Our post this week fortuitously (and/or unfortunately) connects with our experience in direct and concrete ways.
Cluetrain is less about redefining the relationships between consumers and providers, and more about pointing out how these things have already changed and are continuing to change. Among the original95 theses, we find:
11. People in networked markets have figured out that they get better information and support from one another than from vendors. So much for corporate rhetoric about adding value to commoditized products.
In 2008, Brandon bought an HP laptop from Best Buy. The resident “Geek Squad” member informed him that, for a fee, they could perform the first startup and remove the “bloatware”, i.e. programs and free trials that come factory installed. On one end, HP gets money to include these little gems, and at the point of sale Best Buy charges the unaware to get rid of them. No one uses the word “rube” anymore, but if they did there would surely be a few boardroom conversations where it would have been dropped.
Flash forward, October, 2014. He bought a Lenovo laptop. Whoops.
(Source: www.bbc.co.uk)
Now, security compromising proprietary malware aside, in terms of bloatware, the Lenovo made the 2008 HP look waifish by comparison. Every application you might use on a daily basis, from viewing pics and pdfs to browsing the internet had a proprietary Lenovo version pre-installed and prioritized. Every service, from cloud storage to security, Lenovo was right there to make sure you would never need to download a thing (say, Chrome and Firefox, VLC player, etc). But then there is the aforementioned full out spyware, Superfish. Brandon spent a morning attempting (unsuccessfully) to get it off his machine.
Now, what is Lenovo’s relation to consumers? If a laptop, out of the box, is a designed thing, what would The Design Way have to say about it?
“Acts of terrorism or other forced changes in people’s lives require that meaning be reconstructed in reaction to the intentionality being used against these people – the quintessential opposite of service. (p.43)”
Lenovo’s design is not service, but rather exploitation. It is designed to take advantage of consumers who do not know any better. This merely makes them predatory. What makes them absurd is that the group of people who are liable to fall for this nonsense is small and shrinking all the time. The ability to see through their bloatware rather than go along with it is a key component of what we would call digital literacy. It is part of what the Partnership for 21st Century Skills would consider information and media literacy. These are things we teach our children to avoid, like strangers with candy.
So, the “one another” from who we get information and support alerted us to the fact that Lenovo computers came pre-installed with spyware (that can compromise the computer’s security). Lenovo’s response?
“…We thought the product would enhance the shopping experience, as intended by Superfish. It did not meet our expectations or those of our customers. In reality, we had customer complaints about the software. We acted swiftly and decisively once these concerns began to be raised.” (source)
A cluetrain response:
26. Public relations does not relate to the public. Companies are deeply afraid of their markets.
27. By speaking in a language that is distant, uninviting, arrogant, they build walls to keep the markets at bay.
Lenovo has demonstrated what we already knew: we have to watch the companies we buy from. Caveat emptor! But:
52. Paranoia kills conversation. That’s its point. But lack of open conversation kills companies.
So is Lenovo a Fool or a Marauder? Both, clearly. But now it faces the Hoarde. Let it stand as an example. Let the conversation start there.
Koun found a connection in podcasting and the service relationship. She tells it below in her words:
Podcast and Service Relationship
Who are the designers/owners of the playground?
Here I would like to introduce an episode that have me think about this service relationship in a podcast. I guess none of you have heard about the podcast called Chitchat in State College (http://scjapdam.com/). I do not know how many people listen to the podcast, but assumingly very few. It is an podcast on any topics around State College, and it has been broadcasted for about an year by two Korean podcasters (Bong & Peter, which are nicknames) . I am not going to go into details about the content, but instead I’ll introduce you to a very trivial incident that my friend and I had with the podcasters. Few weeks ago, the podcastors recruited us for the public show of the podcast. I brought two of my friends to the show, and they became fans as well. One, friend who has a server, suggested that he was willing to provide a website for the podcast for free. Then, we faced the issue of selecting a url. Among the options below, the podcastors (bong and peter) and the consumer/the served (I and my friend) had different perspectives.
