UX and Agile

Make customers feel warm and fuzzy - My reaction to a survey from Apple

I'm typically critical of Apple and their limited user research. However, the other day, I got a surprise...an email asking for feedback about my experience at the Apple store. 

Just getting an email like that made me feel awesome - and not because they are now doing some user research and collecting feedback - but because I feel like they care about my opinion. I felt a little warm and fuzzy.

Apple's store experience, honestly, rocks. It's superior. You can buy something in minutes if you want, linger if you want, play if you want - they don't care. They help you find what you need quickly and supply the resources to help keep you a happy customer.

However, as a customer it feels great to get an email asking for my feedback. I felt like my thoughts matters - like they care.

This got me to reflect about how much it matters to ask for user feedback regularly to change and modify a product or experience - and at the same time, build brand loyalty. When you ask people for feedback, you are asking them to participate in designing and creating experiences. People want to contribute and feel part of the process. This is why people who are so passionate about politics vote - they feel that their voice matters and that they are contributing directly to what happens. If you feel your voice matters, you feel that the larger organization listens to you - and listening builds a relationship between users and an organization (and it's brand). It creates a stronger connection (loyalty) through conversation. 

Apple always had brand loyalty because its products appealed strongly to its audience and reflected their needs. But now that Apple wants feedback - and if they use that feedback - imagine what will happen next!

I'm glad that Apple sent out that survey - it showed me that I can provide value to their brand and store experience and contribute to that customer/organization conversation beyond buying their products. I felt like I was part of the Apple extended team, on a mission to make a better store. I can only imagine how others feel participating in a survey for any organization - most likely the same. 

The Dos and Don'ts of Collaboration

The popularity of Agile has hastened the downfall of the siloed, waterfall work approach and the growth of team collaboration. Everyone now contributes more actively throughout the entire process of creating a product, which allows team members to be more honest, raise serious issues sooner in the process, discuss issues more openly, and be open to prioritization. Without a doubt, Agile has improved team communication.

However, when collaborating and creating a solution together, we sometimes forget what ownership and responsibility means - particularly for design.

Design has been evolving to be more about collaboration and less about heroism, less about making things beautiful and more about solving a problem and meeting a need. Many things can be designed, from databases to architectures, but the visual side of things, including the user experience, gets a lot more attention - often more than it should. 

People who have ears think they can sing; people who can write a sentence, believe they can write a novel; people who can taste believe they can cook; people who have eyes, believe they can design.

Everyone has an opinion, and that's healthy. However, the reality is that some opinions are based on more facts than others, and this comes through with user experience more than anything else. Many visual aesthetic opinions are based on personal taste and experience - as if that is the best and only experience - rather than studies about an audience or the industry.

And sometimes too much attention is given to user experience. Sure, it's important, but a poorly architected system can ruin a great idea. The user experience gets a lot of attention because it's the first thing most people see with a product. And everyone wants to be a part of creating what people see. When people work in manufacturing (and these days, software is manufacturing) they want to say what they contributed to a project - and it's easier to point to a button than to an optimized database.

A key factor of successful collaboration is respecting your teammates - their views, experiences, and areas of expertise. It's about recognizing the knowledge each person brings. This is easy to lose when discussing an interface. Team members can get very passionate about design opinions and directions or word choices. All of these discussions are great, however, they come with limits. If there is a UX team, you have to let them provide suggestions and recommendations and give feedback as to why suggestions may or may not work. And these types of discussions need to be facilitated to stop a single loud voice taking over.

This is more of a guide based on my experience with teams and facilitation as to what needs to happen during these discussions and the process. Feel free to add and comment as needed.

 

What should be kept in mind when facilitating product brainstorming/discussions

 

Dos

Focus on goals of the project and what is needed

Rather than over-defining specific solutions to a problem, which limits brainstorming and keeping all options open, talk about the project goals - what the product is and what needs to be achieved. Sometimes as a team we get too tied up in the details rather than understanding what the solution needs to do.

 

Team members need space to come up with solutions and recommendations

Not everyone thinks well on the fly.

