Blancer.com Tutorials and projects

Editor’s note: This guest post is written by Dmitry Dragilev, the lead marketer at ZURB, an interaction design firm whose clients have included Facebook, eBay, Yahoo, NYSE, Britney Spears, and Zazzle. They are also behind the Web notation products Notable and Bounce.

Ever read a great book? What do you remember about it? Maybe a few dramatic moments, some wild story twists, and most definitely the ending. Your product is just like a book. You’re telling a story to your customers and they’ll remember only a select few moments from what you tell them. What are these moments? Can you use these moments to plant a memory in a customer’s mind?

There are millions of books, courses and talks out there about building great products online. An awful lot focus on “user experience” as a silver bullet to delighting customers and driving revenue for businesses. Everyone gets caught up thinking it’s user experience they need to worry about, but it’s what they remember about their experience that’s critical. Their memory is what they’ll draw on to tell other people about it. Their memory is what they’ll project into the future. We should focus on making experiences happen that plant memories in people’s heads, like in Christopher Nolan’s film Inception.

It turns out there are three different kinds of moments in your story customers remember: transitions, Wow moments, and endings.

How to plant a memory

There are three particular kinds of experiences capable of turning an ordinary moment into a memory that will stick in your customer’s head. Focusing attention on these three experiences will help you create memorable products.

1. Transitions

These are similar to those surprising plot twists in a story. Giving customers one sensation and then transitioning to another causes a change customers will recognize and are surprisingly likely to remember. Transitions need a clear end and a new beginning, which will trigger the right-to-left-brain transition and form a memory. Here are some examples of memorable transitions that reinforce the core value of each product:

? Ever Skype with your grandparents in a remote village in the middle of nowhere? Remember how their still image turned into video for the first time? That’s hot! You’ll anticipate this every time you Skype now.

? Have you tried to use Facetime on the iPhone yet? That initial call transition to the high quality video of the person on the other side is extremely memorable. This is something you’ll be mentioning to your coworkers the next day.

? You know how when you type a city into Google Earth and watch the globe spin around to the country it is in and then zoom into the city? That transition is what you probably mentioned to others when you first described the app.

2. ‘WOW!’ Moments

Ever have a moment when you just can’t put down the book you’re reading? You’ve got to finish the chapter you’re on. The same happens with a product. Very little of what you create for a customer will ever be remembered by them. They will only remember the peak experiences they have and refer back to them to sum up their feelings about your product. Here are some examples of peak moments that give customers a great story to pass along to their friends:

? Ever trip over your MacBook Pro power chord? Remember how the magnetic power cord came out from your laptop without bringing it crashing down to the floor? “Wow! Thank you Apple!”

? Do you remember the first time you won an auction on eBay and got your favorite gadget for half the price it would cost you in the store? Do you still tell this story to all of your family and friends?

? Ever find that awesome movie from your high school years on Netflix and stream it right away? Were you surprised at how good the movie looked?

? I’m continually impressed each time I open Google Maps on my iPhone and Google something in the area, then hit directions and it fills in Current Location > Search Result and just gets me there, by car or walking.

? Remember the first time you used Picasa? The first promise Picasa had was: “Find all the photos you forgot you had.” The first run experience delivered exactly that for a disorganized user like me. I rediscovered all sorts of ‘lost’ photos, like an unexpected walk down memory lane.

3. Endings

If you’ve read a novel you probably remember the ending. But how often do we worry about how our customers’ experiences with a product ends? That last impression turns out to be very important. Endings can put a positive spin on a negative experience or take a positive experience and ruin the whole thing. People remember endings. Here are a few examples of what we’re talking about:

? Good ending: Becoming a Mayor in Foursquare. What an awesome ending to your hard work of check ins. Folks get excited about this.

? Bad ending: You’ve been checking in for months and have not received any messages or earned anything for doing it. You’re sick of competing with others without any reward and so you give up.

? Good ending: You contact the tech expert on Crossloop and get your computer virus removed in 10 minutes. You’ll definitely be telling others about this experience.

? Bad ending: You contact a tech expert to resolve a problem and you get no response for days. By that time you’ve given up on the service all together.

? Good ending: You click Google Docs Save and Close button and know that: “Certainty I won’t lose my doc!”

? Bad ending: You click the Close button on a cloud app doc and are not sure if your changes were saved.

? Good ending: Flickr’s Contact updates provide a never-ending ending, a continual positive spin on our initial investment of putting our own pictures in there

? Bad ending: You keep putting pictures online and don’t hear about any responses to your pictures for months.

