Three Minds On Digital Marketing @ Organic

How long is too long for a web page layout?  In his 2007 post "The Fold is an Unnecessary Design Limitation" here on the ThreeMinds blog, Rod MacQuarrie pointed out that using the "above the fold" design principle inherited from the print world isn't always a best practice, and not always applicable to how online content is read by users.  Trying to get all content "above the fold" doesn't acknowledge how users recognize and interact with their browsers' scrollbars.

That post was one of the most viewed in the history of this blog, and generated a heated discussion among readers who argued the pros and cons of designing sites to accommodate long-form content and the predilection for users to scroll significantly if given the right cues.

While the debate continues almost two years later, at least one brand -- Japanese retailer UNIQLO -- has embraced the long-form layout with a vengeance, creatively using a "sandbox" content design to fills a 28,200 pixel long page.

In their "From Tokyo to Paris" page, UNIQLO has placed blocks of content in a flowing grid that runs the entire page length.  Scrolling down (and down) reveals a visually dynamic stream of clothing designs and story modules covering their Cannes t-shirt design contest, a recent Paris store opening and global news and comments on the brand from their team and the public. A pixel ruler on the right margin provides a navigation cue and reinforces the page height. Cleverly, only the content near the browser's page position is loaded, preventing a crushing page load. 

As one of our creatives said, he went all the way to the bottom of the page to see what was there, claiming "It's just proof what you can do. There should be no boundaries." Organic creative Matthew Tait, another UNIQLO fan, also pointed out last year's "Unlimited Web Page" by Orange UK, which continues to grow in length as long as the page is open in the browser window.

So, do the UNIQLO and Orange pages indicate a trend in hyper-long page length?  Not really -- it's more appropriate to look at it as another experimental user experience designed by a brand that most people will encounter digitally long before they ever visit a store (There's only one store in the US, in NYC).  UNIQLO's site is full of other exploration-rewarding experiments, such as their Grid and Calendar.  This type of experience is a core part of their brand.

However, Joe Leech's "The Myth of the Fold" post does provide several examples of long-form pages on more commonly-used e-commerce and content sites like the BBC, Amazon and the New York Times, emphasizing that user exploration "below the fold" is usually a result of thoughtful content and visual design.  He recommends against in-page scroll bars (as seen with a frameset) because users will usually check to see if a browser window scrollbar appears when the page loads.  

Are long-form pages becoming a trend or even the norm?  That remains to be seen, but I will offer two points for why we might be moving in that direction.

1. The most popular blog, video sharing and social networking sites now feature content and user commentary in a long "feed" that requires longer or vertically expandable pages.
On Facebook, for example, the stream of status notes from friends really pushes users to click the "Older Posts" button on the bottom of the page -- I'm sure that button is hit *a lot*, and that the average expanded page length for most user sessions is much longer than what's visible "above the fold".

2. The touch interfaces that first appeared on mobile devices are now becoming more common on laptops and desktops.
Gesture-based scrolling through long-form content is very easy and intuitive, and as touch interfaces become commonplace in the future, the gesture-based "long scroll" could become a more standard part of user experience design.

We welcome (another) good discussion on this topic, so please post here after checking out our 2007 post, Joe Leech's more recent one, and of course UNIQLO's great site and design experiments.

Jay Bain

This post isn't meant to be an attack on Seth Godin or his online effort "Brands in Public". After all, many are already attacking him for his decision to launch a site which basically aggregates social chatter about a brand into a public facing site, which they then have to pay $400 a month to customize. Some have called it a game changer, while others have declared it outright brandjacking.

The problem I have with "Brands in Public" is that it feeds into a myth... a myth perpetuated by frustrated marketers that just don't want to admit that in the current digital landscape, we have our work cut out for us... it's the myth of the social media shortcut.

So, why is Seth's effort both ineffective and against best practices:

1. Aggregation isn't conversation. Pulling a bunch of feeds together does not create a story about the brand, or open the doors for a new kind of communication.

