All projects: Gel, Jobs, Good Todo, Games, Uncle Mark, Blog, Bit Literacy
Don Norman: simple doesn't sell
I came across a provocative quote a few days ago about how to make
a product that sells well. From Simplicity Is Highly Overrated:
Make it simple and people won't buy. Given a choice, they will take the item that does more. Features win over simplicity, even when people realize that it is accompanied by more complexity. You do it too, I bet. Haven't you ever compared two products side by side, comparing the features of each, preferring the one that did more? Why shame on you, you are behaving, well, behaving like a normal person.
More features, more sales: seems to be a pretty strong case for making complex, hard-to-use products that promise the world, even if they don't deliver much.
You might be surprised to find out that the author of the quote was Don Norman, the author of the influential book "The Design of Everyday Things", a favorite of many usability practitioners. Norman has made a career of pointing out how to improve design, so it's especially provocative for him to make the counter-argument.
And while his comments are based in experience - from a recent trip to Korea - they're not entirely accurate. He misses two main points:
1. The overall business context - admittedly, not his focus as a usability practitioner. If simple doesn't sell, why is Nintendo doing so well?
There are endless examples of companies that measure increased business metrics when they abandon a short-term focus on "more features" and provide a simpler, more user-centered design. (Some of them are here: http://creativegood.com/casestudies )
2. The decreasing power of traditional marketing (in this case, features packed tight on the showroom floor) in the face of increased customer connectivity. Guides like Uncle Mark will (I hope!) continue to gain in popularity, bypassing what the marketers want everyone to buy.
Don Norman is technically right that simple doesn't sell, because what people are really buying is a good experience. Sometimes simple is good, and sometimes complex is good, depending on what a good experience is in a given context.
For example, people don't go to the movies, or nice restaurants, or live concerts because they're simple; they go because they're complex - with emotions, story, texture, or feeling. But can we say that "simple doesn't sell"? Hardly. In transactional contexts, people want simplicity - view the popularity of Google and other easy websites. In a utility-oriented context, like air travel, people want simplicity - view the success of no-frills carriers like Southwest and JetBlue.
The challenge for designers, and executives, and other practitioners is to consider what's a good experience in their context. But it's broadly inaccurate, and more than a little silly, to suggest that "simplicity is highly overrated."
- - -
See also:
- Problems of complexity and choice (my column from October 2005)
- Joel Spolsky writes in favor of Don's piece, by the way.
Update: Various commenters are bringing up other related resources:
- Good Experience interview with Barry Schwartz, author of The Paradox of Choice
- Good Experience interview with Google's Marissa Mayer
- Attribute-Task Complexity as a Determinant of Consumer Preference Reversals
Happy reading!
Uh, I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with these guys on this one. I think the point they're missing is that it's not features (less features or more features) driving sales. The features of a product, as Joel notes, can include ease of use, speed, beauty, etc etc etc - so talking about the features of a product in terms of does it have RSS support or whatnot is getting off point.
People buy things (or use things) to use them to accomplish something. If one product will help them accomplish something more quickly, easily, or just accomplish more in general - then they're more likely to use that product.
The thing is that if you're only trying to accomplish X (say, listening to music on an iPod), then you don't care much about does the iPod play video or have an RSS feed or back me cookies. Sure, someone might be more likely to buy an iPod that bakes them cookies, but not if it means it'll be as big as an oven.
An illustrative example might be the new Microsoft Office. You could go ahead and call the new menu interface a "feature", but I'd venture to say that they aren't adding too many new features. What they're doing is making it "easier to accomplish" the things that you're using Office for. If Microsoft can, without adding any new "features", make it easier and faster for you to get the thing that you wanted to get done done - they're going to win new customers.
The real point that Don misses in the article, and that you miss here, is that *after* the purchase, simplicity wins. Yes, we do *buy* based on feature lists, because we've been trained to believe that the more we can get for our money, the better, but after the purchase, we want simplicity more than anything.