These examples above form memories in customers’ minds that sell these products over and over again. If you want your product to sell you’ve got to start with focusing on transitions, Wow moments, and endings to make it stick in a customer’s mind. How sure are you that your customers will tell others about these moments versus another one you’d rather they forget?

Like the author of a book, you are not just making a product or providing a good user experience, you are giving people a story that will plant memories, and those memories will drive their behavior in the future. Make sure they have good ones.

Picture this. You’re the world’s biggest search engine, and you just became the target of a patent lawsuit that could potentially put your massively successful mobile operating system at risk. Your hardware and carrier partners are keenly watching your response, not to mention the constant government scrutiny you see on a day-to-day basis. So, throwing caution to the wind, you pull out your digital middle finger and delist your opponent entirely from search results, then shoot off an internal memo with the subject line “FREEDOM” and a link to the Braveheart Theme.

That’s the story that IPWatchdog published last night, claiming that Google “seemingly tampered with [its] search algorithm and database by eliminating Oracle altogether” from its search engine (okay, there wasn’t anything about an internal memo). Gene Quinn, the article’s author, claims to have confirmed the search issue at 3 PM EST yesterday, stating that it was back to normal a few hours later. Unfortunately, it’s totally bogus.

As Giorgio Sironi spells out on his blog, some trickster used a variety of UTF-8 characters (not from the standard English alphabet) to craft the query, which yielded a mere six results. It’s easy to see why someone might mistake this at first glance — I suspect IPWatchdog “confirmed” it by clicking on a link to the misleading query, rather than entering it themselves.

However, as far-fetched as all of this may sound, Google has had glitches when it came to searching for competitors. Back when the Palm Pre first made its debut, Google Mobile couldn’t find any results for it. That was pretty clearly a temporary glitch, though, as other queries containing the word “palm”, like “palm tree”, were coming back empty as well.

I knew I would be touching a raw nerve with my last two posts, on patents. But I was really surprised at the divergence of opinion. Entrepreneurs overwhelmingly supported my stance that software patents hamper innovation and need to be abolished, but friends at Microsoft, IBM, and Google were outraged at my recommendation. The big companies’ executives argued that abolishing patents would hurt their ability to innovate and thus hamper the nation’s economic growth. (They believe that companies like theirs create the majority of jobs and innovations, and they claim that without patents they cannot defend their innovations.) I am not convinced that software patents give Google any advantage over Microsoft and Yahoo, or make IBM’s databases any better than Oracle’s. But I do know one thing for sure: it isn’t the big companies that create the jobs or the revolutionary technology innovations: it is startups. So if we need to pick sides, I vote for the startups.

Let’s start with the question of who creates the jobs. This is one of the issues that I recently took Intel co-founder Andy Grove to task for, in BusinessWeek. Grove wrote a profound essay lamenting the loss of American manufacturing jobs. I share his concerns about jobs. But Andy’s protectionist recommendations for restoring America’s competitiveness were largely based on his flawed premise that companies like Intel create all the jobs—not the startups. I also discussed the tradeoff between bailing out companies like General Motors, AIG, and Citibank and nurturing startups in this BusinessWeek piece.  This question is more important than it may seem.

Kauffman Foundation has done extensive research on job creation. Kauffman Senior Fellow Tim Kane analyzed a new data set from the U.S. government, called Business Dynamics Statistics, which provides details about the age and employment of businesses started in the U.S. since 1977.  What this showed was that startups aren’t just an important contributor to job growth: they’re the only thing. Without startups, there would be no net job growth in the U.S. economy. From 1977 to 2005, existing companies were net job destroyers, losing 1 million net jobs per year. In contrast, new businesses in their first year added an average of 3 million jobs annually.

When analyzed by company age, the data are even more startling. Gross job creation at startups averaged more than 3 million jobs per year during 1992–2005, four times as high as any other yearly age group. Existing firms in all year groups have gross job losses that are larger than gross job gains.

Half of the startups go out of business within five years; but overall they are still the ones that lead the charge in employment creation. Kauffman Foundation analyzed the average employment of all firms as they age from year zero (birth) to year five. When a given cohort of startups reaches age five, its employment level is 80 percent of what it was when it began. In 2000, for example, startups created 3,099,639 jobs. By 2005, the surviving firms had a total employment of 2,412,410, or about 78 percent of the number of jobs that existed when these firms were born.

So we can’t count on the Intels or Microsofts to create employment: we need the entrepreneurs. And there is an important lesson here for the states and cities that offer huge incentives to companies like Dell, Google, and Intel to locate their operations there. The regions should, instead, be focusing on creating more startups, not providing life support to technology behemoths.

