Does it really pays off to provide a better customer experience?

empirisme expérience rocher caillou météo

There’re a lot of examples of brands we love thanks to their UX both online and offline: Nespresso, Google, Uber, Apple…

There’re a lot of brands we hate because of their UX: telcos, retailers, governments, banks, insurances…

But is a good UX a true indicator of business performance?

Theres a gazillions of counter examples undermining our belief to make UX a key factor of success.

Think about Free, about Carrefour, about CanalPlus, about an awful lot of brands skyrocketting without even considering people… Sometimes this is after sales, sometimes this is stores, sometimes this is hotline or sometimes this is the website. A lot of brand don’t give a damn and still succeed. A couple of weeks ago, one of the 3 main French Telco was bought out by an outsider famously known for its nightmarish UX. Still don’t give a damn.

Is it a matter of market? Not exactly. Good and bad UX sit everywhere.

Neither segment. There’s good and bad UX (think about Audi) within premium or low-cost (think about Dacia).

Neither a problem of competition: some monopolistic areas are neglected – think about gov taxes webpages or TV channels exclusively broadcasting event such as Olympics or football games – where highly disputed areas such as banking or retail despise UX too.

It’s probably a matter a respect then. Or share of wallet. Or pleasure.

Why should we invest in good UX beside marginal tricks such as growth hacking? Does growth hacking makes you product better?


These sketches from Mehmet Gozetlik on the power of iconic brands remind us how the Internet killed old supermarket myths

Mehmet Gozetlik evian Mehmet Gozetlik guinness Mehmet Gozetlik m&ms Mehmet Gozetlik tabasco

It’s funny how the work of graphic designer Mehmet Gozetlik demonstrates the power of brand properties through these examples of “iconicization” of brands.

The less decorum, the more powerful brands are.

As we already mentioned here, there’s a thing with iconic brands, especially FMCGs. Because it has to be picked in half a second among shelves, their shape, color and shadow are key, therefore tolerate deconstruction.

It also alludes to the most powerful marketing tool ever invented: the packaging. Obvious yet sometimes forgotten among these days of “conversational marketing” and blind belief in too much rationality.

Here’s a good example of the overused “the medium is the message” quote. Since advertisers consider people are growing more mature regarding marketing, they embraces new environments where choice is made more rationally: price comparison tools, e-commerce or low-end supermarkets (low-cost lost momentum during the past few years but it remember that it took 15% of the French retailing marketing in 20 years). Now, look back to the Internet -the medium, following McLuhan idea – and try to picture the effect it has on consumer’s views.

How come people grew more mature? Because of the Internet of because of brands playing the game? As for the packaging growing more and more meaningless on the Internet (for bad reasons, don’t get me wrong), it was once crucial in supermarkets.

The medium is the message.