Notes: Creating Passionate Users 2.0 Kathy Sierra March 6, 2006 ORA ETech when peoplea are passionate, they lose track of time share act irractionally Tried to reverse engineer passion koolaide point cont.inuous improvement clear pictiore of expertise where there is passion, there is a user kicking ass. no one is passionate about things they suck at. needs to be constant growth and potential. even the best need to be able to get better. expertise yeilds levels of resolution do people get passionate about cameras? no. they get passionate about photography. don't focus on the tool. don't focus on the vehicle. focus on what they do with those tools. nikon has a great "how to" for photograohy. red bull: music academy. being better is better. it doesn't matter if what you are helping people get better at is related to what they do. leverages the brain problem called "misattribution of arousal". doesn't know what is generating the good vibes, so it assumes that everything is important. don't help them understand about how great the company and product is. have to help them get better at something with a long learning curve. the brain is not your friend. have to trick the brain into thinking that what you are doing is as relevant as a life threatening event. brain cares about surprizing, odd, off. it is never awakened by things that meet expectations. brain is always looking for its expectations to be met. brain cares about: creepy and scarry. even a little. seeing people who are frightened. "is it going to get me too?" sex. beauty. we have an asctetic sense, but maybe not good taste. thinkgs that are cute and innocent. having fun. play. thinks it is practicing survival skills. faces. even non-human ones. anonymity. your brain wants to resolve it. Conversational tone beats formal lecture. when the brain thinks its in a convo, it feels responsible for keeping up its end of the conversation. people treat machines like people, even to the point of not proving direct and honest feedback. you want to talk to the brain, not the mind. they have used this approach for the "head first" book series. you have to quickly get people beyond sucking at something. and you don't want them to stop getting better. no plataue. if you cant' change the product, provide education. in a web 2.0 theoretical world, the users will do this for you. why snowboard twice? because there is a clear and compelling vision of success. people can see that getting better opens new doors for them. (double black diamons on a ski map.) need: a clear and motivating end state a clear path to get there a clear benefit for being there? why? who cares? and so what? brain has to care all along. if you ask why five times, you'll get to the heart of it. when the answer is "b/c you'll never have sex again" or "b/c you'll get fired", step it back one level and you are there. to help them get better, they have to learn. do you don't communicate facts. you should communicate understanding. facts...information...understanding in the human brain, there is more work done to help you forget stuff than there is to remember. have to get past the chemical crap filter. have to make it emotional. you can't provide them with all the answers. you have to make them think for themselves. have to trick them...lead them down a primrose path. they will remember the horrible mistake. if you stage a debate where both are right, the brain will not stop thinking about it. it wants resolution. learingin just in time is way more compelling than learning just in case. the "oh crap" or "oh cool" factor. its not about giving them the right answers. its about getting them the right questions. once you have their attention, you still have to keep them engauged. _flow, the psychology of optimal experience_ you get into flow state when things are in balance: perceived knowledge and skill is in balance with challenge good game developers have this down. and you perceive that it is worth it. challenge needs to be constantly growing, and we have to be expanding their skills to help them meet the more difficult challenge. how do you explain 37signals simplicity? they want the software to get out of the way so that people can do what they are doing. "don't make them think about the wrong thing" when you have to read the camera book, you lost the shot. you have to keep people going and movitated when the going gets rough. get their attention, build interest, challenging activity, payoff, loop. games have the concept of "the next level". black belts. tech lore. ebay. you can't have people pay for levels. you have to make them earn them. purchasing ruins the sense of acheivment. you want a lot of little levels. users at new levels have new super powers. better guns. and then you need them. people show off their belts / strings. people have businesses to display them. ?? what are your levels ?? the user as a hero. what is the user's journey? all is good something changes that add a sidekick and mentor things really suck hero overcomes bad things return to a new normal have to be careful at the "really suck" stage. they might drop out. tools / company needs to be the helpful sidekick. somewhere around "overcome" or afterword. recognize that the user has changed. read a book on screenplays. needing to know java and learning it isn't a change. they need to _see_ s/w differently. or they need to think about development differently. _how_ has the user changed? features...benefits....meaning people put more meaining into it. 37signals is about "getting real". they think its a way of life. do you have a manifesto? the change for the user and the meaning should be related. the tribe where there is passion, there is always a sense of belonging. t-shirt first development. you have to have the tribe in place, ready to go. think geek. customer action shot. "the yard gnome" phenom. ipods around the world. bumperstickers. part of being in the tribe is the inside jokes. people know stuff. you have to give them something to talk about. eastereggs. easter eggs in the fedex logo? chris martin of cold play puts the fair trade logo on his hand. doesn't explain it specifically so people will ask and answer. starts conversations. where there is passion, there is always a creation story. myths. jobs. woz. gates. andreesen. creators. early users. community affinity clubs. have to have a moderation aspect. be nice clause. how do you make newbies and experts both comfy? prolly have to seprate them. the newbies need to want to be an expert, be in the club. when people are passionate: they'll be called sheep, they are in to fashion. they'll say they are paying the "ignorance premium". they'll say there is nothing new here. when they start critisizing your users, you have arrived. when they say your users have "drunk the koolade", you are there. love is good. hate is good. middle sucks. "dignity is deadly." Paul Graham. you lose daring, WTF, revolutionary, crazy. group consensus makes dumb decisions. incremental improvements won't get you where you need to be. listening to users is tough. what they say and what they want are different. very. you have to listen to them by watching them. monkeys in cages don't generate new brain cells. or cubes.