Creating Passionate Users

Can marketing be honest AND motivating?

Most of us who aren't Marketers have a dim view of Marketing. Yet here we are, non-Marketers, thinking about marketing. We have something we believe in that we want to promote. But we don't want to be dishonest or unethical. But what if we're like competitive athletes...where we're at a disadvantage if we're trying to run naturally and fairly while everyone else is on steroids?

If we don't claim that our product or service will get them rich, famous, or laid... we still need to think about motivation. We can be both honest AND motivating, but we can't assume that being honest is inherently motivating. Since our focus here is "passionate users", I'm making these assumptions:

1) There is something your product, service, or cause can help your users kick butt in. Something they can keep getting better and better at, where better means a higher-resolution experience. Where being better is better.

2) You are already working on ways to help your users pass the "Suck Threshold" and move more quickly toward the "Kick Ass" threshold. In other words, there are ways (either from you or a user community or third-party) for the user to keep learning.

[Note for those who haven't yet figured out what you can help your users kick ass in: that's the first crucial step. And remember, it's almost never about making them more of an expert on your tool, it's about helping them get really good at whatever it is they do with your tool. Nikon's tutorials aren't about making camera experts, they're making photography experts. Parelli horsemanship isn't making experts on training equipment, they're making expert horse trainers. Apple's iLife products aren't making software experts, they're making home video, photography, and music experts. (Yes, I'm using "expert" in the sense that even if most people never get there, the promise is that it's possible.)

And it isn't always directly related to what you offer. We've talked about this before--the guy who makes USB thumb drives, for example, could choose to help teach users to give kick-ass presentations.]

So, what's the initial motivation for someone to take the first step with your product, service, or cause? Why should they download your free trial? Why should they visit your gym/store/church for the first time? Marketers and Advertisers might delve into the psychology of human needs to answer that question (maybe a spin through some variation of Maslow's hierarchy), to figure out which they can tap into, but we think there's a simpler way to look at it.

The most common reason people take the first step toward something they may ultimately develop a passion for is because these THREE things are present:

1) There is a clear, compelling picture of what it might be like to be an expert (or at least really good) at this thing.

2) There is a clear path to getting there.

3) There is an obvious and relatively easy first step.

If you show me an example of what it could mean to be really good at this thing-you-can-help-me-kick-ass-in, I might find that motivating. Whether it's photos of people doing it, or the result of what they do using your thing, or video clips, or testimonials (users talking about how they kick ass, not how great you or your product are).

But it doesn't matter how motivating it looks to become really good at this if I can't imagine that I--a mere mortal--could ever get there. You must show me a realistic path to getting there. Do you have tutorials or training at all levels including total newbie? User support groups? Descriptions of each stage and what it takes to reach that stage, both financially (if that applies) and time/effort?

So, does your product, service, or cause need to be motivating? Not necessarily. But the thing-you-will-help-users-kick-ass-in needs to be. We assume that someone, somewhere loves being really good at whatever it is that you can help people get into and get better at. Whatever it is that they love about it, that is your motivating picture, even if it's nothing more than the glorious feeling of control I'll have when I've learned to use your productivity app in a meaningful, productive way.

It won't get them laid, it won't make them an instant millionaire, it won't help them lose 20 pounds (well, maybe that one could be true ; )
But you don't need those claims if you're able to paint a clear, realistic picture of something people will find worth the effort of getting good.

Which user's life have you changed today?

Who in your company gets the emails/stories from your users? Too often the good stories are routed to PR/Marketing (the success stories that make for good testimonials) while the rest of us (programmers, customer service, etc.) get all the complaint emails. Yes, we like hearing about how great our product is, especially when we did the work. But it's the stories about how the company/product/service/cause has changed someone's life--that matter to those of us doing the actual work. And sometimes the way a user's life is changed is not at all what we'd expect. Let me tell you a story about how an employee of one company changed the life of a user in a most surprising way...

In January I gave a presentation at CUSEC to software engineering students. After my talk, a young man named Edward Ocampo-Gooding came up and said that he was interested in writing technical books--even more than writing software. A little weird--especially given that this kid (according to others at the conference) was apparently a super high-IQ rocket science type--but OK, I'll bite. But then he told me why he wanted to write tech books, and I nearly fell over...

It all changed for him when he got a product called Swift3D from a little company called Electric Rain. He was so impressed with the product manual--yes, you heard that right, the frickin' manual that comes with the product--that he was inspired. Since it's not every day (or for me, any day in my entire life) that you run into someone who is not just impressed with a company-supplied product manual but actually motivated to potentially change the direction of their career... I HAD to know more. I asked Edward to send me a detailed explanation of exactly what it was he liked so much about that manual.