After brainstorming sessions, let the team members take back the suggestions, recommendations and ideas and work through options. Discuss project directions at the meeting, but don't make team members make a decision - let each one determine whether a particular solution makes most sense after the conversation. Sometimes there is pressure in a team environment NOT to make the best decision but to pacify the loudest voice. Brainstorming needs to be supported by work time; without this balance, good ideas aren't fully vetted.

 

Respect your team members.

Respect each individual's skill sets and ownership in discussion. I have taken a number of database design courses to know enough to be dangerous, but rather than ask "How did you design the database? Can I see?" I'll ask "What is the primary key? What data are we capturing?" It's not my job to tell the database person how to do their job. I can ask for data, but it's just inappropriate for me to ask them to revise their setup. I may know what I could ask for, but I'm not responsible for creating the database and I trust in the database developer to make a great product. The same is true with the visual side of things. Designers have experience and data to back up why certain decisions are made or why some directions are better than others. I admit that I always like getting suggestions and feedback to make a great design. But I will also admit that I don't care for suggestions that start with "I like" or "I prefer". That's based on one individual's experience - not an entire group. Personal preference shouldn't be part of the conversation. If someone suggested that a particular UI element performed well in testing - well, that's a different story.

 

Express your feelings in a positive, constructive  way

If you are frustrated with a conversation, tell your team! Be honest with them and tell them why you are frustrated. For all you know, they may be frustrated with things too. Don't tell your team that they are a bunch of dumb monkeys - that's not constructive. Telling your team you are frustrated because the conversation is circling and you don't know how to fix it - that's helpful, and not just for you.

Oh - and if you think your team rocks, tell them that too. And tell them why you like to work with them. It's always nice to hear that you are fabulous, but it's better to hear that you are fabulous because you get to the point and get things done. 

 

Know who is consuming the design

Unfortunately, your team members are NOT part of your user group. Even the UX person isn't part of the user group. The UX individual represents the users and what they want, but even his or her opinion is irrelevant when it comes to what the final design should be. Decisions should be based on research, facts, and references to what performs well from site to industry. No one on the team is a user - so their opinions based on person preference, well, just don't matter.

 

Test test test

Get real data - not opinions. When we design with team opinions we are designing for ourselves - not our users - and I just established that our team isn't a user. The users need a voice and the only way we can do this effectively is to test. Test. And test some more. We need to get their feedback as if they were a team member.

 

Don'ts

Voting doesn't make a good design

Voting on design is probably the worst way to handle a design discussion. It removes discussion about the project goals, sets-up an us/them team environment, and introduces personal preference into the discussion. Let's face it - we don't vote about approaches to the technical architecture; we don't vote on roadmaps; we don't vote on budgets. Stop voting on user experience and visual design. It really doesn't solve any problems - in fact, it creates more problems because solutions that are slick rather than functional win, and more work will often need to be done to make the slick design actually work. Keep the discussion to user feedback and facts.

 

Make final decisions on the fly

When teams are stressed, they often will try to come up with a solution on the fly. However, this means that some team members are having input into a decision where they didn't consider all factors. The team really needs to go back to their desks and think thru all of the options and ideas. This also refers to how a group sometimes will pacify the loudest person rather than the right person. Making decisions on the fly is just a recipe for disaster.

 

Override points from other team members based on power - not a debate on facts

By overriding a point made from a team member based on your position, you broke the Do rule - you no longer respect your team member. Everyone has ideas, and some ideas are backed by facts and an understanding of the users, but all ideas potentially could work. It's about being open minded, especially because even bad ideas could lead to the optimal solution. 

 

Focus on opinions and not facts

This goes back to previous points about basing UX decisions on data and experience with users. Sometimes we get caught up in what we like and prefer for an interface and forget that we are not designing for ourselves. We really should be talking about the facts and how the design meets the needs of the user.

 

Lose respect for a team member

Discussion and collaboration bring various teams together. There are people on the team with more experience with design than others - so yes, some opinions do count more than others - and that should be respected. But this is the same for architecture, budgets - some team members just know more than others. And that's what makes a team. Respect your designers as much as your developers or project owners. Everyone has something to contribute. And if there is a weak team member - give that person a chance. You just never know what may happen.

