Minimum Viable Experimentation

Those who work in the digital and agile world should be pretty familiar by now with the implementation of a Minimum Viable Product (MVP). This is the creation of a working product that doesn’t have to meet all requirements, but allows further testing, feedback & iterative improvements. It is an approach pretty well understood and used across the industry and one that should lead to better products sooner.

So perhaps we need to use this approach, not just in the creation of the initial product, but in the way we release further functionality & features to our products? This would mean focusing less on the usefulness what each new piece of functionality provides (in economic terms the 'utility'), but basing each successive development on what it tells us about the product's overall ability to meet the wider strategic objective?

In other words, rather than add new stuff that simply compliments the overall richness of the experience... shouldn't each new tangible delivery be based upon a hypothesis? And in-turn, shouldn't this hypothesis be derived from insight that is focused on improving the user's needs or outcomes?

For example... if your project aim (which I assume directly linked to your strategic objective) is "to have a better online sign-up process for a new credit card", then each successive sprint or release from the initial product launch should be delivered to address this aim. However you shouldn't just assume that this is the case. 

Firstly make sure that each time you plan your deliverables you are actually answering a question, such as:

"How can we stop [a specific type of customer] exiting the online form before the end of the process?"

Secondly develop a hypothesis that can be tested in a small experiment. Such as:

"We believe that by adding [1: a specific feature] at [2: a specific point] we will create [3: an expected behaviour] by the user and therefore they will reach [4: an outcome] that will improve [5: a goal]."

Where in our new credit card sign-up example this could be:

1	A specific feature	A reassuring statement about financial approval
2	A specific point	The 4th of 5 pages in the process, where the most users drop out
3	An expected behaviour	The user is reassured that they could be approved easily
4	An outcome	The user moves to the 5th (and final) page of the process
5	A goal	Form conversion improves

It is worth stressing the point that these experiments don't have to be huge or complex, and in some cases making changes to a piece of content or image may be sufficient. They just have to be enough to prove or disprove your experiment's hypotheses…. a minimum viable experiment and nothing more.

Abandoned basket emails... one thing I forgot

Isn't it always the way? You write a nice long posting on a specific subject, giving some useful tips along the way.... and then once it's written and published you remember something else that will be obvious to your readers.

Well, it's happened to me (again) with my latest opinion piece on optimising Abandoned basket emails. As it was only after I listed out my 6 suggestions for improving these emails and committed it to publish last night, that I realised I'd missed and obvious one.

So as well as: Experiment with subject lines, Experiment with the time of sending, Send more than one email, Use your email service provider, Experiment with layout, imagery & palette and Track links... I forgot to include "make sure your email is mobile compatible".

You see that although a lot of people just shop on their PC's and tablets, with mobile eCommerce lagging a little way behind.... they still carry their mobile with them. So if you're going to send an email reminder to them several hours later, to let them know they have left an item or two in their online shopping basket, there's a good chance they are out and about, or at least not in front of their main terminal. So if you want them to read that email and then go on to buy the product(s) you need to make it as compatible as possible for all devices.

Experimentation...

Not enough experimentation is bad, but too much can be worse!

I think its obvious by now that the quantity and importance of user-generated media is growing. But it is relatively early days into its evolutionand its new ways of communicating, so many PR & marketers are struggling to keep up.

As a consequence, quite a few are trying different methods of engaging with their audience and in some cases, different parts of large companies are going ahead with separate individual activities. Decentralised activity also happens as a consequence of a lack of a Social Media Strategy or Community Manager... but then very few companies have those yet. Indeed a bad one (or a good one badly implemented) may be worse than doing nothing.

Now experimentation is not a bad thing.... as in general is does increase learning (sometimes learning by making mistakes). However, too much experimentation does risk losing focus on the most valuable opportunities.

So how do you avoid this?

Best practice in this area is scarce, but just from canvassing some very insightful people over the last few days, the most logical approach seems to be:

1. Obtain senior stakholder buy-in
2. Know your own company & brand values and key messages & marketing activities
3. Understand the benefit your want from the activity... and potentially map these to customer profiles (scenarios?)
4. Communicate your activity internally, your own staff are one of your best assets (and are probably having these conversations anyway)
5. Tread firmly, tread carefully.... but definately make that first step