Now let’s talk about innovation. Apple is the poster child for tech innovation; it releases one groundbreaking product after another. But let’s get beyond Apple. I challenge you to name another tech company that innovates like Apple—with game-changing technologies like the iPod, iTunes, iPhone, and iPad.  Google certainly doesn’t fit the bill—after its original search engine and ad platform, it hasn’t invented anything earth shattering. Yes, Google did develop a nice email system and some mapping software, but these were incremental innovations. For that matter, what earth-shattering products have IBM, HP, Microsoft, Oracle, or Cisco produced in recent times? These companies constantly acquire startups and take advantage of their own size and distribution channels to scale up the innovations they have purchased. They let the startups take the risk and prove the business models.

This raises an interesting question. Google and Microsoft have always prided themselves for hiring the cream of the crop of software developers. It is ridiculously hard to get a job at either company. But when technology’s top guns join these companies, they seem to make a smaller impact than those that don’t get hired. So would these companies be better served by releasing their most brilliant developers into the wild and arming them with seed financing to start companies? (They could negotiate partial ownership and right of first refusal on acquisition.) We would certainly get more innovation this way.

Simply put, if we are serious about lifting the economy out of its rut, we need to focus all of our energy on helping entrepreneurs. Provide them with the incentives (tax breaks and seed financing); education; and infrastructure. And gear public policy—like patent-protection laws—toward the startups. Let’s not bet on the companies that are too big to fail or too clumsy to innovate.

Editor’s note: Guest writer Vivek Wadhwa is an entrepreneur turned academic. He is a Visiting Scholar at the School of Information at UC-Berkeley, Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School and Director of Research at the Center for Entrepreneurship and Research Commercialization at Duke University. You can follow him on Twitter at @vwadhwa and find his research at www.wadhwa.com.

I’m hardly the first person to have had the idea: I’m going to shut down my Twitter account.

I’m probably not the first to have decided to delete Facebook, Foursquare, Blippy, Google Buzz, LinkedIn or Delicious either. I may be the only person this year to have deleted my Friendfeed account,  but only because I’m probably the only person this year to remember that he has a Friendfeed account.

No, I would hardly be the first person to decide to embark on a Social Shutdown (as Blippy’s Philip Kaplan termed it) having grown tired of the relentless look-at-me-ism of the Status Update Generation. And I wouldn’t be the first to realise that there’s more to life than feeding the insatiable blood-eating plant of social media – imagine Audrey II in Little Shop Of Horrors – just to keep the fifteen people who care appraised of my every move.

But that’s not why I’m doing it. Quite the opposite in fact: I may be the first person to decide to close down most of my social media accounts for purely narcissistic reasons.

Huh?

What?

Well. This might be news to people who only know me via Twitter, or who assume I write these columns just for the good of my health – but I actually get paid to do this shit. Specifically, I get paid no small amount of money to write about myself: or about technology, or whatever takes my fancy, as seen through the lens of my own experiences. Twice a week I do this for TechCrunch. Less regularly I do it for my publisher: my second memoir-style book, about my adventures living in hotels, will be published in a couple of months.

Narcissism, then, is my stock in trade. The moment people stop being interested in what I do, or what I think about things, then I have no career.

For that reason, I have embraced social media wholeheartedly. I’ve looked at bona fide celebrities of the age – Lady Gaga, Ashton Kutcher, Justin Bieber – and I’ve admired how they used Twitter and Facebook and Myspace and the rest to connect directly with the people who buy their music, their DVD’s, their whatever it is Justin Bieber produces. I’ve understood that if I want to build – and keep – an audience, then I have to do the same. I have to tweet every meal, photograph every date, create a fanpage on Facebook (actually, I could never quite bring myself to do that one) and I even have to share my credit card purchases on Blippy.

My publisher understood this too: as I was finishing my last book, they sent me a cheque to encourage me to bulk out my blog and create a social media strategy: safe in the knowledge that any increased awareness of my life would, by extension, lead to increased awareness of my book. It sort-of worked too: it was the blog that got me my most recent gig at the Guardian, which in turn lead to me writing for TechCrunch, where I take obvious delight in plugging the book at every possible juncture. Score one for social media.

As I shared more, though, I started to notice a funny thing happening. Rather than people becoming more fascinated by my life; the exact opposite occurred. “I loved your book, so I started following you on Twitter” people would tell me at parties. And then their expression would change: “your real life isn’t as interesting as you sound in print.”

“No shit”, I’d feel like replying. That last book took me a year to write and spanned almost ten years of my life, distilled down into just shy of 300 pages. Included were the drunken fuck-ups, the disastrous relationships, the business failures, the nights in prison cells, but consciously edited out were the boring parts: what I had for dinner on any given day, the uneventful dates, the minor successes and occasional parking tickets.