 

Gossip

This just kills team morale and discourages collaboration. If you don't agree with your colleague, tell him or her directly. Keep it real. See the previous item about respecting your team.

 

In our new world of collaboration, we need to maintain a delicate balance where we are open to new ideas no matter where they originate from and yet respect the source of the idea and the person who will be doing the work. It is a crazy juggling act, but if you follow the do's and don'ts outlined above when collaborating, you will have a project with a happy, productive team.

 

 

 

Interesting perspective on customers who buy copies

Knock-offs, or copies, exist because people want to have access to some brands/value offerings that they just aren't able to afford. I'm currently working on a seminar about what it means to copy versus be competitive (this is coming soon - almost done!), and when I saw this today, I realized that there is an aspect of copying that I didn't consider. It may be a little less relevant in the online space than the physical product space, but it's worth considering....

How do the users feel when they use a product that is a knock-off?

This is an interesting study about users not feeling authentic when they buy knock-offs. It's true - in many ways, when you buy a knock-off you are technically being a poser. I'm curious how the study netted out.

Unfortunately, to learn more, you need to purchase the article. But I have linked to the Harvard Business Review Daily Stat item so you can ready the key points.

More to come! 

 

JP Penney - a case study in customer research, or rather, listening

I will be writing about this more, but this is a great example as to why you really need to know your customer/user. If you don't understand how they think, you can't get them to buy. There are many ways to achieve sales, and some great ways to do it, but it's key to understand who you are selling to.

The irony here is that the CEO came from Apple, which is NOTORIOUS for not testing ideas. I've had many an argument with Apple employees about testing, research and user feedback. The thing is, products in Apple are designed for their users, who are a tech savvy group of people, similar in profile to those creating the products. One could say (ok, I'm saying) that they generally design for themselves - and that's super easy to do.

One article is on Huffington Post. I'm sure there are other articles out there, and most likely an HBR case study is in the works. 

Being successful and having sales is about listening and having a dialog with your customers. Gee - maybe I don't need to write a new blog entry about this - I already did!

 

On the theme of data and meaning....

Check out this infographic about disease and aging...so cool! 

 

 

How much data is enough? Enough to have a conversation with your users.

"Let's look at the data."

I wholeheartedly believe that you need to review data before making business decisions - actually I prefer to make decisions based on 80% data, 20% intuition. I know I'm stating the obvious, but sometimes people don't really look at the data before they make a decision. I know - that sounds weird, doesn't it? It's just as weird as some people who look at TOO MUCH data before making a decision. Yes - that's right - too much data. 

Looking at too many data sources can honestly cloud decision making. Analysis paralysis. We have all experienced this. Study after study to prove what we intuitively know is right and what we see as trends as being real trends. Almost like having research to prove that the sky can be blue. Unnecessary and redundant, and this type of practice prevents people from getting things done - or working - what we get paid to do.  

So how much data is enough to make a decision? This is a question I've seen at every organization. And the exact balance comes from perceiving data as the other sides of a conversation created from product development - there is the side of the company creating the product, and feedback from the industry and customers (or data).

 

I believe in learning by doing. Doing, or working, is the only way to make progress and it's better to do and fail than not do at all. Data, or feedback, should help drive doing. And feedback should keep the conversation going with product and be enough to feed the work. 

Too much feedback from a product is like learning about Christianity by being in Church and listening to a preacher rather than being in the outside world, being generous to one's fellow man and just living. Listening all the time is certainly not very fulfilling (why Church only lasts for a few hours one day per week), nor is it a way to learn anything. You only learn from experience. This is also why children have homework - it's nice that a child understands how addition works, but that doesn't mean the child knows how to add.

Feedback includes the audience's response to a product as well as knowing what your competitors are doing. Once you make something, you need to understand how people use it, what they do with it, why they like it (or not like it).

