It only takes a single moment, a single instance of a negative experience to form a long lasting impression that affects the user experience. I’ve often heard the expression “experience is a good teacher;” and while I’ve only heard it in the lyrics of a 1980s R&B song, I believe that statement has merit in our efforts to enhance the user experience.
If by chance a person is willing to give an experience another try and that experience yields the same negative result, then it is reasonable that the person will not be willing to give the same experience yet another try.
I once had a casual conversation with a young lady in the grocery store. I met her while she was carefully examining the instructions on the back of a carpet shampoo bottle. She had never cleaned carpets herself but she was willing to give it a try. She cited her reason as being unhappy with previous experiences with carpet cleaning services. In one instance, the professional service left excessive water on the carpet which when dried discolored the carpet around the baseboards. In another experience, normal foot traffic stains were not removed. She asked herself (and me) “why should I pay to have someone do as bad as I would? I can make the same mess of things as they did, but at least I’ll still have my money.”
Of course I thought about the conversation on my way home. I realized two things: (1) regardless of her reason for using a carpet cleaning service, the absolute goal was to achieve completely clean carpets or at least the appearance of clean carpets; and (2) her goal had not changed; but her method of achieving her goal had changed.
In this scenario, the user was so displeased with the service she received that she was willing to venture into the unknown – do-it-yourself carpet cleaning. The unfamiliar was more appealing than repeating the previous experience.
When we focus on helping the user achieve their absolute goal, we impress upon the user that the product or process is worth repeating. When we fail to focus on the absolute goal, we risk the user “giving up” and searching for a better solution.
If by chance a person is willing to give an experience another try and that experience yields the same negative result, then it is reasonable that the person will not be willing to give the same experience yet another try.
I once had a casual conversation with a young lady in the grocery store. I met her while she was carefully examining the instructions on the back of a carpet shampoo bottle. She had never cleaned carpets herself but she was willing to give it a try. She cited her reason as being unhappy with previous experiences with carpet cleaning services. In one instance, the professional service left excessive water on the carpet which when dried discolored the carpet around the baseboards. In another experience, normal foot traffic stains were not removed. She asked herself (and me) “why should I pay to have someone do as bad as I would? I can make the same mess of things as they did, but at least I’ll still have my money.”
Of course I thought about the conversation on my way home. I realized two things: (1) regardless of her reason for using a carpet cleaning service, the absolute goal was to achieve completely clean carpets or at least the appearance of clean carpets; and (2) her goal had not changed; but her method of achieving her goal had changed.
In this scenario, the user was so displeased with the service she received that she was willing to venture into the unknown – do-it-yourself carpet cleaning. The unfamiliar was more appealing than repeating the previous experience.
When we focus on helping the user achieve their absolute goal, we impress upon the user that the product or process is worth repeating. When we fail to focus on the absolute goal, we risk the user “giving up” and searching for a better solution.
RSS Feed