Whatever the excuse, though, the result is the same: people who enjoy my day-job writing are inevitably disappointed by the humdrum reality of my actual life, as laid bare by social media.

And if that realisation is jarring for people who follow me on Twitter, I can only imagine how it must feel for people who follow actual celebrities. Take Justin Bieber who this week got into a back-and-forth with some teenagers who claimed, on Twitter, to be at a party organised by him. Bieber shot back by DM: “I didn’t have a party. I don’t know who those girls are. I’m with 6 of my friends and my family…” He couldn’t let it go at that, though, adding: “what are their twitter names… they are liars.” And with that exchange, Justin Bieber – global pop sensation – became Justin Bieber – regular kid on his cellphone, pissed off that people are making shit up about him. He’s just like we were at that age. How dull.

Still, at least Bieber has an excuse for tweeting like a teenage: he is a teenager. Ashton Kutcher on the other hand…

If you’re one of the three people in the world not already following Kutcher (I’m another), then take a moment to browse his latest tweets: with every 140 character nugget, Kutcher becomes less ‘social-media savvy husband of Demi Moore who was in that show once’ and more ‘over-enthusiastic teenager with a cellphone’. The more we know, the less we want to know.

Go a step further. Contrast the hell-raising antics of classic stars like Richard Burton and Oliver Reed, with today’s famous drunks like David Hasselhoff and Lindsay Lohan. Why did the problems of the former only add to their legendary status, while with the latter it only makes us pity them? A difference in acting ability? Well, sure. But mainly it’s because in the case of Burton, Reed et al, fans only read about their heroes misbehavior in newspapers after the fact: stylised accounts of nights spent stumbling out of bars and brawling in the street. With today’s stars, social media – everyone having a camera, and every misstep ending up on YouTube – means that we can actually witness the drunkenness as it happens, or shortly afterwards. That’s never pretty.

Social media allows us to become familiar with people who in a previous life would be unknowable “stars” — and we all know what familiarity breeds. There’s a reason why reality stars fade from the limelight so quickly and why none of the movies on Project Greenlight became a success: to mix a metaphor, you can’t become a star if everyone has seen the sausage being made.

In Esquire, S.T. VanAirsdale argued recently that we’re on the cusp of a rebellion against over-exposed celebrities: that tomorrow’s stars will not be Twitter-whores like Bieber and Gaga but virtual recluses in the mould of Greta Garbo and JD Salinger. If that’s true – that fame and fortune will soon be inversely proportional to social media exposure – then God help someone like me: someone who can only dream of the level of success attained by Salinger or, uh, Bieber.

Not only is my constant lifecasting boring to tears people who actually want to like me but, worse still, I’m spending hours every week dicking around keeping those half-dozen profiles up to date when I could be using the time writing another column, or researching another book. You know, something with the potential to actually make me seem interesting. Something that could – probably won’t, but could – one day make me famous. Quelle irony.

For that reason, them, as the publication date of my next book approaches, I’ve decided to take precisely the opposite self-promotional strategy to the one I took for the last one. Cue the Social Shutdown: I’ve closed down all of my social media accounts: deleting Foursquare, Plancast, Buzz, Facebook, LinkedIn, Delicious, Blippy and all of the rest.

All, in fact, except Twitter. I was going to axe that too, but then I paused: I really enjoy writing those little 140 character updates, for the amusement of friends and because they occasionally allow me to test-drive jokes and ideas before throwing them out to a wider audience (I have just under 10,000 followers – a big number but considerably lower than the readership of even my least popular TechCrunch post. And a number dwarfed by how many people have read my last book in its various forms).

Twitter, then, might survive the cut – but with one significant change: I’m a couple of hundred followers away from reaching 10,000 and after that I’ve decided to lock my account. (Update: done) Ten thousand is more than enough followers for one person, and it’s a number that will still allow me to have fun with the service – keeping up with friends, testing ideas, responding to amusing @replies – without obsessing about what the wider world will make of my frighteningly mundane life.

So that’s that. Finally social media is put back in its place: a closed way to connect with friends old and new, rather than a sprawling, digital re-incarnation of Seymour’s plant: demanding my constant attention while at the same time plotting my professional demise.

I miss it already. Anyone want to know what I had for lunch?

For the last 30 or so hours self-described Apple fanboy MG Siegler has put his iPhone 4 aside (Jason Kincaid and Greg Kumparak held him down while two interns broke his Kung Fu grip) to give Motorola’s Droid 2 a proper test drive. The verdict? A definite step above the HTC EVO 4G.