Types of feedback:

• Web stats/metrics
• A/B Testing (almost like asking a direct question to get quick, direct feedback)
• Talking to customers
• Surveys
• Competitive analysis (helps for trends)

In addition to understanding what your customers like is just as important as understanding which features the non-customers use at other sites. If you pay attention to the feedback, it really is like having a dialog with your users and prospects. They respond when you make changes - either they buy more or less, buy from you or someone else.

 

Web stats/metrics

This is probably the easiest type of user feedback a product manager or user experience professional can access to keep a product conversation going. It's readily available and can be reviewed at any time to help keep the work moving and respond to users. The metrics which are most meaningful:

• Heat maps - see what users click on
• Pathing reports - how users navigate the site
• Dropoff reports - where do users lose interest and simply leave
• Numbers OUTSIDE of metrics - purchase rates, call rates, sales rates - basically, any actions that the Web drives users to interact with the company in real time

You get a pretty good idea of what users do from metrics alone and are able to identify quickly what you need to do to keep that conversation going. There are never enough Web metrics.

 

A/B Testing

If you can't talk to customers directly and you have a specific question about which approach works better - have an A/B test.

What makes a great A/B test? I know there are a number of articles out there that address this and I may write an entry on this itself, but to sum it up, key areas to test:

• Language - new positioning/messaging, calls to action, how to phrase things
• Page layout - how does the presentation of the product make a difference in an interaction
• Colors and page elements - buttons, text color and fonts, headline colors, content colors
• Images - what images and angle resonate with users

You can never have enough good A/B tests (well, you can if they are not effectively planned out).

 

Talking to Customers

This is the best way to keep conversations going with users. You can learn about issues from metrics and surveys, but it is only from talking directly to customers that you learn the "why" of what they do. This is key to keep the conversation meaningful and get customers and prospects to use your product more.

How much data is enough here?

• Regular usability tests with customers (informal studies every other week; minimally 2 times per quarter)
• Focus groups/innovation games at least once per quarter
• Talk to salespeople regularly to get insights about customers

Salespeople are a great resource for B2B marketers - and these people just aren't leveraged enough. Even people who work in stores could provide great feedback about the types of people who come into their store. These people who work directly with customers know what will get a customer to buy, how to approach a customer, what resonates with them, which messages work. They understand customer motivations and know what will work and won't work.

You can never talk to salespeople or customers enough. If you could get weekly or quarterly feedback from sales and customers - you are doing great!

 

Surveys

Surveys provide helpful feedback because you can ask users direct questions, but they come with some risk. If you don't ask the right questions, you won't useful answers to guide your new projects. Again, feedback is about maintaining a conversation, and surveys give limited feedback to keep a conversation going. If you get a trend of confusing responses, you can't directly ask participants why they chose as they did - and that why question always gives the best insight. Without the why, you can only speculate why users gave unexpected answers - there is no hard proof. If anything you need a second study to confirm your speculations (this isn't like confirming that the sky is blue - this is confirming which insight or musing about the participants is accurate. With no data, the ideas of marketers is literally musing). To put it simply, the challenge of surveys is that surveys beget surveys.

Surveys also support an older view of users and customers - demographics. I have found that using demographic data to create a picture of users typically confirms stereotypes and creates new ones. It places a label on people that has no real correlation to anything.  

Here's an example - I read the article that outlines demographics about health issues across the nation. It has an interesting graph and shows some trends. What is disturbing about the analysis is the generalizations that are made about people who suffer from specific illnesses:

For instance, residents of counties such as East Baton Rouge, La., in the "Minority Central" segment are more likely than average to suffer from Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS). While this disease tends to afflict white Americans more than black Americans, a study funded byGlaxoSmithKline and RTI Health Solutions found a correlation between socioeconomic status and the disease. Those with lower education levels and income were more likely to be afflicted. While consumers in these areas tend to have higher-than average concentrations of blacks, and lower than average groupings of Hispanics, overall they fall into a lower socioeconomic status than our other segments, possibly putting them at higher risk for IBS. 

