A Disturbance in the Flow
Today I found myself browsing the Quaker Oats Website. I’m adjusting my diet and wanted to look up some nutritional information. Being that I work in the interactive industry, I started browsing the site a bit more because I liked the design of it. The navigation was clear and intuitive, the photos and type were easy to read and visually pleasant. And then it happened…
BLAM!
The “invitation” to take a survey. Except it’s never really an invitation now is it? Now, I want to be fair—marketers have a job to do and surveys can provide valuable data that we need to help market the products and brands we represent. I totally get the business challenge. But it is a business challenge. The average user doesn’t care about surveys, and brands don’t typically benefit from them because they can be seen as a nuisance. Still, it’s commonplace and we see this all over the Web, not just the Quaker site.
The problem with surveys is that they create a “disturbance in the flow” not unlike a “disturbance in the force” to quote a bit of popular culture. So we’ve got a marketing, design and experience problem on our hands here. How do we include surveys without disrupting the entire experience. Especially when its’ a good one? It’s like the equivilent of settling down with a good book or television show only to have someone slam the book shut or stand in front of your screen.
I have a few ideas—maybe a window that floats off to the side, or what if the site could detect mouse movement toward the browser bar and only serve it up to you then (that would indicate you were about to leave). But these are just some initial random thoughts and I know a few smart people read this blog. So what do you think? Is there a way to serve up surveys or polls without disrupting flow?
Last 5 posts by David Armano
- Highlights From Marketing 2.0, Paris – April 5th, 2009
- Friendship Isn’t Dead: The Strenghtening of Loose Ties. – March 19th, 2009
- Skittlemania Disrupts The Web (For A Day) – March 3rd, 2009
- Re-Thinking The Focus Group: Tropicana Design Flops – February 25th, 2009
- NBA All Star 09 – February 12th, 2009
I thought about this..I decided to keep a simple visitor count, and use “the force” to know that the site is making a difference.
NY Times does a good job of this with an unobtrusive bar at the top that invites you to take a survey and closes if you hit the “no, thanks” button.
ask one question, leave it there for a week to get your data and otherwise leave them alone…down and dirty in and out. whats it take 2 seconds to read it and respond? and it goes away.
I’ve been thinking about data collection a bit late. I agree that disruption should be minimized.
But what about also making the survey interesting and/or fun?
not sure if it’s possible to forgo the interuption of flow, perhaps it’s not completely possible for marketing research to move forward without the painful “surveys”.
however; “people” have a need to know they’ve been heard…a response of somekind and not the typical “thank you, your input is appreciated, yada yada” but perhaps something more interactive, people like to see change that he/she influences somewhat realtime.
Why not feature it prominently in a place where most people who visit are ones that truly care about the brand?
The average user won’t take a survey, even if it’s popped up in their face. However if you can find a way to get it in front of someone who loves the brand or had a bad experience and is trying to let the brand know, it might facilitate the experience.
I’ve seen this sort of behavior on many sites and it’s extremely frustrated. I never want to take the survey because I’m so irritated that it appeared out of nowhere loud and clear.
In my experience, the surveys that are unobtrusive are the ones that I’m more likely to take part in.
I want to say it depends on the data they are trying to obtain. How critical is it? Is regarding the site or the product? Either way they should do it on their own time. Just because it seems like a good idea during a meeting it does not mean its the best idea.
If it is that important, make it part of the website. Find a way to incorporate it on the site.
Perhaps the issue is less *how* you disturb the flow and more *when* you disturb it. On entrance, on exit or on a mouseover of a specific area of pixels sounds like a strong strategy to me.
Granted it’s a newsletter signup, not a survey, but http://www.shoemoney.com disturbs the flow neatly and without damaging the experience. The interruption is relevant, timely and valuable.
i know and use the same service that interrupted you. we use it to make our website better – their interruption method has a much much better take rate than anything else we’ve ever tried. additionally, we’ve seen literally less than 0.1% (1/10th of 1%) complaints submitted about the survey interruption.
if you adjust the sampling rate to the absolute minimum necessary AND you actually do something with the survey results the end-user ends up with a better experience overall, even if a few don’t care for the inconvenience. it’s a trade-off.
because the take rate is so high we can simultaneously reduce our sample size (ie, interrupt fewer people) AND get better, more actionable results.
Thanks for all the ideas here!
Chris, those are interesting stats. The survey questions are always about the site experience? Would you say that the interruption model is the best way to go. There’s no way to make it better?
I’m also wondering of the high loyalty sentiment that you enjoy with your customers could be a factor.
Thanks again for that information.
1. the survey always measures the site experience.
2. there may be better models than the interruption model, it’s just the best we’ve found so far (and we’ve tried many described in other comments to this post). surveys that are unobtrusive don’t get responses. surveying only brand fans or only angry customers doesn’t have statistical validity which impairs decision-making.
3. there’s always room for improvement.
to back off just a bit, i think interruption is actually good design only if you get the context right. interrupt someone after they’ve been browsing content for awhile, might be OK. interrupt someone when they’re buying tickets for an almost sold-out show, probably not OK.
yes, we have a high loyalty factor but that doesn’t mean that our customers are obsequious. i have a theory that brands with high loyalty garner more vocal feedback because their fans have a personal relationship with the brand – think about when BMW redesigned their entire product line. their biggest brand fans were the most vocal by far, both positive and negative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Bangle#Design_characteristics
if you you want to know more about the survey, drop me an email and I’ll set up some time and show you how we use it.
I’d be curious to know what browser you were you using when this came up like that.
Scott, I was using Firefox on Mac.
Chris, I’ll ping you later this week or possibly next.
I agree with Marc, keep it VERY short and sweet. Ask one question and give an opportunity to contribute a brief comment or answer… a sort of “micropoll”.
We noticed your reference to the new Quaker Oats web site on your blog and we appreciate the feedback! The site is a service that Quaker provides to its consumers and you’re correct in that the intent of our survey is to learn from our consumers visiting the site about ways to improve it and the overall site experience. User data via a survey is key to that. To Chris’s point, we have adjusted our sampling rate to the minimum necessary and our goal is to take this information and make improvements to our website which consumers will hopefully acknowledge and appreciate. We have also integrated polls throughout our site that consumers can opt to participate in which are less disruptive to the entire experience. We’re always looking for new ways to collect this type of information to better serve our consumers and welcome any additional input.
Andrea,
Thanks for the comment and sorry it took so long to reply. Good to know Quaker’s intent and nice to see you looked over the comments. There are few good ideas in the comments here so hope they are helpful.
[...] in the PR department respond. I have seen a couple examples of this. The most recent involves the use of a survey on the Quaker Oats website. I was attracted to this post because I have had experiences like this [...]
Ah, thank you! I had this same gripe the other day that I was venting on Twitter. There seems to be more and more sites/blogs that popup a message ‘asking’ you if you’d wanna sign up for their free newsletter. I think a site can still promote that but within the confines of the sidebar or where else it flows with the rest of the site. 9 times out of 10 I end up exiting the site that does this, regardless if they have good content or not. Hopefully they start realizing this.