But that's only half the story.

A few weeks after that event, O'Reilly hosted a four day intensive "author's bootcamp" for everyone who was either signed to write a Head First book or on the verge, plus a few editors--around 20 people. It was several days of training, workshops, writing, storyboarding, etc. So, I decided to invite this kid. I said, "If you can make your way here, we'll put you up and you can be part of the bootcamp. It's an opportunity... we've only done this twice in three years."

Edward showed up, was a wonderful addition to the group, and now it's just a matter of he and the editors figuring out which book he should do first.

So, some guy (Nick Petterssen, who it turns out wasn't even a tech writer) working for a small software company (Electric Rain) cares enough about users to go way beyond what's needed and write a killer, inviting, memorable user manual. As a direct result, an engineering student from Canada will end up as one of the youngest O'Reilly-signed authors. Nick, and Electric Rain, changed the direction of a user's life in a substantial and unexpected way. All because of a manual.

A manual designed to help users kick ass.

(Or as Nick later told me, "Our goal is that the user has to do something cool within 30 minutes.")

In another twist, after Edward told me about the manual, I Googled them only to learn they're located about 100 yards from my favorite running trail in Boulder. One of the most motivating moments for me was when I sat down with the folks of Electric Rain and discovered that--based on the philosophy (and talent) and overwhelming concern for their users--the manual really wasn't anything that special. Just one more natural result of the way this company--and especially the people who are part of it--do things. In fact, Electric Rain is one of the main companies I'm writing about in the book, because they meet so many of the criteria on our checklist for creating passionate users. (Much more on them in another post.)

So, we might be touching or changing our user's lives in ways we cannot imagine. The point is not how their life could change, it's that we are part of making that happen! And it doesn't have to be Change with a capital "C". It could be change with a lowercase "c". If you help me learn more about photography in a way that inspires me to take better photos and develop a passion, you have changed me. If you teach me something I thought was too difficult to learn, you've changed me. If you help me rekindle the joy I once felt for programming, you have changed me. According to psychologists, people report that the times they spend in flow are among the happiest moments of their life. Which means...

If you help me kick ass and spend more time in flow, you have changed me.

How are you changing (lowercase "c") your user's life? How could you? More importantly, do you have a way to find that out? MOST importantly, are you sharing those stories with everyone doing the work and not just PR?

The strangest, easiest way to lose weight

You have a legacy brain. We've talked about that a lot on this blog, and in my presentations. Your brain thinks you're still living in a cave. Although your mind knows you're in the 21st centry, your brain never got the memo.

A big part of the learning theory we use in the Head First books is figuring out how to "trick" your brain into thinking that learning Java is as important as watching for tigers. We pay a great deal of attention to what your brain cares about, especially when the concerns (tigers-but-not-java) are in direct conflict with what your mind cares about (java-but-not-tigers).

Besides caring about tigers-and-not-java--and the problems that creates when we're trying to pay attention, learn, and remember--our legacy brain does something else we all struggle with--it thinks you won't get much to eat all winter, so it better store it up while it can.

Your brain thinks that food is scarce for you, so it better hang on to it. In other words, for almost all adults (especially in the US), our brain wants us to be weigh more than our conscious mind wants. The brain never got the memo about how you probably aren't going to starve this winter.

Given how interested we are here into hacking and creating workarounds for the legacy brain issues, a new diet book that claims to take this approach got my attention. The claims are outrageous, the "plan" is absurd and counter-intuitive, but when the publisher sent me a copy of the book I figured it wouldn't hurt to try it. I say "wouldn't hurt" because it is ridiculously easy to try. And since the Freakonomics guys were recommending it, I figured there had to be something interesting. Plus... I loved the name: the Shangri-La Diet.

It's been two weeks since I started and oh-my-god.
It is almost impossible to describe what this "diet" (it's not really a diet) does. (All links are at the end of this post) A UC Berkeley professor named Seth Roberts claims to have found a way to trick the legacy brain into thinking it needs to weigh less. (Which means "lower your set point", for those who are familiar with that term)

It does not cause you to suddenly burn more calories.
It does not increase your metabolism.
It is not a drug.
It does not require counting calories.
It does not require changing what you eat (although for many people, it will anyway)
It does not require exercise (although I'm always going to strongly recommend it!)

[Update: It is based on quite a lot of different scientific research (rat studies, especially) that the author has managed to piece together into a theory and approach that works.
It is not simply a psychological trick.]

