Note: This is a re-post of a comment I posted on the IxDA discussion boards.

In this interview, Scott Heiferman of MeetUp.com discusses the company’s decision to begin charging the meetup organizers a monthly fee to use the site. Although they knew that the change would cause consternation and probably drastically reduce usage, they felt that the risk was worth the benefit of 1) the creation of a revenue stream that was vital to their survival, and 2) improved overall quality of meetups which (they hoped) would be the result of a “pay filter” that retained only serious, committed organizers.

In the end, MeetUp was shocked (perhaps naively) by the degree and intensity of the public outcry against the decision. Vocal site users were not only disappointed but hostile, accusatory, and downright mean. And, for good measure, usage of the site decreased by an alarming 95%. Over time, however, the hubbub died down, the freeloaders moved on, and now the site is profitable and the “success” of the meetups has increased to 50% from 1-2% when the site was free.

It’s a fascinating story – and one which is relevant to any organization struggling with a similar decision. At least in the case of MeetUp.com, their decision to change the definition of “customer” to include only those willing to recognize the value of the service by actually paying for it.

At the recent Seductive Subversion exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum, the organizers placed iPads throughout the gallery that displayed wiki pages for each of the included artists. A very cool idea, but a little disappointing that the only material available on the devices was static content. So, other than the device itself, the experience is about the same as a typical brochure / catalogue or wall signage. Nothing interactive or social was included – although one of the more interesting insights coming out of the project was the fact that many visitors browsed on the devices in pairs or groups. Maybe next time they’ll be more ambitious?

Good, usable design is crucial to the success or failure of online products – even startups. Most entrepreneurs recognize this – but some will put off a close consideration of user experience until, unfortunately, it’s too late. Consider the case of Wesabe.com – recently shuttered due to the explosive popularity of competitor Mint.com. Founder Mark Hedlund admitted that

“Mint had a better name and better design and was easier to use… Looking back, Mr. Hedlund wishes he had simplified the consumer’s experience. “We wanted to help people,” he said, “but it was too much work to get that help.”

(From the NY Times)

True Dat.

We’ve been talking a lot about “seductive interactions” around here lately – having been inspired by recent Stephen Anderson presentations. Specifically, these are little design flourishes – that could relate to content, interaction, functionality, etc. that have the effect of engaging the user on a more emotional level with the task or interaction. Here’s a nice example I ran across today.

The image is part of the form to donate money to a school’s annual fundraising drive. At the close of the drive, the donations are published in a report that categorizes the givers according to the amount given. As you can see, the form helpfully tells you where you will fall in this categorization according to the amount you plan to give.

Was it a missed opportunity, however, that the category designations seem to make no attempt to denote a hierarchy of giving? In other words, would it have been possible to notch up the amounts donated by creating more aspirational donation categories such that I would feel compelled to give more in order to earn a more prestigious designation? Perhaps. Although this approach could also have had the unintended effect of discouraging people from giving lower amounts – and therefore causing them to give nothing at all – for fear of looking “cheap.”

Overall, an interesting example of using social forces to influence behavior and communicating these forces through form design.

Peter:
While I agree with much of what you’ve said here, I do have to challenge you on one point: the implication that UX consulting is not (in any, even small, way) about manipulation. Most UX methodologies incorporate keen understanding of user AND business objectives as orienting principles. If we are not helping our clients create experiences that benefit their businesses, then what are we doing? And, if all our clients’ customers flock to them simply because of the inherent quality or appeal then what do they need us for? Surely UX work is not only about reducing friction- it is also about creating motivation. Is there really such a difference between this and advertising? Advertising exists to encourage a customer to purchase a product because of a perceived or predicted effect on their self-image, quality of life, leisure time, etc. You refer to “balancing” client and customer interests, but what of the many situations in which that balance can’t be readily achieved? Do you resign those projects? No, I would imagine that you work to emphasize whatever elements or aspects of a product will position it as most appealing to potential customers. Is this purely “honest?”

Again, I agree with most of your statements and conclusions here – but I think we could back off the high horse just slightly. I, for one, am very happy for my clients to feel that we work in the best interests of their business objectives – while also strongly advocating the positions of their customers as we see them.

Your friend,

Nick