A while ago I read an article in the Guardian about iPads as a potential route to more effective chugging – street canvassing for charities. The hypothesis was that the problem with chugging was that individual chuggers’ presentation skills are not consistent, and that conversation armed with a clip board was not compelling enough to convert passers-by into on-going charity supporters. I can see the argument that some form of video or slide presentation will be more consistent, and possibly more compelling, but I disagree that the primary problem chugging faces is technological, or even about content.
Take a moment and do a bit of ad hoc research, and I’m sure you will get a better picture of why chugging doesn’t result in a high conversion rate. Here are issues I heard from my interviewees:
- People are pressed for time and do not want to be stopped to engage in a fundraising conversation at that moment
- Everyone I spoke to is uncomfortable with giving their bank details to a stranger on the street, even if the stranger has an ID card and it is for a good cause
- People want to have the time and space to consider their on-going charity giving, they do not want to be pressured into making a decision on the street
No one said they thought that seeing a nice video would make them any more inclined to sign up to a direct debit on the street.
I think it is a service design question: is chugging really about getting conversion on the street? If it is, how can it be designed so that potential supporters are not made to feel pressured or suspicious – maybe the street is not the place that conversion takes place, and an overall service can still be designed that recognises the chugger’s contribution to the supporter’s user journey.
Or is it a widespread marketing tool that causes greater awareness, ultimately translating into increased giving, but not on the street? In which case, let’s design it as a real conversation, about interaction and learning – or creating the beginning of that new awareness, and a desire to find out more. That is different to a sales moment.
The one thing I’m sure of is that the problem is not primarily technological.
In a meeting the other day, Trenton our commercial director said a really nice thing – it was just a recap of a basic principle, but it was a timely reminder.
When you want to check the clarity and appeal of a call to action, think about who you want to take that action, and put the words “I want to” in front of it, and see if it sounds appealing.
This is similar to how Agile user stories are put together. Agile stories don’t necessarily lead to call to action labels, but they certainly help clarify what we are helping people to do.
A typical story reads:
- As an (example user),
- I want to (what they want to do),
- So that I can (what they ultimately want to achieve in this user journey).
Here’s an example:
- As a parent,
- I want to see the range of music lessons offered,
- So that I can help my child pick what they want to learn.
In this case, a call to action for a parent to enrol their child may be premature. A call to sign up for further information may sound like an invitation for unwanted emails. A clear direction to see the range of lessons offered is what the situation calls for.
Back to Trenton’s point – he was talking about reminding organisations that they are usually on the other side of the equation of engagement with their user. For example, a company that buys used mobiles shouldn’t have a call to action that says “Buy used mobile phones” because, even though that is the business side of what will happen once the button is clicked, that is the opposite of what their customer is trying to do. “Sell your mobile phone” is what will make sense, and get clicked.
So, the next time you are struggling with a link or call to action, test it by thinking of your customer, and what they would do if they attached “I want to” at the beginning of it.
When designing a website, there are key user behaviours that should be taken into account. But in order to take them into account, it helps to know them. This article discusses 10 of the more interesting and less well-known user behaviours that regularly occur in user testing.
Focus groups and usability testing are two very useful but very different user research disciplines. This article will look at the difference between focus groups and usability testing, the pros and cons of each and when in the development process you should use them.
Filtering and sorting are essential for helping users find the products they’re looking for. Find out how to make best use of this essential functionality.