-from The Demographics of Health Care

Now, I'm not just disturbed by the corporate funding of the survey (that's a whole different story) - it's the correlation that was made between socioeconomic status and disease. Sure, that's a great jumping off point, but what does it tell me about a problem - nothing! It gives me no insight except that maybe diet or environment may contribute to this. Then again, the issue could be genetics. Saying poor people suffer from IBS is creating a stereotype at some level. Data like this to me, unless it is used for diving into further research (and that isn't clear from this article), doesn't create a picture beyond creating and confirming stereotypes. And this is feedback, but again, it's not working towards a conversation. It positions the participants as lab rats being observed rather than people who participate in the world and different organizations and systems.

Ethnographic data is far better way to position users. It gets to the motivation of the individual - the why. Why do poorer people suffer from IBS? Why do people do what they do? What is the motivation? Again, if you don't have the why and understand people's motivations, you aren't making conversation. Users don't make decisions only based on their economic background, gender or race - these may be factors, but often they don't make a bit of difference - they often make decisions based on their value systems. Understanding the value systems (motivations) of people is missing and so needed for a successful dialog and feedback for a product.

Use surveys sparingly - demographic data doesn't really give you why answers; surveys give answers to direct questions. Only use when you have specific inquiries that don't require a why answer.

 

Competitors and Trends

Trends are key to understand what's going on with competitors. A trend is defined as "The general direction in which something tends to move." General direction - that's key here. It's basically what is your competition doing? What's the new level of parity? To get an idea of the new parity, you don't need to examine 20 sites - 5-6 will do. You are looking for trends, and if 3-4 of your 6 competitors are doing the same thing, that means that either:

• They tested an approach and it works
• There is a technical reason they are doing what they are doing
• Their users asked for the feature
• They are just copying each other because it is easier

You can't assume that what you see in a trend is truly based on what users like - even if you see that trend across multiple sites. Users only use things based on their experience and what they are used to - almost like creatures of habit. New ideas take a while to get used to. Further, most users don't know what to ask for - they don't do this type of work for a living. They depend on us in product to create something for them and solve their problems - they only know what they don't like (and where they spend their money proves that). Sites will often copy each other with the erroneous thought that a feature or approach has been usability tested, when it may have just been the easiest way to do something quick.

Getting feedback from competitors keeps the product conversation going. 

Know 5-6 competitor sites deeply - more than enough to get information about a trend and what others are doing. More than that, and you are just seeing more of the same. It's always good to look at competitors and use their products, but spreading out interest just won't get you new information unless there is a market disruptor who is doing something in a brand new way.

 

Interpreting Data

Numbers may be numbers that you can't really argue with, but depending on your interpretation of them, they can tell very different stories. You can look at the number 5 as being halfway to 10 or half less than 10; it's the same number, but the interpretation of 5 is slightly different with different meaning. The interpretation of a number is always up for debate and can only be clarified within context. And this gets back to looking at too much data and what that means.

This is why there has to be some level of intuition in interpreting the data and keeping product dialog alive. The military is encouraging intuitive thinking:

The U.S. military also pointed to studies suggesting a sixth sense can arise from "implicit learning" — absorbing information without being aware of the learning process — rather than building up expertise through years of practice. 

-from U.S. Military Seeks Sixth Sense Training

And there is also:

Intuition is tactical – tactical meaning the reflexive and mostly quick reaction to a given event. Analytics is strategic – strategic meaning planned course of action. It’s easy to see which would save lives on live battles and accidents.

-from The Intuitive vs The Analytical Mind

From these statements, it is easy to see that some level of intuition is key to be responsive to user feedback and requests at a faster rate with product updates. If you get too analytical/strategic - then you won't get anything done and stop the dialog/feedback loop of product and use. Or worse, you respond too late because you are stuck creating a plan. 

Analyze the data enough to make a decision. And yes, your intuition at some level is enough to give you insights to make changes. Spend enough time to understand what users are "saying", and then react. If you are wrong, you can always make changes again - at least you tried. Creating the "perfect plan" for users won't get you anywhere.

 

There is a delicate balance of intuitive and analytics/strategy when keeping a conversation. With conversations, sometimes you need to just respond with your gut and intuition; sometimes you need to think about what you need to say in response. In all cases, you need to be informed about a subject to have a meaningful conversation and respond intelligently (not fantastically). However, in all cases, your response needs to be timely to keep that conversation going. Taking a step back to look at the data and analyze the facts may be a good strategy if things are disastrous in a conversation, but generally, you want to respond promptly - or else a conversation won't continue.

