Have you ever wondered, why they offer hotdogs at the end of an IKEA-trip? The answer is: If they wouldn´t, you would leave the store directly after the emotional all-time-low-moment of the entire IKEA-experience.
Have a close look at the last few steps in the below illustration of a typical IKEA-Journey:
Offering hot-dogs is a simple intervention to increase the customer-satisfaction towards the end of the customer-journey. By offering ridiculously cheap and (relative to price) good hot-dogs, IKEA ensures you leave the door with a broad smile on your face. Have a second look at the customer journey below. Hot-dogs seem to make all the difference in this case:
And as Kahnemann&Co. stressed in "thinking, fast and slow": Your remembering self tends to blurr out most details of a memory, except for the beginning and end of an episode. Therefore, whilst you experience the ups and down of a IKEA visit, you most likely will only remember the first and last bits of it, when evaluating your experience in hindsight. In the given IKEA example this means: The entire trip would end as a desaster without hot-dogs: With hot-dogs however a much more positive memory is being stimulated. And for anybody chasing the Net-Promoter-Score: This does mean the NPS most probably will rise.
Let´s compare the hypothetical remembered emotional value of an IKEA trip with & without the hot-dogs:
As you can see - if only the very early and very last bits of an episode are remembered - the investment IKEA makes to say "farewell" and "see you soon" to their customers will pay off!
Sweets with the bill in a restaurant and for children after they were "brave" and visited the doctor? Chocolate whenever you leave a SwissAir flight? Somebody respectfully opening the door for you upon leaving the store? The barbier gifting you a little head-massage or the pleasure of a heated towel towards the end of the service you purchased? Do you see a pattern emerging?
How do you ensure your customers keep a fond memory after interacting with you?
Let me know in the comments!
JOIN MY WEEKLY MAILS
A persona is the personified representation of a user or client group. Within design thinking this persona will be centered around coherent need-statements. The persona as method has initially been developed in marketing where personas were initially used as representations of demographic segments (e.g.: personas called "dinks" - double income no kids etc.). Persona´s in design thinking are distinctively different because they are not built around demographic or socio-economic attributes but around needs - the design thinking persona does not represent the 32-Year old married woman, but represents people who need something, e.g. sth. they can consume with one hand and without getting their hands dirty, while strolling the textile market (because they are not only hungry/thirsty, but also want to touch the textiles and can't do that with occupied or dirty hands).
“A design thinking persona is the personified representation of a need-statement.”
We might put a name and face and age and family background to the persona, that represents all these people, because that will make it easier to relate to the need-statement in the process of designing a solution that fits their need-statement. But the common characteristic is not the age or marital status - Imagine the following two persons:
You might have both of them, Fred and Veronica represented by the same persona. You might decide to depict this persona as a 35-Years old pan-sexual transvestite in an open relationship. Why can the 35-Year old represent both the teen and the granny? Because it´s not about age or marital status, the persona is centered around the clean-free-hand-hungry-&-thirsty-need-statement.
JOIN MY WEEKLY MAILS
About a year back, the U.S. Department of Defense published their guide for detecting Agile BS. Within their guide they included a graphic I thought was so inspiring that I re-created it:
Although I remain sceptical about the explicit language used, I find the graphic to be extremely helpful.
Nassim N. Taleb once said:
“If you see fraud and do not say fraud, you are fraud.”
Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Author of the Incerto Series
Encouraged by his words, I am in favour of calling a spade a spade, and calling out BS. So by rephrasing what the DoD said about Agile, I arrived at my own statement for the Design Thinking context. I share it below in written and graphical form to enable detecting Design Thinking BS:
Design Thinking is a buzzword of innovation management, and currently many product-, process- and even strategy-development-projects are, almost by default, declared to be using Design Thinking.
Running projects using a lot of Design Thinking buzzwords but not reframing the problem to a human centered design perspective and therefore mainly producing sunk costs.
The following questions and the below graphic provide guidance to program executives and acquisition professionals on how to detect projects that are really using Design Thinking versus those that are simply pretending to do so (what I like to call “design sinking”, because it mainly produces sunk costs).
Therefore the following questions can be posed to the program leadership:
For a team working based on Design Thinking, the answer to all of the above questions should be “yes”. If not - you may be running a successful project, but - you are not doing design thinking and there is a high risk, that you are wasting time & effort on what I call design-sinking.
So keep the above questions at hand whenever you enter a negotiation around Design Thinking. While it is totally fine to refrain from doing Design Thinking, let´s be honest about whether or not we are actually doing it.
Let me know what you think about this and your experiences so far in the comments below.