Show Me The Light

To start looking at the question ‘When Does Good User Experience Become Evil?’ You first have to understand what user experience is. The Nielsen Norman Group is one of the leading voices in UX and one of the first places to go to when learning about user experience design. nngroup.com describes user experience as ‘encompassing all aspects of the end-users interaction with the company, its services, and its products.’

When I started my placement one of the first things I was shown was Jakob Nielsen’s ’10 general principles for interaction design.’ These are also known as ‘heuristics’. They are taken as general guidelines on how designers can ensure the usability of their design is good and consistent. These ten heuristics are:

Visibility of system status. Match between system and the real world. User control and freedom. Consistency and standards. Error prevention. Recognition rather than recall. Flexibility and efficiency of use. Aesthetic and minimalist design. Error recovery. Help and documentation.

When understood and applied correctly these principles can be the only thing a designer needs to create a good user experience.

These are very broad terms and you could write a whole essay on each of them. But I want to concentrate on a number of these guidelines, such as consistency and standards. Because not only do these heuristics fall into good usability, they also fall under the psychological principles of persuasion.

The ‘psychological principles of persuasion’ are 6 main persuasion techniques explored by the psychologist Robert Cialdini. These techniques are common themes that all fall under the umbrella of influence. Robert Cialdini outlines the 6 main principles of persuasion in ‘Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion’. These are;

1. Reciprocation. Literally, give and take. That when someone does something for you, you are indebted to them in a way that means you are more likely to agree to requests. In ‘Influence’ Cialdini reinforces the power of this principle by boldly stating that; ‘there is no human society that does not subscribe to this rule.’ Not only that but it is one of the main reasons humans have thrived. Which is a pretty big statement.

2. Commitment and Consistency. People strive to be consistent even if it means changing their opinion or choice to remain consistent. This rule is often used in conjunction with brand messaging. Brands want to portray a specific type of person who will buy their product. When this matches what a user perceives themselves to be they are more likely to purchase the product, as it reinforces their self-image.

3. Social Proof. The idea that we take and mimic cues on what to do from other people. This is a big influence in web design, you can see it when e-commerce sites post reviews, or when charities ‘suggest’ the average amount that people choose to donate.

4. Liking. We are more likely to comply with requests made by people that we like. This means both attractiveness and personality. Using attractive models or ‘aspirational’ people in your images and advertising can influence users to think they like an item more than they would if the item were to be presented by itself. Social media influencers are often utilised for this principle as well as for the Authority Principle.

5. Authority. When we are unsure of what to do (or buy) we look for authorities in that area and are more likely to believe what they have to say, simply because they are an ‘authority’. Companies have harnessed this principle through the use of advertising with the likes of ‘beauty gurus’ on YouTube (youtube.com) and using them as brand ambassadors for their company.

6. Scarcity. Literally: We want what we can’t have. Perceived scarcity of something makes us automatically put a higher value on the item. Thus making it more desirable. This is another big one used in e-commerce. Companies employ a few different methods to utilise this principle. Such as telling the user there is only ‘x’ amount left in stock or calling an item ‘limited edition’.

I want to look at how these principles are being applied in the design and how common it is to use these principles in our designs. Even when we are unaware that we are doing so. How much influence do these principles actually have on users and what sort of effect can it have on things like conversion rate and transactions.

Using your powers for good

The best way to understand how these principles can be applied to our everyday design work is to look at a living example. Earlier this year I was lucky enough to work with the amazing brand Madlug (madlug.com). The charity e-commerce website’s premise is similar to the likes of Toms (toms.com). A one-for-one approach. Simply, the user purchases a bag, and with the money from that sale Madlug gifts a duffle bag to a child in care. It’s a lovely premise and allows users to feel like they are making a difference while buying something they probably had to purchase anyway.

Madlug was initially a side business but was gaining some traction. They came to us to help them optimise their website by analysing what they were doing wrong in terms of user experience. I’ve chosen Madlug as a case study as it is a great example of the power of good usability and how the everyday ‘best practices’ we use in the design are actually based on the psychology principles I talked about earlier.

When looking at how to improve Madlug’s website one of the first things I did was to carry out a heuristic review. A heuristic review looks at the website through the lens of the ten usability heuristics by Jakob Nielsen. This gives a good overview of where the basics of the website are falling down. You can then go on to look specifically at how it compares to the major influencers in the e-commerce space. Amazon (amazon.co.uk) is a giant in the world of e-commerce user experience and is often used in competitor reviews to show how something should be done.