80% data and 20% intuition keeps a solid conversation going between products and the market (competitors and users). It allows you to get data and then work to respond to what the data is telling you and keep a product evolving. Like a great conversation, each side needs to be informed (the data) and contribute (work and interaction). In today's competitive world, there is no room for analysis paralysis and carefully made plans that may miss an opportunity. You really need to trust in the intuition required in successful conversations.

Some good advice on innovation

I usually don't like the advice I read on innovation - but this article captured a great thought on innovation, living in the moment and letting go.

http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20130328222915-5935179-how-to-innovate-like-a-jedi-knight

I have been working on a blog entry on innovation, creativity and improv in belly dancing and how they fit together - pretty much the same concept as the Jedi knight approach, but I think totally SPOT ON! (And this isn't because I thought about it too).

Enjoy!

SXSW Interactive: Why do we go? (A cantankerous opinion)

Innovation. We all like to think we are innovative, but are we? I admit that I'm less innovative and great at stealing (or leveraging - sounds less criminal). And sometimes I just state the obvious. But I do LIKE to think I'm innovative and find all the new, useful things, which is why things like SXSW Interactive can be so attractive.

But let's face it, new ideas and those ah-has come from working - not from attending a conference. Conferences present ideas good for stealing/leveraging. Those ideas may be innovative where you work, but honestly, it's not innovation. You stole it from someone else, somewhere else to use for your own purposes. If anything, you should pay that speaker a usage fee. 

I've mentioned in previous posts that I'm a little cantankerous when it comes to anything about the Web and innovation - that's my disclaimer. But given the above, I have to ask the question - Why do we go (or not go) to SXSW? 

There's this great infographic about this at AdWeek.

It sums it up - SXSW Interactive isn't really about innovation. It's about finding that "next big thing," the "next gold rush," "what's cool" to make money. If you need to spend a bunch of money to find out what's new to make money, you shouldn't be in business. There are far cheaper ways to steal and expose your product to other people. It makes you wonder why SXSW Interactive exists (there is always a venue to hear cool music).

In fact, the most innovative products and ideas are viral. You find out about them from your 25 year old friends (or hip grannys). Only a few know about them. That's why they are innovative. I truly believe in the curve, and it makes me wonder if SXSW is more an early adopter conference rather than a true innovator conference.

 

From Noodleplay

There aren't a lot of innovators, which makes being an innovator a coveted position. Most people aspire to this and are always looking for that next big thing to make them a celebrity innovator. But even in the world of celebrity innovators, not all of the are innovators - they are building upon ideas someone else set in motion (e.g., the concept of a tablet started in Star Trek, then Sculley had it at Apple, then Steve Jobs perfected it).

Sometimes working on the Web/mobile, we get stuck trying to be "cool" and "hip." The early days of the Web were all about this - and it was tiring. It mattered less if you were making a product that made life easier for the average person than if you had a product that looked "cool" and "fun." This is why there was a plethora of online stores. Shopping is fun (it isn't really innovative). Chase is innovative with mobile check deposits - but let's face it - banks and deposits aren't sexy, so what's the big fuss. 

Conferences like SXSW make me realize how the Internet is still in its infancy and more of a "gold rush" than an actual tool for innovation and making life better. We're getting there - but our industry has a way to go. We are like a teenager - when the parents are away, we still like to have a big ol' party for ourselves. 

 

P.S. I have to add about being cool and SXSW Interactive...In 2012, SXSW highlighted the app Highlight. I'm not sure if you remember it. I referred to it as the stalker app. After everyone lauded it's creation there was a bumper crop of stalker apps created, people made a ton of money, and everyone started thinking that it was ok to ask the person next to you in line if he liked sushi because the app said so. Most product managers wanted to include these types of features in the app because it was the next new thing. I mean - how can you ignore something that go so much attention at SXSW! (Even if it was intrusive and inappropriate). I don't think it really went viral - I mean most people don't even like what Facebook does when it comes to information sharing.