2. Fishing where the fish aren't. Seth suggests that brands add to the "conversation" in a platform where no one is currently listening.

3. It goes against integration. If any site should be pulling in twitter feeds and YouTube links, it should be the brand's website. Wouldn't it be a much more of a game changer to see brands putting their twitter feed under the "customer service" section of their website?

Marketers want so badly for a $400 month solution that just brings everything together into one place. They want there to be only one channel they need to respond in, rather than several dozen. But there is no easy out, you have to roll up your sleeves and prepare to spend hours and dollars to do social media right.

Maybe that's why 84% of marketers don't measure ROI. They are still looking for the easy solution, and don't want to admit that it doesn't exist.

Marta Strickland

In our business, it's easy to get overly sentimental about the Internet. I'm not checking my email with this new multiplatform app on my iPhone... I'm now going through an experience! I'm not sending tedious updates about my day to a vacuous pool of navel gazer... …I'm social engaged! So on and so forth.

In life, I tend to be more romantic about the chores of daily life - …so I fit right into an industry hopelessly in love with itself, the possibilities of the future and the search for human meaning in the modern technology era.

But there's a crumb of discomfort with the praise for Web, in my mind. Perhaps it's academic, but I believe it is fundamental and important. It crystallized while watching a PBS documentary about Martin Luther's writings changing the world via the printing press. Before the printing press, Luther could never have gained the political support he needed to challenge the Roman church. He would have been put to death or silenced as dozens of others had been. His cultural impact on society could not have happened without that invention.

It hit me: we have yet to experience something as fundamentally unique with our current use of the Internet. It is less like the astrolabe making global navigation possible and more like enjoying the benefits of a movie on DVD as opposed to VHS.

It sounds strange to say, given the way the Internet's impact on every person I know. But on some flow chart somewhere in my head, this thing is still just replicating other forms of media in a shinier package. Movies, TV, letters, journalism, music, common chit chat - …all things we did before. With the Internet, these things are now consumed or achieved more efficiently, but perhaps not quite as differently as it gets credit for.

An example: In banking, I'd argue that the ATM fundamentally changed the way the economy works by affecting consumption patterns. Not just a matter of convenience, the ATM became the new front line of Western consumer capitalism. Academic understanding of this led to important actions around ATM banking at historic moments that came to pass. Post Sept. 11, 2001, the Fed took emergency measures to shore up the money supply as Americans "hoarded" cash during a time of instability. During the financial sector meltdown of 2008, economists theorized that the modern bank collapse would "hit Main Street" when ATMs ran out of cash…an event that would cause something in the realm of riots and mayhem.

If your banking Web site went down, would society come unraveled? Would anyone argue that?

On and on my mind goes…an artist displaying photos, a musician distributing songs. These things are now handled differently, but the art itself is unchanged. The Internet has only served to make these things more readily available and (ahem) disposable.

Little email forwards were the ditto'd cartoons posted in break rooms of years gone by. The 15 second video of the guy getting hit in the crotch with a flying cat is the discount bloopers VHS tape of 1985. I watch baseball anywhere, anytime…but is the game now different? Even fantasy sports were played years before Web-based applications by nerds via the postal system.

Unlike the cinema, the television, the telegraph, the radio wave, the printing press, the camera, the University, the democracy…the Internet still has yet to achieve anything truly new, despite making things faster and more widespread. Sure, it's a bit precious of a point to make, but for all the credit the Internet gets in changing the world, so far it has not pushed itself beyond the humble postage stamp in terms of creating a new way of life for society. Are we smarter? More happy? Did this thing change who we truly are? Or are we just doing the same things in a different way?

Is the world more different pre/post Internet than it was pre/post internal combustion engine? I have no doubt someday it will be, but for now…, the answer is no. Maybe it will be around social media as we gather our minds and consciousness in new and different ways. But not until we're at least 10 steps beyond our current understanding of it. Maybe it will be around mobile technology, keeping us linked to the cultural mainframe without borders. But not until hardware becomes more fundamental and seamless.