Some evidence for you:
1. http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/11/21.html (note that this was *also* written by Joe Spolsky)
2. http://www.lukew.com/ff/entry.asp?433
3. http://www.lukew.com/ff/entry.asp?429
Mark: People are buying the Wii for the experience it offers, rather than because its simple; its simplicity affords the experience, but buyers are (I suspect) not buying it because it is simple. The simplicity of the design, makes the technology forgettable (you wave your arm, rather than press button B and C) and transparent, enriching the experience.
"The decreasing power of traditional marketing (in this case, features packed tight on the showroom floor) in the face of increased customer connectivity. Guides like Uncle Mark will (I hope!) continue to gain in popularity, bypassing what the marketers want everyone to buy."
Well possibly, but things like Consumer Reports have been around for decades, and still people buy what the marketers push. I think the problem is that for most products that people buy, they don't want to spend lots of time researching. If your average consumer considered simplicity when buying technology that might help, but for the most part people don't and short of compulsory education i'm not sure what one can do about that.
The two things that seem to work are:
a) word of mouth. For example, in the UK the Sky+ box is a satellite box with a Tivo type thing built in. Its brilliant. Simple, powerful and hugely popular. And its sold largely through word of mouth about how easy to use it is (though I suspect years of frustration with timeshifting may have helped here).
b) Simple technologies that look good, where the usability is somehow incoporated into the overall product design. The iPod being a very good example of this (Scandinavians are very good at this). Lots of buttons look ugly - something which makes a virtue of how uncluttered it looks is likely to sell better.
Trevor:
"People buy things (or use things) to use them to accomplish something. If one product will help them accomplish something more quickly, easily, or just accomplish more in general - then they're more likely to use that product."
I don't think this is true, much as I'd like to believe it. Sure, if the features have no connection to what the functionality of the thing they're buying, they probably will ignore it (there aren't many iPods that bake cookies on the market). But that's pretty rare.
I think given the choice between an iPod that plays video, and one which doesn't, most people will buy the video one. And the reason for this is connected to the work of Barry Schwartz on how people make choices. They don't want to have to buy a second iPod that plays video in a month's time. People make what feel like safe choices. Better to have the extra functionality and not use it, than need the extra functionality and not have it. Whereas usability is not generally something that people think about when they're faced with a purchasing decision.
Luke Wroblewski gives some nice examples from others of "the sweet spot" - the point where satisfaction and the number of choices are balanced.
http://www.lukew.com/ff/entry.asp?429
It almost seems like a tongue in cheek article by Mr. Norman (whose book I almost wish I had never read due the effect it has had on me). There is much that can be said about what he is alluding to.
Complexity is a kind of status symbol - "It's got more features than I know what do do with!". Sure, many of those features are complex, the interfaces are confusing and the circumstances in which you might use them are rare, but they are there if I need them (not that they ever will).
The hard part is making complex things *seem* easy through intuitive designs. Stick with conventions and easily recognizable affordances, provide immediate feedback and information to help the user know what's going on and what the next steps are.
I am much happier forgoing features I would probably never use in order to simplify the things I actually *do* everyday.
The iPod works because it does a lot of things and has many features, but you drive it all with a wheel and button. Reasonably complex device, simple interface.
Since reading Don's book I have stopped helping people out with their badly designed pieces of technology and started recommending they buy *usable* equipment. (I am often asked as I tend to be the tech guy in the group).
In the end; each to their own.
Simplicity can help sell a product if you present Simplicity as a Feature.
For Example:
Apple does not present the iPod's scrollwheel as an embarrassment, but as a key feature. The market responds accordingly.
I think there's a difference between "simplicity" and "number of features." Yes, I may want to buy the product that offers more features, but not if it's too confusing to use. I pick the product that provides lots of features AND ease of use. Then, I know the designers really thought about the user's experience while at the same time offering a lot of features. It's challenging, but can be done.
Also, speaking of Wii, although it may be easy to use, did the designers think about how users might injure themselves using the product? Nintendo must have, since they show many warnings. But, it's an interesting "good experience" subject... How can you prevent people from getting overzealous while using your product and putting their hands through their TVs?
