From Orange, who put on MarCamp, comes Mobile MeshWalk, a “Design Crawl and Walking Camp.” A MeshWalk – well, I’m still learning what that is. Check out the organizer’s description here (the short version is “a conference which is held in motion, outside, documented and captured digitally”).
I run into these Kettle Chips any time I’m in a fancy/yuppie/specialty kind of food store. I admit to not having paid attention closely over the years, but I remember them appearing as a brand of authentic old-timey traditional (i.e., “quality”) chips, and it seems that all of a sudden they’ve been coming out with crazier and crazier flavors.
This would be a good Consumed piece, don’t you think? How did the brand offering evolve to what it is now? Their website outlines their commitment to adventurous flavors, all natural, and more on the type of ingredients and preparation process. Much of that is typical for a food company, but the flavors is an interesting twist. I’m reminded of Method, who have built a story around cleaning products that are safe, not animal-tested, effective, smell good, and are packaged to look good. You can pick one or two of those (i.e., beautiful packaging) as a hook and identify with that, rather than have the whole story be important. It’s surprising to see a gourmet/quality story with unusual flavors, it’s surprising to see a safe cleanser with a gorgeous package that you can leave out. But beyond surprise is a sense that these might be the real attractors, while all that other stuff is just fine, of course.
Meanwhile, thinking about flavors reminded me of the awesome social commentary found in this riff from the Kids in the Hall:
In the beginning, there was Miracle Whip. One kind of cheese, and fish came in sticks. Bread was white, and milk was homo [there is a carton of “homo milk”]. Our condiments were mustard, relish, and ketchup. Our spices were salt, pepper, and paprika. These were our sacraments. [closes fridge]
Garlic was ethnic. Mysterious. Something out of the Arabian Nights. And then one day it happened. Food exploded. People, yeah, people put down their Alan’s Apple Juice and share of pudding, picked up a bowl of tofu, slathered it with President’s Choice spicy Thai sauce, yeah, and washed it all down with a mango-guava seltzer.
You know, there are so many new products nowadays and I confess half of them I can’t identify. I guess it’s like that with people too. You know I can’t tell a pita bread from a cactus pear or a Korean from a Filipino. I feel left behind. I do. I’m not *modern*.
I’m embarrassed to buy water in a bottle unless it’s for the iron. And I still believe– call me square but I still believe that tangerines are just for Christmas. You know what? I think it all started with marble cheese. I do! Yep. Well, think about it ’cause right after they introduced that, they came up with salt and vinegar chips. Then it was sour cream ‘n’ onion, homestyle, before you know it chips were being sold in a tuuube. Where will it all end?
In today’s New York Times
There are “brand aspirationals” (people with low incomes who are obsessed with names like KitchenAid), “price-sensitive affluents” (wealthier shoppers who love deals), and “value-price shoppers” (who like low prices and cannot afford much more).
The new categories are significant because for the first time, Wal-Mart thinks it finally understands not just how people shop at its stores, but why they shop the way they do.
Of course those segment labels are dehumanizing and unpleasant, but the source for this new understanding, years of in-depth studies with customers, must have been some very insightful research. Congrats to friends who I presume were the ones that actually did that research (even though they’ve moved on from Wal-Mart)!
Update: The friends disclaim any credit for this work!
Update2: This leaked PPT presumably explains their methodology.
It appears the user of this public toilet in China is able to gaze into the printed face of a woman while he does his bidness. Why, exactly? Sure, the whole idea is challenging to Western norms (and maybe even Chinese norms) which is part of the story, but that detail is particularly intriguing to me.
Charles (who passed this along) sez “I think it’s great design myself.”
Recently I wrote about a Bad Survey, exhorting design instructors to pay more attention to why and how surveys are being used by their students. I was reacting to a pretty bad example I had encountered and I ripped on it and offered some suggestions for improvement.
The students involved in creating the survey contacted me, thanked me for the input and asked if we could set up some time to talk. We spoke yesterday, and I was so impressed. Standard reaction when someone criticizes someone else (online, I guess) is to lash out. Ideally in as inarticulate a fashion as possible. But these four folks were awesome – they got on the phone with me with specific questions, not about just the survey, but about research methods in general (something they are obviously not getting from their program!), about careers, and identities when our skill sets span traditional disciplines (hello, it’s The Overlap). They asked me about my background, and shared theirs with me. They respected my time and they all sent thank you notes afterwards.
Their were no embarrassment on their part or discomfort on my part for having criticized their work. And frankly, they set that tone in how they approached it. I didn’t feel weird about what I had written now that I had names and voices to go with the work, because they sincerely expressed appreciation for the help in making improvements.
I’ve met with a lot of students, career changers, young designers, future researchers and so on. Most handle it very well, but there was something exceptional here, given how it started, and that they turned the whole thing into a win-win through humility and curiosity. They invited me to visit their school next time I’m in their area.
We couldn’t cover all that and get really deep into research, the philosophy, the tools, the approaches, and so on (and of course, that’s more than a phone call) – but they are working hard to understand how the different tools (say, an open-ended interview, and a closed-ended survey) can address different design questions at different phases of a project. One gently amusing moment was a discussion of leading questions
– one student had assumed this meant a question that led naturally to the next one (and of course, that’s a good thing) rather than, as I explained, a question that presumes a certain point of view and ultimately makes it harder for the person to give a true answer (i.e., Aren’t you disappointed that Jon Stewart didn’t host the Academy Awards?).
Learning is not just the information and experience you have or don’t have (and it’s clear that there’s some crucial info these folks don’t yet have)…it’s an approach to the people around you, indeed the world around you, and I’m so excited by the approach that this group of students is taking.
They suck for us, the people who respond to them. Who wants to participate in something like this? (recorded after my conversation with a United rep to resolve the ticket cancellation I blogged the other day)
It’s not unusual at the conclusion of conversational bit of research (something interactive, interpersonal, and listening) for the person being interviewed to thank the person running the interview…at first you might think “you’re thanking ME? But I got great info from you…” but the fact is that an interview done well is a pleasure to participate in.
These surveys aren’t really interested in you; they’ve already forced you to think and respond in a completely unnatural and awkward fashion.
Sure, surveys do have their place and I’m being pejorative here only to highlight the bad user experience being created by this sort of research.