Innovation? i'd say it was more of a cool applicaition of technology. Next big thing? Only to those of us teenagers who like to give ourselves a party from time to time. 

 

My first Webinar

Here is a link to my very first Webinar - Iteration Zero - Where it all begins. Hope you enjoy!

 

 

What is up with this new term "evergreen"?

Everywhere I turn, I hear the term "evergreen" referring to Web content that is on a page of the main content site - not landing pages or other temporary pages. How often this content is updated is an open discussion (I have heard numerous ways to describe "evergreen" content), but generally it seems that evergreen content is content that is generally meant to last and be updated.

Now, maybe I'm old and cantankerous because I've been working on the Web for a number of years, have watched content creation fads come and go, and have watched development practices evolve over time. Web practices may seem that they are evolving with new trends and new jargon, but usually best practices are recycled concepts made new. I see this "evergreen" content concept as being part of this "recycled concept" phenomena. Web sites, by the nature of the Web, are living, or "evergreen." They are constantly evolving. Some pages change less than others; some pages will be retired because the content is no longer relevant; some content will be updated because it just doesn't make sense anymore. In many ways, Web publishing is similar to book publishing and reprints. Once a book is published - it is relevant at the time; if a book is republished and desired by a market, either it continues to be relevant or it could be slightly updated in a new edition to keep it relevant. Content is only demanded because it's relevant.

With that said, why all the fuss about evergreen content? If you are in the business of content, you need to have a way for people to find your content - which is SEO/SEM. Generally, it makes more sense to drive people to a page that is more permanent, relevant and updated, and therefore has more value, than just a general landing page that lasts a few months. This is basic SEO/SEM strategy. Isn't that the same, if not a larger, overarching strategy, as evergreen content strategy? 

Then consider the bigger strategy questions - what is the strategy of your site? Why does your site exist? Are you trying to generate leads, build awareness, spread your thoughts across the Web?

Is this new "evergreen" concept focused on putting the needs of SEO/SEM ahead of the needs of the user or even site strategy? 

 

First, let's define the term "evergreen"

Wikipedia alludes to it:  

Owing to the botanical meaning, the term "evergreen" can refer metaphorically to something that is continuously renewed or is self-renewing. One example of metaphorical use of the expression is the term "Evergreen content" used to describe perennial articles or guides about topics that do not change frequently.^[5]

Basically, evergreen content here is content that is fairly stable and almost a staple of a site. The problem I have with this term - at one point in Web history, pages that don't get updated frequently are considered to be "old" and not as relevant. If anything, it's the content that doesn't change much that is considered stale and loses ranking in SEO.

There is another definition:

On the Internet, evergreen is a term used by some ad agencies to describe a Web site that is updated on a daily or other frequent basis. A Web site that is evergreen is considered more likely to attract both first-time and repeat visitors. If a media buyer for an ad agency is selecting a number of sites for an ad campaign, whether a site is considered evergreen may determine whether it's included in the campaign. A Web site that is not updated frequently enough is termed brown.

Similar, yet different, from Wikipedia. The general theme is content is constantly updated to show relevance and value. I don't see how this is a new idea and why we are even using this term to reflect just general best practices for the Web. The bottom line is that a site needs to have content that is useful and relevant. It makes sense for ad agencies to use the term for advertising space, but otherwise - isn't "evergreen" sites just best practices for the Web?

Then I read this at SEOmoz:

When the information starts to grow old (or weak) spend the time, put in the research, and update what is outdated... this is not always possible, but in many cases you can repurpose your content to still serve a valid need.

This goes back to traditional Web content practices - make sure your content is updated and relevant. This doesn't mean a rewrite - it means tweaking, updating, keeping links current, keeping the site fresh. It's about people finding your content useful on a site.

There is a site that outlined best practices for content strategies for B2B sites. Rather than just developing a presence and building awareness, the ContentLead blog helps people understand how they can generate leads or revenue.

Evergreen “landing pages” that describe products or services are critical for answering the questions people have when they land on your website. Developing a content marketing strategy that results in more visibility is great, but evergreen content that standards to inform can help your prospects toward conversions. 