I guess that means we have some work to do. But hey, that's what keeps me coming back for more.

Mike Hudson

This week's On The Media (NPR Show) has an interesting look at the net's "mid-life crisis" - discussing outmoded routers, anonymity, and viruses, among other things. I found it most fascinating that in all of the discussion of where the net's at currently, where it's been and where it's headed that there was no mention of the single-most used application used when dealing with the internet - the web browser.

Yes, of all the tools that need to be standardized on the web, browsers have had the most attempts at regulation via the W3C but, yet, still prove the most irksome. Likewise, they exemplify the problems that OTM focuses on - they're outmoded (IE6 still proves to be a major player though it's not two versions behind) and they open up users to Trojans and other malware via their poor coding (again, IE6). I wonder if OTM requires some kind of metaphor to make this point clear. For me, I describe the difference in web browsers as if looking out four windows and seeing four completely different versions of the same view. (though others have more colorful methods of describing this troublesome topic)

Listen to OTM's story here:http://onthemedia.org/transcripts/2009/03/13/06.

Mike White

In 1969, Paul McCartney made what seemed to be a random decision to call the Beatles album "Abbey Road" and put this picture on the cover.

40 years later, Abbey Road is still a tourist destination.

Above is a recent Youtube time-lapse video of the famous zebra-crossing. (Video is a promotional piece for http://www.blameringo.com).

I'm sure the drivers in St John's Wood curse the day that McCartney made that decision. I know I did when I used to drive through this very exclusive leafy suburb in North West London.

David Feldt @davidfeldt

Blow your cool offline and it's probably forgotten about in 24 hours. Have it out with someone online and there's not only a record you can't erase, but it could spread past the 15 feet your voice would normally carry.

Do online communication tools make it easier to tell someone what's really on your mind? You think you may be hiding behind your twitter alias, but you're really putting yourself out there.

You can't really take back your words when there's a trail of them in cyberspace. I reckon it to having a fight with your spouse in Best Buy. It's just between the two of you, but you have all these onlookers -- customers and workers -- who will only ever know you that way. The big difference is the onlookers. What may have been strangers in the store could become colleagues, potential clients, bosses, friends and even more strangers online.

Such was the case when a national reporter picked a fight with a marketing consultant on twitter. His offline demeanor annoyed her enough to tweet about, though not naming names. He took offense and thus the bashing began.

Strangers retweeted the story. Some looked up the antagonist's twitter page and even read some of his old posts, searching for a trend in his crude behavior.

The up side is when you're in the heat of an argument and the other person says, "listen to yourself," you can truly go back and reread how irrational (they think) you are being. Could be a new behavioral training technique. It just might make you think twice about how, where and who you pick a fight with next.

Have you ever regretted something you "said" online while drunk, angry or fervently upset? Did it spread to people it was not intended for?

Sarah Jo Sautter

Most of us would say money. And yet money alone does not motivate better work or increase job satisfaction. Do we work for money because there is an underlying premise that people don't like to work and must be bribed to do it?

That may have been true for the industrial revolution, but a key difference between the industrial economy and the digital economy is that the role of the worker has shifted from brawn to brain. Knowledge is now a key differentiator, so is it also time to revisit this most fundamental value equation?

A year ago, Seth Godin wrote about the passionate worker:

A new class of jobs (and workers) is creating a different sort of worker, though. This is the person who works out of passion and curiosity, not fear.
The passionate worker doesn't show up because she's afraid of getting in trouble, she shows up because it's a hobby that pays. The passionate worker is busy blogging on vacation... because posting that thought and seeing the feedback it generates is actually more fun than sitting on the beach for another hour.

