibly get out of its current doldrums without a strategy to revive the purchasing power of America’s vast middle class. The spending of the richest 5 percent alone will not lead to a virtuous cycle of more jobs and higher living standards. Nor can we rely on exports to fill the gap. It is impossible for every large economy, including the United States, to become a net exporter.
Reviving the middle class requires that we reverse the nation’s decades-long trend toward widening inequality. This is possible notwithstanding the political power of the executive class. So many people are now being hit by job losses, sagging incomes and declining home values that Americans could be mobilized.
Moreover, an economy is not a zero-sum game. Even the executive class has an enlightened self-interest in reversing the trend; just as a rising tide lifts all boats, the ebbing tide is now threatening to beach many of the yachts. The question is whether, and when, we will summon the political will. We have summoned it before in even bleaker times.
As the historian James Truslow Adams defined the American Dream when he coined the term at the depths of the Great Depression, what we seek is “a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone.”
That dream is still within our grasp.
Very clear summary of where we are today........
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Daring Fireball: Resigned
Resigned
Wednesday, 24 August 2011
Reading around the web an hour ago, looking for confirmation of the then-minutes-old news that Steve Jobs had resigned as CEO, I repeatedly encountered and bridled each time at use of the adjective “shocking” to describe the announcement. But my initial resentment was unwarranted. This is not out of nowhere, it’s not even unexpected. We could all see this was coming — but it is a shock.
I saw that headline and my nervous system took a jolt.
The thing to keep in mind is this: Apple tomorrow, a week from now, and next month is the exact same Apple from yesterday, a week ago, and last month. Tim Cook wasn’t named “CEO” until today, but he’s been the chief executive at the company since Jobs started this — his third — medical leave back in January, and probably even before that. Whatever Steve’s role is going forward, it’s only different in title than what it has been, in effect, for some time. Whatever it is that ails him, he’s been diminished.
It’s no coincidence that I wrote about succeeding Jobs just last month. All you need to read in that piece is the second footnote:
Perhaps this entire article could be replaced with, “Look, it’s going to be Tim Cook, and that’s that.”
How do you replace the irreplaceable man? Like we’re seeing. An open-ended medical leave, where he retains the CEO title. A continuation of strong new products, including a major improvement to the iPad, the device that is upending the entire computer industry. The ceding of day-to-day operations and leadership to Tim Cook, his right-hand man and chosen successor. Ever-higher profiles during public product announcements of top product-focused lieutenants like Phil Schiller, Scott Forstall, and Eddy Cue. It wasn’t something you could see or hear, but from the audience during this year’s WWDC keynote, it was something you could feel. Midway through, I wrote:
He’s here, but this is the first post-Steve keynote.
Apple’s products are replete with Apple-like features and details, embedded in Apple-like apps, running on Apple-like devices, which come packaged in Apple-like boxes, are promoted in Apple-like ads, and sold in Apple-like stores. The company is a fractal design. Simplicity, elegance, beauty, cleverness, humility. Directness. Truth. Zoom out enough and you can see that the same things that define Apple’s products apply to Apple as a whole. The company itself is Apple-like. The same thought, care, and painstaking attention to detail that Steve Jobs brought to questions like “How should a computer work?”, “How should a phone work?”, “How should we buy music and apps in the digital age?” he also brought to the most important question: “How should a company that creates such things function?”
Jobs’s greatest creation isn’t any Apple product. It is Apple itself.
Today’s announcement is just one more step, albeit a big and sad one, in a long-planned orderly transition — a transition that no one wanted but which could not, alas, be avoided. And as ever, he’s doing it his way.
So it goes.
Steve Jobs: The End Of An Era | TechCrunch
We all know the broad strokes: a boy is born to a graduate student and her Syrian boyfriend. She places the boy for adoption. He comes to live with Paul and Clara. Paul is a machinist who moved to San Francisco after WWII. He grows up in Santa Clara county. It’s flat, lots of one story buildings, mostly middle/upper middle class, outside of the bad parts. Parts of it are pretty, parts aren’t. He wasn’t coddled. His biological mother makes his adoptive parents promise to send him to college. In fourth grade he has a great teacher and, presumably, another and another.
His parents scrape to send him to Reed. He drops out of college and starts dropping in on classes that interest him. He makes money returning bottles and he hits the Hare Krishna temple now and then for a free meal. He takes calligraphy, eschews the typical coursework, and at age 20 he and a buddy start a company.
He’s a buddhist with a temper. He cuts down rivals and builds up a team of 4,000 dedicated to his singular vision. He’s ousted, builds another company or two, and comes back. He’s kind of a hippie, enjoying Bob Dylan and the Beatles. He loves music.
He’s leaving, now, the victim of something gnawing at his health like sea spray whittles a wooden pier.
Where does that leave Apple? And where does that leave us?
I wasn’t always a Mac lover. I thought they were over-priced and pretty, the candy colors far too silly for my 486 tastes. Any chip that had the word Power in its name was overcompensating, I wagered.
But over the past decade I learned the satisfaction of a machine that just works. It’s a machine that the boy put most of his life into, a machine that has the heart of a much older thing, a thing that lay blinking and frantic in a Stanford computer lab somewhere and then, over time, shrank down to something you and I can fit into our pockets.
Many complained that the ecosystem that he created was a walled garden, but I’d equate it to a pasture. “The reason everything looks beautiful is because it is out of balance,” wrote Zen master Shunryu Suzuki. “But its background is always in perfect harmony.” In the front, anything can happen. In the back, perfect calm and order.
There is a strain of Internet thought that requires us to tear down, to refuse to see the other side. There will be plenty of that going on in the next few days as talking heads talk. But name one CEO who, on leaving his company, will raise such a wave of well-wishes and interest? When Michael Dell dodders off or Howard Stringer plops into a club chair for his final cigar, will anyone care the next day?
We all know the broad strokes: The man got sicker, he almost quit, kept at it. He embraced a successor and groomed him to be as calm a force as he once was. He kept us surprised, entertained, constantly speculating. We wondered where he was. If he was well.
We all know the broad strokes: He isn’t well. He’s stepped down. Another Buddhist (or near enough to one) said “The mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of a mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one.”
Godspeed, Mr. Jobs. We’ll miss you on stage.
