ARTICLE NO. 703    July 26, 2011

Five Popular Web Strategies That Don't Work

At your next moment of change and opportunity, what kind of leader will you be?

This question arose again recently as we kicked off a major web project with a client. The goals of the project were typical enough: improve usability, differentiate the firm, and close the gap with competitors.

But that was the problem. These goals have become the stock objectives for most major web initiatives, pulled from the shelf and recycled for every website and product redesign. And it’s not hard to see why. They’re safe. They’re familiar to your colleagues. They provide easy benchmarks and sometimes easy wins.

Goals like these may lead to change, but they rarely lead to progress. They’re conventional thinking that will produce, at best, a conventional outcome.

Because recognition is the first step toward recovery, here are the five most common off-the-shelf web strategies that we see in our work:

Strategy #1: Parity

The parity play involves watching what your competitors do, and then either copying them or one-upping them. Parity is seductive because it’s easy and safe. And it can lead to incremental improvements. But it’s just as likely that you’re imitating an expensive tactic that didn’t work for your competitor. In either case, you can never lead your market by following the pack.

Takeaway: Don’t chase your competitors. Chase your customers.

Strategy #2: Novelty

Every business wants to be new and different, so many business leaders equate innovation with novelty. They think if they introduce something new—something that nobody else offers—they will differentiate themselves and capture attention. But what’s new isn’t necessarily valuable or better than the alternatives. In fact, few business breakthroughs are actually new:

  • Apple didn’t invent the graphical user interface, digital music player or smartphone. They vastly improved on existing products.
  • Google didn’t invent the search engine.
  • Nintendo didn’t invent the video game.

Takeaway: Newer isn’t better. Better is better.

Strategy #3: Usability

Most web initiatives cite improved usability as a business objective. While usability is a must for long-term success, it’s really just table stakes. If your websites and products aren’t useful as well as usable, then all the usability in the world won’t help you.

Takeaway: Be useful first. Then be usable.

Strategy #4: Technology

This remains the most common approach to web innovation. It involves making a list of feature ideas or technologies, and then designing your websites or products around them. Designing products based on feature lists leads to unsatisfactory experiences because those lists aren’t oriented to the perspective and needs of your customers. In fact, the majority of your customers don’t care about features and technology. They just want products that are useful to them.

Takeaway: Design your business around people, not technologies.

Strategy #5: Epiphany

The notion of an epiphany—that next big idea that will change everything for your organization and industry—is at once the most seductive and dangerous of web strategies. It’s seductive because it is glorified in the business press and in our cultural myths about how innovation happens. It’s dangerous because it is the business equivalent of the half-court shot. While epiphanies sometimes do happen, they’re too unreliable as a business strategy because they can’t be controlled.

Takeaway: Don’t bank on epiphanies. Processes that are repeatable and controllable are the most reliable sources of innovation.

The Solution: Aim to Be Remarkable

Remarkable sells. Remarkable gets and holds attention. Remarkable is memorable, unique and inspiring. Remarkable builds successful companies like Zappos and breakthrough products like the iPhone.

In fact, if you don't aim to be remarkable, you are unlikely to achieve even adequacy after the vicissitudes and compromises of any major web initiative. Obvious you say? Perhaps, but rarely practiced because it involves taking risks.

So, at your next moment of change and opportunity, what kind of leader will you be?

ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)

Comments

Add a new comment

Because of problems with spam comments, HTML in comments is not permitted. URLs are allowed, but they will not be rendered as clickable links.
Wouldn't #2 be following #1? Don't one up the competition, but one up the competition?
Anders, Great post. You're right. It is difficult to plan for and control innovation. However, you can make it substantially more likely to occur if you understand your marketplace and what makes you unique, and if you truly understanding your users / customers and design products and services around them. In other words, if you do your homework and don't rely on the five strategies above. That may sound obvious. Especially to those of us in the UX community. However, it isn't obvious to most of the organizations I've worked with over the last 12 years. That's job security. :-) And yes, "remarkable" is a bit fuzzy. What I'm really saying is aim high. And don't be talked out of your ambition. That's how the iPhone happened. It could have suffered death by a thousand cuts like most ambitious ideas, but Apple stayed the course, and brought (strong-armed?) their various business partners (manufacturers, AT&T) along with them. That's rare. And remarkable. Great stuff! Thanks again.
Guy Kawasaki has a book on how to be remarkable, or enchanting :)
It seems impossible to plan for being remarkable? Most, if not all, companies would like to be remarkable, and they try their best to be remarkable given the economical and social capital available to them. In fact it seems impossible to plan for innovation at all. History show that the greatest inventions have not been subject to planning. In fact, given history, it seems fair to say that the impact a given technology has on society in proportional with the _lack_ of planning behind it (Amongst others, Donal Schön shows this in his 1967 book 'Technology and Change'). Also, your notion of 'Remarkable' is so fussy that I do not think anyone is aware what you refer to, if they stop to think about it. Sure, we all agree that the iPhone is a lot of superlatives, but does it help to show an example instead of taking the effort and explaining what it means to be remarkable? If we simple aim to do what Apple does with the iPhone, arent we actually participating in 'the parity play', which you warn about? The trouble is that if we actually try to explain what being remarkable is, we are forced to make use of synonymes and metafors. 'A product is remarkable when it .. blah blah'.. 'Its remarkable when its.. blah blah'.. and so on. Properly, the synonymes and metafors, which we would end up make use of in such an analysis of the concept of 'being remarkable', would be the very same ones which you dismiss as being invalid in your article. Instead my advice is this: Fire the strategist and get some work done :)
Nicely said. I will remember this and aim to be a remarkable leader!