It claims to do just one thing--cause your body to want/need less food. Period. In other words, you know that feeling you have after you've eaten a huge dinner and you think, "I'll never eat another bite ever again" -- this so-called "diet" makes that feeling happen much earlier, after a much smaller meal. Quite simply, it reduces your appetite, but in a really freakish way. It is not an artificial appetite supressant; it works by using your body's natural appetite supressant--the desire to keep you at a particular weight.

For me, in two weeks, it's been working too well. I don't have a weight problem, so I wasn't interested in losing weight. I wanted to try it because it's fascinating, seems impossible to believe, and MAINLY for the claim that by reducing cravings, it helps you make better eating choices. My goal on this "diet" was that when it was time to eat, I wanted to find carrots and broccoli as viable an option as Ben and Jerry's. That hasn't completely happened (although cravings have virtually disappeared), but within three days, I was actually forgetting to eat. For the last ten days I've had to remind myself--as a purely cognitive activity--that "this is probably a good time to eat something." Is there a danger that I'll become too thin? Sure, if I'm not paying attention. But that's easy enough to correct--there's basically a body-back guarantee. If I just stop the program, I'll get my old body back soon enough...

I was worried that this loss of desire for food would mean a loss of pleasure when eating. But this is not food aversion--while nothing beckons you or even sounds particularly good, everything tastes just as wonderful as before. And it is the weirdest damn feeling... it's a kind of "not hungry" that is unlike anything I've ever experienced. It seems too good to be true.

And maybe it is... I only have two weeks' experience. Maybe the effect will wear off (although there's little reason to think that). And the research might turn out to be complete crap--some believe it might even be some kind of elaborate hoax. But I have two other friends on it now, and after five days, they've noticed the effect as well. So I'm not so much recommending it (since that would require more time) as reporting my thoughts about it, my short-term experience, and why I find it so fascinating.

The downside:

* It doesn't seem to work for everyone. Some people claim it had no effect (I have a suspicion that some of the folks for whom it doesn't work weren't actually doing it with the kind of rigorous adherence to one simple rule that's required).

* Some people take much longer to see an effect, although it seems that most people notice it in less than a week.

* You must MUST be able to find at least one two-hour time window each day where you have nothing but water. Nothing with any flavor of any kind is allowed--NO EXCEPTIONS--during that period, including brushing your teeth. For most people, two hours is no problem at all... but you have to be extremely careful or you risk not just eliminating the positive effect, but potentially ruining your chance of using it correctly in the future.

* In the middle of that two hour window, you must ingest one of two things... either a tablespoon of sugar dissolved in water, or a tablespoon of extra light olive oil. If either of those are not do-able for you, you're out of luck.

* The sugar water comes with the potential for a blood sugar reaction, so if you choose that instead of the olive oil, you can reduce or eliminate the effect by sipping slowly. I heat up the water, dissolve the sugar, and sip it over a half hour like really weak, sweet tea. I tried the olive oil and hated it.

* You must also... well, no, there IS nothing else. Seriously. Nothing. Eat whatever you want, do whatever you want, just take in the extra calories from either the sugar or the oil, and there's nothing more. THAT is the Shangri-La Diet. Sugar, or oil. End of story.

While I've more or less revealed the diet here, the Shangri-La Diet book is needed if you're going to try it, or you're interested in the research/science behind it. There are a lot of subtle variations and tweaks and tunes, and recommendations based on how much weight you want to lose, etc. So, again, if you're going to try it, I'd definitely get the book despite finding most of the information about it on the internet.

Links:
Extensive article with comments on CalorieLab.

The original NY Times piece by the Freakonomics guys.

Shangri-La Diet book (on Amazon).

Aaron Swartz blog post about it.

Disclaimer: I was given this book by the publisher. However, it would have come to my attention because of the similarity of our approaches--hacking the legacy brain. Indeed, within a week of getting the book, I was sent a related link by fellow blogger Scott Reynen who thought I might be interested. I do not use Amazon affiliate links, so I am not benefitting in any way from recommending the book here or elsewhere, and I have no relationship with the publisher or author. In fact, I'm buying my own extra copies now for others.

Also, I'm not a dietician or nutritionist! I have absolutely NO authority in this field--this is simply my personal thoughts about it. (However, I did major in exercise physiology, and spent ten years in the health/fitness industry, including a stint as the Training Director for The Sports Club Company, the group behind some of the largest and most exclusive health clubs in the world--The Sports Club/LA, Sports Club Reebok/New York, etc. But I specialized only in exercise, and had nothing to do with diets and nutrition.)

OK, now back to our regularly scheduled "creating passionate users" topics ; )