From this we were able to make a number of suggestions such as integrating reviews into each product page, this is a very common pattern across the web and by this point, it has become an ‘expected’ pattern. Reviews fall under the social proof influence pattern. Feefo states that personal customer reviews of a product are ‘nearly 12 times more trusted’ than anything the business has to say about a product. This is because users look to their peers for advice on what they should do. As Nathalie Nahai highlights in a study in ‘Webs of Influence’. Increasing the number of reviews for an item from 3 to 25 “went on to increase the base-rate of sales for this product by a staggering 87%”.

Consistency and Standards are also a big player in Madlug’s case. Users coming to the site are confronted with a choice. They can buy a backpack somewhere else and all that will happen is they buy a bag, but there will be no charitable repercussions of their purchase. They will not be contributing anything to society other than increasing the profits of a business. Or they can buy a bag with Madlug, improve the life of a child in care, and reinforce their idea of themselves as charitable.

Consistency is such a strong influencer that according to Cialdini: “The drive to be (and look) consistent constitutes a highly potent weapon of social influence. Often causing us to act in ways that are clearly contrary to our own best interests”. We played on this principle by making sure that there was a reference to the ‘one for one’ statement on every page of the site.

These are just a few examples of different ways we implemented both good usability and influence principles on Madlug’s site. These small changes increased the number of transactions by over 250%. As Madlug is a Community Interest Company, all profits automatically go back into the business and the community. By influencing users to buy these backpacks we are helping improve more lives of children in care than would otherwise be unable to be helped.

When Circumstances Change

In the case of Madlug we are using these powers of persuasion for the good of a community and to improve the lives of people in need. Unfortunately, the majority of the businesses out there do not fall into this category. The average business wants to increase profits simply to make more money. There is nothing evil or wrong about a genuine business trying to make it in the world. What I want to explore is; that as a designer with the power to influence users, is it morally acceptable to use the same level of influence for both of these sites?

Before our project, with Madlug the company was doing okay but it was not operating at its best. Nor would they have gotten to this level without the input of professional designers. When you come across a site such as mvmtwatches.com it is clear that they have used professional designers. From the get-go, anyone with knowledge of persuasion principles will be able to spot at least two used on the home page alone.

As it is coming up to the notorious ‘Black Friday’, brands online have jumped on this seasonal phenomenon to push the scarcity principle. MVMT does this by announcing that there is a ‘Flash’ sale, in large, bold, flashing letters in the hero section of the landing page. Cambridge dictionary states that flash sales are: “a very short period of time when a store sells products at much lower prices than usual.” This short period is what justifies the scarcity principle. Users coming on to the site will be influenced into purchasing something at a (much reduced) price. This is because they do not want to miss out on a chance that may not happen again.

Digging further into the site you come across the consistency principle. As with Madlug users have a specific idea of what they are like in their head. And will go to any length (including changing their opinion on purchasing something) if they are presented with a choice that could contradict that opinion. MVMT’s strap-line is; ‘Dress with intent. Live with purpose’. That somehow by buying these watches you will be living your best life. “With purpose”. This indicates subconsciously to the user that by choosing not to purchase this watch they will not be dressing with intent or living with purpose.

This may seem far-fetched but as Nathalie Nahai says in ‘Webs of Influence’: “When confronted with a choice, whether manipulated or real, we’ll construct stories and select facts that fit with our decisions, in order to justify and post-rationalise our actions.”

Like Madlug, MVMT also uses social proof in the style of reviews but goes one step further by showing Instagram (Instagram.com) posts from users who have purchased the item and taken a photo of it. These extra touches are often seen as helpful to the user. The company simply wants the user to see how other people are styling their accessories. ‘86% of women said they put the most trust in real peoples’ product recommendations’. Using Instagram posts reinforces the written reviews and allows the user to see that they were written by real people.

These influences are subconscious and so it can be very difficult to know whether or not the user would have chosen to purchase the item if not for these cues. In the case of MVMT they are using the same basic principles as Madlug but often take it a step further by adding extra layers to the design. However, MVMT is not much different from the majority of e-commerce sites out there. They are not over applying the influence principles, they use only a few and the general usability of the site is good.

Is it a moral/ethical step too far for some? Between the light use of influence principles, to get users to donate money to a charity and the heavier use to get users to purchase a luxury item? Possibly but I also think there are deeper applications of the influence principles that can be employed by businesses. So far I have only looked at sites with what is considered ‘good’ usability. What about sites that go so far with these principles and patterns that they meander into the world of dark usability and misleading design?