Two weeks ago I went to a Stanford conference where Jakub Krzych (Estimote CEO) presented his company. During the Q&A I asked this question (edited):
Estimote product works best with a larger the network, but still uses a PULL strategy. The service needs unlocks, downloads and interacting with different apps creating a lot of friction to users . How do you change to a PUSH strategy where the information towards the user in a way it doesn't feel as spam, and it respects their privacy?
Before jumping into the answer let’s talk who Estimote is. If you don't know who Estimote is go here. They designed beautiful beacons and their software works as smoothly as you would expect. As of now Estimote is one of the hottest startups of Silicon Valley coming out of YC 13' and raising $3.1M so far from several VC’s and Angels. According to the Mattermark team “they are one of the top 20 companies who look primed to raise Serie A.”
As they mention in their website they create:
Real-world context for your apps
Stick our tiny beacons in any location or to any object
to create new, contextually rich mobile experiences.
They have created colorful beautifully designed beacons for retailers or end customers that want to know where they left things or want to pull information from a certain place directly to their phone.
What is more interesting here is that the whole beacon thing adds one more step because it reaches a user directly in their phone. It creates a connection that has never been there before.
The essence of the connection relies on Morton’s choice: pull? or push?
Both solutions create undesirable results. Or maybe good ones?
Jakub’s partial answer to the question was: “At the moment the technology is opt-in. This is the way Apple designed iBeacon. So as a user by downloading an app you express your intention of interacting with a particular object or particular brand or location.”
While I agree that downloading an app expresses intent, I also believe walking into the store or interacting with a particular object signifies a similar intent. What comes first? Are we trying to understand the user? We have gotten used to and can understand and measure our behavior by adding layers of communication between technology and us. Each layer get us closer to connect in the right way with the technology.
From ringtones ➡ to lights ➡ to vibration ➡ to notifications. Some parts of our behaviour has changed due to all this communication. We are trying to figure out how to react to our technology and what we actually want.
Do we want to change our behaviors to use the technology or should we adapt it to the way it serves us best?
Downloading an app in advance to be able to create the connection between the real world and ourselves loses the real purpose of human actions. Our behavior is somewhat predictable, but we also are in constant evolution trying to innovate and find new ways to improve ourselves. As scientist Philip Lieberman explains, “the human brain evolved in a way that enhances our cognitive flexibility and capacity for innovation and imitation.”
Jakub mentioned that downloading the app is not the best way, but because its the only method of connection, they have to try to work around it.
“We are trying to educate our customers that there should be real value in the app. Today If I download a retail app the value is not there. I could just open like a pdf file with a catalog.”
We need to find a better way to connect with the technology we create. What if there was a mid-point between feeling spammed and having to download an app? If we look at the way we behave maybe we could understand how the technology should actually work.
If you think about behaviour and how to persuade them, we should remember the Fogg Model: Motivation, Ability and Trigger.
The Motivation on the particular case is already shown when the user walks into the store. There is a real need for the consumption so the technology is just plugging into it. The Ability is delivered by the smartphone and the fact that we are always connected. The Trigger is what we are going to discuss, using a metaphor.
Today we treat the connection with technology as if we were playing the “Seesaw Game”. We have two sides of it:
We walk into a store equipped with Estimote and nothing happens. Why? Oh right, you need to take your phone out of your pocket. Next you need to unlock it. Then you need to download an app from a retail store (that we don’t even know if we are coming back to again) The phone then connects to the magical Estimore network. As in real state, this is only described as Friction! Friction! Friction!
It’s not only the friction created but how distant and different it is from our own behavior (We are animals that react to stimuli and to our surroundings.). In this case instead of receiving the benefits of technology we have to go look for it. This is called a PULL strategy where the user has to “pull” their phone, “pull” the app from the Appstore.
On the other side of the “Seesaw” game:
On the opposite side, we have the spammy notifications that fill our phones with unnecessary information and overload our brain. Imagine if we add to our messaging, email, and news notifications: Shoes! Shirts! 50% off! Just the idea of this makes me anxious!
As Jakub mentioned, they don't want this. This is again a different kind of friction. This one hurts Estimote because they are the ones that are delivering these notifications (in theory).
What if there could be a middle ground? One in which technology would connect with us in the way we behave. One in which there was a Balance.
If we could get the notifications only when we walk into a store or even better, could the message be related to the item a user was considering. If it was not only based on our location but on our previous behavior on where we’ve walked and what we bought. If the notifications could disappear after 15 seconds so they wouldn’t clutter our view and eliminate the visual pollution, it could generate. When looking at the notifications, we could just decide if we are actually interested by just pushing a green check mark on them. We need the Trigger to persuade the behavior. The disappearing notifications will adapt to our behavior of “window shopping” while the check will be our “to-do” list of things to watch later. All these ideas are just my opinions, and many of them may not possible yet.
I believe Estimote is doing great work on creating an intelligent network of beacons that connect to each other and talk to each other identifying what is it that the person is looking at or trying to do. You can see a great demonstration in this video, minute 4:23.
If there is a group of companies close to solving friction, I believe Estimote is in that group.
PS: Hope you find this post helpful. If you did please share it with others and hit the Recommend button. Also tell me on Twitter, I’m @JDcarlu