We chose http://scjapdam.com/
Bong and Peter chose http://bongandpeter.com/
It turns out that we and the podcastors had different ideas of who had the ownership of the podcast. The podcastors wanted to use the latter because they think they are the one who first created, managed, and did all the recordings of the podcast, therefore their names (though they are nicknames) represent the podcast. Whereas I and my friend thought it is the open market/playground where all the audience of the podcast are contributors/designers/owners, who make it happen as it is. The podcasters might began the podcast for self-serving purpose, but the relationship they have with audiences changed into other-serving as they go through several though they might be consciously aware of the fact. I and my friend found the podcast incidentally and found meanings in the podcast at the beginning, but then transformed to be proactive and intentional like a designer.
Our group thought the relationship we had in the podcast is very much similar to that of the designers and clients described by Nelson and Stolterman, and interesting to see the dynamic among the people engaged keep changing over time.
As you can see, the url is ended up with the one we chose because the owner of the server was a friend of mine, which gave him more power to select. However, the dynamic of relationship that the person whom used to be a audience become like a designer. It seems the “proactive” role does not bounded to a original designer.
Do you also see the shift of the role the podcast or other social media? What is it like to be a member of the community in the podcast or other social media?
Finally, Mike connected some of the points of the design way to a hobby he had recently begun:
“Science can help us in our design process by providing knowledge about structures, laws, and processes that reveal the natural world. But the primary thing this kind of knowledge gives us is a description, or explanation, of already existing things. Science cannot provide insight into what should be brought into existence, through intention, imagination, and innovation. It can only confirm potentiality and assist realization.” (Pg. 28-29)
Though I would argue the author has a somewhat rudimentary view of science, he brings up a valid point. Science simply provides us with raw knowledge, free of connotations such as “good” or “bad” in any sense. It is through design that we choose how to incorporate this knowledge into society in a variety of forms. Whether or not it becomes associated as “good” or “bad” depends on how we use it. Science and Design are two fields that, though interacting with the same information, have different outlooks entirely.
“Science deals only with what is true, but leaders or managers – and definitely designers – must deal with what is real, in addition to what is true.” (Pg. 30)
Though I don’t know how I feel about the term “real” being the defining difference between experience and science, I have to agree. Science does not always give people what they desire; it is merely a statement of what is. Science is not always looking out for the desires and needs of the people. Science most certainly can be shaped by such things, but the results are independent of them at the end of the day.
“Right decisions and appropriate actions in human activities do not and cannot arise from what is true only.” (Pg. 32)
This makes me think of most forms of government in the world (without trying to get too political at least, I’ll try to keep this brief). In a pure theoretical form, most of them should work. As the least controversial form, I’ll examine fascism. In a truly “scientific” or “true” sense, it should be a fairly ideal form of government. It could distribute people based on the needs of the populace and a truly efficient government could respond to the needs of its citizens rapidly and as needed. However, this certainly ignores the “real” aspect that humanity brings into it and is most likely why this type of government has traditionally failed.
“The notion of the ideal refers to the kind of inquiry devoted to the realm of norms and values. Sometimes it is focused on knowledge that says something about how the world “ought” to be in respect to some higher order, spiritual constitution, or idealistic system.” (Pg. 35)
To me at least, it seems that the ideal is the examination of what is “true” and “real” and an attempt to use this knowledge in some way to design towards the ideal. As such, I don’t really like Figure 1.5. From how the author talks about the ideal, it seems to me that the graphic should instead show the real and the true being examined with an eye towards the ideal, which then is what allows for design to occur, as opposed to all three components coming together. Another way to put this is that I believe the ideal cannot exist without the real and the true first existing to be examined, which then allows for the ideal to be considered. For example, I have a vision of the ideal set-up for my most recent hobby, painting. However, the ideal only exists because of the real experiences I have with painting and might very well vary from the experiences held by others. I similarly have no idea of what the ideal would be for a scrapbooker. I can certainly make assumptions of what those might be, but I am willing to bet the ideal I have is different from someone who is involved within the hobby.
Isaac Jason Bretz says
Lenova, which is partially owned by the Chinese government, was also implicated in bugging computers that the American government was stupid enough to purchase. Of course, the American government has hacked the cell phone security of every major mobile provider in the world, so whatever.