This doesn't sound like a new approach or method to me. I thought this was how the Web works in general. You don't create content just to create it - you create it with a strategy and goal in mind. How is this "new"?

Then there is this definition at wiseGeek:

Evergreen content refers to informational or reference material that never goes out of date, therefore desirable to websites looking to build a lasting readership. Good evergreen material is needed over and over by the general public, creating a built-in guarantee of continuing hits. The quality of the evergreen content in terms of its presentation, clarity and usefulness, will go a long way towards dictating the popularity of the website. 

Again - this is just Web best practice from the 90s that works with search engines to get you noticed.

And at Greywolf's SEO blog, he refers to evergreen content as:

Evergreen content is content written with the goal of driving traffic to a website for a long period of time. In some cases, such as when the content is historical and will never change (something like the presidency of Zachary Taylor), the content can live for the life of the website with little or no updating. In other cases, the content may have a long lifespan but must be updated every few years. An example of this would be something like “year end tax strategies for seniors”, which changes every few years as the tax laws change.

This just sounds like more of the same, old Web best practice to me. Again, I don't see how this is a new concept, how this is a revolution, or how this is new to SEO. And further, SEO is important and should help guide your content strategy, but it is NOT your complete strategy. This goes back to the purpose of your site. Your site is not a mouthpiece for your executives to say what they want about their products; it's not a wall to post information about a product that you think you need to tell your customers. A Web site is for users - prospects and customers - who want to get information; it's also for you to convert these people into actual customers. It's an exchange - you are giving content; you are getting popularity. 

 

Company News/Site News - It's about your strategy and goals

There is ALWAYS a need to keep company news current. For a B2B company, corporate news supports sales efforts. The sale in a B2B environment is not just a product sale - it's a sale of trust between the companies. The company buying a product needs to understand what the company selling is doing, know if that company will be around in 5 years to support the product, and get to know if the "investment" will be profitable. This is why a home page needs to be regularly updated and press releases need to be regularly generated. This sales process is about industry relevance, activity, and trust in the future. And that can only be proven through a company's actions (which get communicated on the site as news or activity (e.g., product releases)).

Regular activity at a company means that content needs to be regularly updated. There should always be something new - this supports sales. A stale site doesn't support anything except to show that you don't want to communicate to anyone what you do nor do you care enough to update your site to get new business and show what you do. 

 

Evergreen for blogs?

Although "evergreen" content is really standard Web practice, "evergreen" may be more for blogs than anything else. Creating topics like "how to do this or that" more frequently than "this is going on - isn't it crazy!" should be part of the strategy for a blog - or any site - in general. A blog needs to be credible and relevant in order to get sustainable traffic. Trendy content may get traffic and credibility for today, but it won't over time. But again, is this really a new strategy? Or a recycled idea? 

I think it is more relevant for blogs to have just a general content strategy, or a goal, a reason to exist. Some blogs really are focused on trendy issues - commentary on current events that are relevant for today, but tomorrow may get very little traffic. The blog for Paul Krugman, for example, is about the trends of the day. He gets a lot of hits because it's Paul Krugman and he is a famous nobel laureate and economist. If you are looking to be famous through creating your own blog, you may need to have a mix of content on your blog to boost your hits through SEO/SEM - or find a way to be famous (becoming famous first may be easier actually than becoming famous through a blog). 

If content on your blog is continually updated, then is it still a blog? That's an interesting question to ponder. Wouldn't your blog then transform to be a site? Something to consider.

 

Why does "evergreen" content matter again? 

Honestly, there is really nothing new about "evergreen" content. What matters is that your site - either a corporate site or blog - has a general strategy, a complementary SEO/SEM strategy, and you know what you want to achieve with your site and content. A site should ALWAYS be "evergreen" - your content should ALWAYS be updated and made current. It's not bad to have trendy content if that is indeed what your site was created to have. 

"Evergreen" is just the same old recycled best practice for the Web to keep content fresh and relevant - and make some people feel "trendy" that they found something new that we old-time Web folk have known all along.