A recent Businessweek article, "Will Work for Praise" describes how web entrepreneurs are making money through armies of volunteers willing to work for free to build their own personal brands. In a web 2.0 world, there is an implicit symbiotic relationship in place around resource exchange: entrepreneur(s) with money provide(s) platform and technology, volunteers with time provide relevant content to build a personal brand and help others.

Adam Smith, who is widely regarded as the father of modern economics, lived and wrote during a similarly challenging transition from an agrarian to industrial society. Before he published The Wealth of Nations, Smith wrote a classic treatment of ethics that laid the foundation for his free-enterprise classic. In The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith proposed that beyond economic pursuits, there are moral pre-requisites to capitalism. Human nature isn't just about self-interest but it also includes important motivators: sympathy, empathy, friendship, love and the desire for social approval.

The Wealth of Nations draws on situations where man's morality is likely to play a smaller role -- such as the laborer involved in pin-making -- whereas the Theory of Moral Sentiments focuses on situations where man's morality is likely to play a dominant role among more personal exchanges.

If people want to work and are willing to do it for free or some other value exchange in the digital economy, should businesses adapt to this new sensibility?

Lori Laurent Smith

As Barack Obama's inaugural address has had a day to sink in, there is a passage that has inspired me to think about how progress sometimes mean going back as much as forward:

"Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends - hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism - these things are old. These things are true."

This inauguration and indeed this new administration has used new technology in fascinating ways. But as much as it has been forward-thinking, using all the newest in social media goodness, it struck me that this is also a return to the times of tribal councils and of campfire conversations. Technology is enabling conversational intimacy for the masses in ways we haven't experienced in a long time.

It's not just government of course, and it's not just what has been happening recently. Just look at where we have gone with storytelling in the past thousand years. It turned from the oral history of many to the written history of few. Slowly but surely the power to read and write came to the masses, and then with the internet we were able to share our stories. With Wikipedia and citizens journalism, we are writing history as a collective as it happens.

And it's not just our behavior, but it is also our technology. In a great post at ReadWriteWeb, Alex Iskold talks about how in a world that is increasingly becoming more digital, we are actually making a return the physical. Interfaces are becoming more natural and reacting to a familiar and yet new style of physics. Things bounce and slide, they fall and zoom, only no friction... it's effortless, it's better.

We are progressing and we are returning. And hopefully that will mean the best of both worlds.

Marta Strickland

On ThreeMinds we often post about interesting home page takeovers and online advertising. Just this week, in fact, there was mention of the Ford takeover on ESPN. However, we often forget to mention the original platform: the actual "billboard". Modern billboards continue to stretch the envelope in innovative ways, using physical space and perspective to intrigue and inspire:

Clever and Creative Billboard Advertising

It's important to keep a watchful eye on this medium for two reasons...

1. With online advertising slumping, people are less and less interested in the expected. Online billboards that play with the digital space, much like real billboards play with physical space, are going to break through the noise.

2. With the increase in smartphone sales and mobile web usage, our physical space is becoming our digital space. Real life billboards have the potential to become a gateway into digital with things like QR codes and touch screen interfaces.

Thanks to Tony Jankiewicz for the link!

Marta Strickland

image credit: factoryjoe [Flickr]

For digital marketers, it pays to be opportunistic. Wherever there is a jarring or unsatisfactory experience, just as in the real world, there is often a chance to build in a message that suits a brand mission. Take 404 errors for example. Sooner or later someone is going to either click on a broken link from an email, mistype a URL, or a developer will write bad code that somehow makes it through QA. The user experience sucks, but sometimes a bit of good clean fun can come from a common moment of frustration.

We have to give a nod to whoever came up with this display advertising campaign for The Alliance for Climate Protection and their purchase of the Washington Post's 404 error pages. Here, an environmental lobbying group seeking to call out opposing the energy sector's efforts to promote "clean coal" as just so much hot air.

It redirected an otherwise bad experience into a memorable point.

More fun 404 pages here. (Organic did the Geek Squad one, BTW).

Michael Beavers