Simplicity and complexity can both sell to me, sometimes even in the same product. I love my dv camera, for instance, because I could get started taking good pictures and video without reading the manual, but the product does have 'advanced' features so I don't outgrow it too quickly.
As others mention above, the iPod is an important example. MP3 players that are cheaper and have more capacity have been available for quite some time. These players incorporate voice recorders, FM radios, and a myriad of other features, yet people still prefer the iPod. It is not enough to say that the iPod is trendy and iconic... there is something going on that is deeper than that. The iPod is simple. Apple has, actually, packed more and more features into it, yet its basic look and feel is one of basic, straightforward, simplicity. Simplicity doesn't always mean a lack of features, either. The latest Sony product I purchased, in contrast to the iPod, has 25 buttons on it. Seriously. 25. What does the device do with these 25 buttons? It reads eBooks. (This is the Sony Personal Reader) The Sony Reader may succeed because it has no mass-market competitor... but if Apple released an iPod for books, they could easily take the brass ring.
There has been a lot of research on this, so I hate to see people using anecdotal evidence or their own personal opinions. The research shows that for new customers, more features are much more important than simplicity. In part, this is because most shoppers have a tough time predicting simplicity in the store, but features lists are easy.
On the other hand, when a user is replacing a product, the usability is much higher on the list. This is when the number of features we never used and the frustrations we have felt while using the others are most salient.
So if a customer is targeting market share, they should go with feature lists. If they are targeting lifetime customers, they should go for usability.
Read the "Problems of complexity and choice" column I link to - it quotes a Wharton analysis that argues much the same thing.
It's true that 80% of the people only want 20% of the features--it's just that they all want a different 20%. Saying "simple" is always better just isn't true.
I'm with Milton Glaser on this one--less isn't more, "just enough is more", and combined with the above, it means you need all the features, intelligently designed to appear just to those who need them.
Features win over simplicity when the products are being evaluated SEPARATELY. See Nowlis and Simonson "Attribute-Task Complexity as a Determinant of Consumer Preference Reversals," Journal of Marketing Research 1997. On the contrary, simplicity wins if customers are comparing the products directly and the feature-rich product has some features the customer DOES NOT want. I can't find the citation, but the research is, I believe by Aimee Drolet at UCLA.
Can simplicity be considered sellable / non-sellable at all?
Here´s a quote from a great book (The Service Profit Chain James L. Heskett, W. Earl Sasser, Leonard A. Schlesinger) on page 17:
"Customers don´t buy products or services. They buy results. The quality of the processes for delivering results, including the attitude of those in direct contact with customers, is important"
Following this statement, what people purchase in the first place is not simplicity or complexity, just a result that fulfills a need.
Applied to the iPod example: The iPod result is to listen to music out of your coat pocket. The process of getting to the desired result is partly what has made this product the most successful portable hard drive ever. Without iTunes and a computer, that´s all it is - an elegant looking hard drive.
The iPod / iTunes / computer bundle is a complex interaction of hard- and software that at first encounter is very demanding. The simplicity in my opinion, is the intuitve learning and usage of the hard and software bundle that delivers the said result i.e. the processes and attitude in the experience.
I don´t think customers set out to buy an iPod on these grounds, but I do believe customers are persuaded to buy again because of this. And that´s what counts in the long term.
What about changing Don Norman´s quote to "Simple doesn´t resell or upsell" ? Now that´s a much more concise debate to have.
Yes, complexity can sometimes be a status symbol (but not always -- high-end appliances often revel in their minimalistic controls).
Yes, simple products generally look good; inviting; welcoming; non-daunting.
Yes, there's something deeper than just "removing all the features" to make something simple. (Although I'm a great fan of St.-Exupery's quote, "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away," I think it's an oversimplification.)
The truth is that it's more like a *conservation of complexity*.