If you read MG’s review of the EVO back in May, you know he gave HTC’s bundle of joy a merciless, swift kick to the head. Thus, saying Siegler prefers the Droid 2 to the EVO, probably doesn’t say very much. To get a more nuanced review, we enlisted MobileCrunch editor, Greg Kumparak to go one-on-one with MG.

Click above for their full review of the Droid 2 and a discussion on Google Voice Actions, the Android ecosystem and yes, those rampant Verizon rumors.

A few trips to India ago, I wrote a piece on Deep Kalra of MakeMyTrip.com, an Indian online travel company that I guessed would be the first big Indian ecommerce IPO. Yesterday, the company made good on that—listing on Nasdaq and surging nearly 90%. It fell 5% today, but that’s not bad considering yesterday was the best one-day pop of any American IPO since 2007.

Does that mean a flood of Indian Internet IPOs will follow? Not necessarily. MakeMyTrip is a rare company in India, where Internet penetration is low and more money has been lost than made hoping it would take off faster. Here’s what Indian entrepreneurs should learn from what Kalra did right.

1. He was committed. Kalra started MakeMyTrip in 2000—when Web mania and private equity funding first swept through India. After the crash, foreign investors either sold off stakes or outright reneged on deals countrywide and only the most stubborn entrepreneurs survived, among them Indiagames, Indiabulls and MakeMyTrip.

In MakeMyTrip’s case, SARS also tanked the Asian travel market, making the environment even worse. With a background in banking and a wife and newborn baby, getting a real job was the sensible thing to do. But great entrepreneurs don’t do the sensible thing. Kalra and two other managers bought back their equity and worked without salaries for 18 months. More than a third of the staff walked out when he asked them to take 40% paycuts. But a year later, the company broke even and he raised money to invest in growth again.

I’ve met at least 50 Web entrepreneurs over a few trips to India. Most are based in Bangalore, most worked at a multinational, made a huge salary saved up money and quit to start a company. Nothing wrong with that. What worries me is how many of them have said the equivalent of, “If this doesn’t work out in a year or two, I can always get another multinational job.” As Kalra’s example shows, that’s not how it works. Entrepreneurship is about commitment, even in the Internet where products can be launched over night– especially in India where the online market is growing, but it’s growing slowly.

2. Invest in Culture. It’s worth noting that when Kalra asked his staff to take paycuts in those dark days, 17 left but about 25 stayed. He wanted to make sure he rewarded them for their loyalty and invested in the company’s culture, inspired greatly by Zappos’ culture book. He organizes annual staff retreats and offered to pay half for any employees that wanted to attend TEDx when it came to Bangalore in 2009. Frequently startups in India complain that multinational jobs have lead to a culture of mercenaries who don’t value stock and will leave for a higher paycheck. But Kalra’s experience has proved that like anywhere else, retention is possible if you build the right culture.

3. If you’re going to be a copycat, do it the right way. MakeMyTrip isn’t exactly a new idea. The functionality and even the look-and-feel are similar to a lot of US online travel sites. But Kalra played the copycat game the right way. Online travel is almost always one of the first categories to take off in new markets, in part because it has a clear revenue model that doesn’t rely on mature advertising markets or sophisticated shipping routes, since many of the tickets are issued electronically. And in the early days, he tailored his site for India’s domestic travel market— business US competitors weren’t going to target. I’ve used the site to book routes within India that I couldn’t have otherwise booked without a travel agent and pricey fees.

Unlike entrepreneurs who waste their time trying to build, say, “an Indian Facebook” – MakeMyTrip wasn’t a re-skin, it actually solved problems unique to India. And Kalra assiduously studied competitors to see what had worked for them and what didn’t. Those in the United States, and ones in other emerging markets like China. When done well, copycatting is about adjusting to local markets and learning what the first generation did right and wrong. You can’t copycat something you don’t deeply understand.

4. Timing the Market Isn’t Everything, but It Helps. I can go on and on about the things MakeMyTrip did right, but let’s face it—a lot of this stock pop has to do with scarcity. After all, the company’s revenues are growing at an impressive 49% a year, but its net income is a paltry $1.3 million a quarter.

But in the markets, what a company is “worth” is in the eye of the investor and MakeMyTrip is the first Indian company to go public in America in four years and it was just the fourth India-based company to go public in the US since 1999. For the sake of comparison, 14 Chinese companies have gone public in the US just this year. So while China’s economy may be growing faster, Nasdaq and NYSE investors have more chances to buy a piece of it than those interested in India.

Let it be a lesson to other anomalies like MakeMyTrip– price high and build the war-chest while you can.