Audrey Romano says
I found the discussion around choosing a domain name interesting. As a web designer, I get into these types of debates over naming all the time. While I understand your view of wanting to choose a URL that refers to the community versus the podcasters names, I would argue that there’s a missing angle to be considered. Does the podcast listening community listen because of the personalities of the podcasters or because it’s a podcast about the community? Which is the stronger force at work? Which is more recognizable when you refer to it in the wild? If you say “the Bong and Pete podcast” or “the ‘scjapdam'” or “ChitChat”, which name do people recognize the most? There’s a branding and user study element in there that is closer to a service to the user. I would have recommended a user survey to find out what name the greater user base identifies with the most. Despite our best intentions to be neutral and all-encompassing with making choices like this, sometimes we overlook the obvious.
Zach Lonsinger says
Audrey’s comment on the url naming is interesting. I would agree that the community would have to be involved in naming the url, but from the example provided―it appears that the url name was already determined by the podcast name. If the podcast is called ChitChat, I would assume most people would identify with the “ChitChat” name. Where does “scjapdam” come from? I may have missed that in the reading, but I’m a little confused why it was called that. I get ‘sc’ for State College, but I’m lost with ‘japdam’.
And if you look at other podcasts, they are usually known by the title of the podcast. Chris Hardwick has a podcast and it is called Nerdist podcast after his nickname, The Nerdist. This podcast doesn’t really have a central theme; it’s just about whatever Chris wants to talk about that day. So perhaps the podcasters need to think a little bit more before they name their podcast, because that essentially is what people are going to remember.
Adam says
I think the interesting part is the type of service that Geek Squad offers. It isn’t a service to help less tech savvy people manage their machines for a reasonable fee, it’s a convenience service masquerading as tech support so they can take as much money from you because you don’t know how to remove the bloatware yourself. You can tell it’s a convenience service (and almost exploitation) because they fees they charge are astronomical. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not just tech support people who do this (and computer geeks are my people), you see the same type of “service” from auto mechanics. I don’t know the first thing about cars and I will pay for what they tell me is reasonable but is still hundreds of dollars of work because I can’t do the repair myself.
Leah Bug says
Thinking about the podcast discussion, I think a major challenge with design is communication. As stated on pg. 12, “If a generative service relationship is one of the higher goals in design, then how a designer communicates with his or her client takes on immense importance. Design communication is about listening. It is about helping people to express what they believe will help them live fuller lives. In order to do this, design communication may at times include the use of rhetoric and persuasion, as is also true of science and art. But these forms of argumentation are not a part of its essential nature. Also, a good designer does not spend time convincing clients of needs or desires they have not authored. So, “selling,” in a traditional marketing sense, is not fundamental
to the design process. Instead, it is the client’s own intentionality-in the form of their desiderata-that should trigger and aim the process.” (p.12)
While I was reading chapter 2 in the Design Way, I kept thinking of the various HGTV programs that work with homemakers to remodel their homes. Some have very definitive ideas on how things should be done, yet the goal of the designer is to “transcend” original expectations. I think about this transcendence every time the person or couple become speechless and so excited. Getting to this point is not always easy and there are notations and bumps on the way, but a designer with excellent communication skills can get there.
Which brings me to the naming of the podcast. While the podcast designers asked for feedback (even though the sample size was small), they did not listen. If they had listened, would it have made a difference? I like Audrey’s suggestion that they should conduce a user study, but unless they are knowledgeable about design, this idea would not have crossed their minds. As more and more people are able to create content for the internet, I wonder how how much design elements play into successful (or lack thereof) ventures.
Priscilla Taylor says
Audrey, you bring up an interesting point. When creating content as part of a community, it is important to know what it is the community members truly value: the creators? the content? a combination of both? Creating content includes considering these factors in decision-making. This discussion about URLs and podcast names brings up the importance of language within a community. In certain communities, words have weight, meaning, and histories. As the Cluetrain Manifesto suggests, language should focus on being invitational for community members instead of constructing walls and barriers.
pul121 says
Your team brings up a very important point about authority and ownership. I think these are two terms to distinguish old webs from new webs. The new generation of webs offers users the opportunity to create, design and contribute to the shared online spaces. Users also recognize their abilities and work to own and decide what is and should be out there. As we agree that online spaces are open platforms for all voices to be heard, it becomes impossible that privacy, control and monotone dominate without conflicts.
Katie Bateman says
Brandon, your experience is interesting. Who was the computer designed for? Appears to be designed for the profit of the computer company. So who is the client, are you, or is the company?