What do I mean? I mean that there is a certain amount of complexity inherent in a product, but that complexity can be taken on by the user or by the system and its designers. Lots and lots and lots of design work, arguments, thinking, prototyping, and dead-end rejected ideas go into making an interface usable and streamlined, and that work is complex. The system itself may be complex -- in other words, the complexity of a task is taken on by the system so the users don't have to deal with it (think of how complex the search rankings in Google are, all so users can have the simplest search experience).
Larry Tesler first talked about the Conservation of Complexity as it has to do with user interfaces. I tried to cover it as well in this opinion paper:
http://www.maya.com/web/what/mayapinions/what_mp_bishop_goldprincp.mtml
In any case, it's important to recognize that it's not a simple matter to make simple-to-use products: the complexity has to go someplace.
Maybe I missed it in the above, but it seems complexity and number of features is getting blurred in the conversation.
The reference to the iPod was a good one, something is not complex because it is feature rich. I admittedly buy feature-rich products over their basic counterparts, but how simple these added features are to use ultimately plays to my overall sense of satisfaction.
SO, offer more features, make the features simple to use. Nothing complex there. :)
The value of offerring a (very) LIMITED choice is that it begins to vest the prospect in making a POSITIVE decision to purchase, assuming they are at all interested in the purchase.
They become elevated from browser to prospective purchaser by THEIR OWN DECISION of one or the other. The tactic is to offer relatively limited menu of choices, say, of color, pricier enhancement, or comparable brand, etc.
None of these choices should, ideally, be so major as to de-motivate the prospect from the generic purchase path.
It must have something to do with using a sensationalist headline quadruples the number of readers...
Norman is highly overrated, Nielsen 99% bad.
Everyone talks about the Ipod. Fair enough. What about Windows versus Linux on the desktop?
Linux zealots go on and on about the 'choice', 'features' and 'freedom' that their OS provides (examples: the KDE vs. Gnome desktop and the apt vs. yum installer). Unfortunately, in the real world it's too complex.
What linux has done is allowed the 'features' and 'freedom of choice' to make the 'product' unusable at many different levels: installation, adding software, using the tool. The variations add complexity throughout, meaning that commercial software developers have to write their products 5 or 6 times in order to support 'linux'.
Here is a horrible linux customer experience: You've bought a new computer. You've figured out which linux version to install (there are hundreds) and actually succeeded in installing it. And now you want to connect to your home network: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/WifiDocs/WirelessCardsSupported .
To me, linux on the desktop is the true customer experience failure.
"What we do with clients is to act with a gentleness utterly absent from our public utterances. We have been trained by our readers to be caustic in our publications. The number of hits on our websites each month is directly proportional to the sharpness of our tongues. We therefore engage in a fair amount of pie throwing."
- Bruce "Tog" Tognazzini, "How to deliver a report without getting lynched"
http://www.asktog.com/columns/047HowToWriteAReport.html
One thing that no one has mentioned yet about the iPod's success - it *looks* a lot nicer than the competition. People want features, they want to be able to use things easily, but they also want products to look good. iPods also sell because they are a fashion accessory - they come in different colours, you can get different accessories for them, and people can basily buy and/or customise an iPod to match their personality and image.
Our economy stresses value for your dollar. This often translates as 'more features' per dollar. One could argue the iPod (with the exception of the Shuffle) has been adding features per dollar (color video display, contact/calendaring, games, etc.), but it's managed to keep the experience relatively simple.
Anyway, Norman is right: most people want (or think they want) more features per dollar. It is only when they understand the cost of those features vs. the value of a good experience that they will choose the simpler experience.
Mr. Norman is being greatly misinterpreted. Example:
I simply can't believe people like the Nintendo Wii for it's simplicity.
I think to non-technical folks the Wii is like magic: I would bet most folks view it as extremely complex. That is it does something they don't normally see every day and probably can't begin to explain.
Now, having clean surfaces may provoke an aesthetic delight, but there is no one-to-one mapping between clean surfaces and presence or absence of complexity OR simplicity. It's a multi-axis creation balancing act that is highly intuitive (because it takes place in human minds, not in the objects themselves).