Web users who ignore "promotions" deemed "ruthless and selfish"

PepperFritz

The Cosmic Force
I read this article on the BBC News site today. According to Wikipedia, Jakob Nielsenis a "leading web usability pundit" who "emphasizes issues such as converting visitors to customers at e-commerce sites". So, clearly, he's all about the money. But even so, his characterization of advertising-resistant individuals as "ruthless and selfish" has a bizarre "1984" quality to it, in its appropriation of emotion-laden words. So, in his view, people who are more prone to being "distracted" by website features aimed at getting them to spend money, are somehow more "compassionate" and "self-less" than those who are "suspicious of promotions"?

Big Brother says "Spending money is GOOD. Not spending money is SELFISH"....


_________________________________________________

Web users 'getting more selfish'
BBC News, May 24, 2008

Web users are getting more ruthless and selfish when they go online, reveals research.

The annual report into web habits by usability guru Jakob Nielsen shows people are becoming much less patient when they go online.

Instead of dawdling on websites many users want simply to reach a site quickly, complete a task and leave.

Most ignore efforts to make them linger and are suspicious of promotions designed to hold their attention.

Search rules

Instead, many are "hot potato" driven and just want to get a specific task completed.

Success rates measuring whether people achieve what they set out to do online are now about 75%, said Dr Nielsen. In 1999 this figure stood at 60%.

There were two reasons for this, he said.

"The designs have become better but also users have become accustomed to that interactive environment," Dr Nielsen told BBC News.

Now, when people go online they know what they want and how to do it, he said.

This makes them very resistant to highlighted promotions or other editorial choices that try to distract them.

"Web users have always been ruthless and now are even more so," said Dr Nielsen.

"People want sites to get to the point, they have very little patience," he said.

"I do not think sites appreciate that yet," he added. "They still feel that their site is interesting and special and people will be happy about what they are throwing at them."

Web users were also getting very frustrated with all the extras, such as widgets and applications, being added to sites to make them more friendly.

Such extras are only serving to make pages take longer to load, said Dr Nielsen.

There has also been a big change in the way that people get to the places where they can complete pressing tasks, he said.

In 2004, about 40% of people visited a homepage and then drilled down to where they wanted to go and 60% use a deep link that took them directly to a page or destination inside a site. In 2008, said Dr Nielsen, only 25% of people travel via a homepage. The rest search and get straight there.

"Basically search engines rule the web," he said.

But, he added, this did not mean that the search engines were doing a perfect job.

"When you watch people search we often find that people fail and do not get the results they were looking for," he said.

"In the long run anyone who wants to beat Google just has to make a better search," said Dr Nielsen.


.
 
Jacob Nielsen said:
I do not think sites appreciate that yet," he added. "They still feel that their site is interesting and special and people will be happy about what they are throwing at them ."
Interesting choice of the word "throw" here.

Very telling assumption that people would be happy with the situation of having things thrown at them, and would want to stick around to experience more of the same.
 
Ha! If you don't give into the latest and greatest marketing / brainwashing schemes then you're 'ruthless and selfish'! How dare normal people resist the pathological internet overlords!
 
In a way I can kind of see some truth in this. My computer with the constant barrage of adverts, spam, popups etc has made me more ruthless. Its not the same as TV adverts where I just have to watch them. Its like having an annoying person constantly prodding me. I have learned to be agressive, ready to strike when the moment calls for it, with a deadly mouse pointer aim. I am a serial popup killer :(

But seriously, what if this guy does have a point, without realising it? What if all of this rubbish is making people more stressed and ruthless, and what if it starts affecting their relationships with people? I think its interesting.
 
Maybe all those people are "selfishly" spending their money on food, mortgages and transport costs instead of all the useless junk and internet "knick knacks" that these promotions try to pass off as a product with some kind of real value?

Just thinking out loud... ;)
 
Re: Web users who ignore \

PepperFritz said:
...advertising-resistant individuals as "ruthless and selfish"

I like articles like this. In my mind's eye, I see Jakob Nielsen and people like him squirming in their seats, not liking the fact that they don't have the control of people that they want to have.

When I look at some of the information available regarding the attempts to mold the mass mind and influence mass behavior, such as what we can find starting in 1928 with
* Edward Bernay's work on "Propaganda",
* "Public Relations" in 1952
* The various essays in the book "What Orwell didn't Know",
* Any other work on advertising up to and including the fairly recent exposing of Splenda's misrepresentations in their advertising (i.e., "it's made from sugar, SO it tastes like sugar").
Then I consider all the individuals and companies who, over the years, have brought us spyware, adware and websites that host data-mining programs that collect data from your computer...all without your knowledge and explicit consent (and when exposed, the individuals try to guide the outcome towards opt-out, instead of opt-in),
Soon, we begin to get an idea of where the terms "ruthless and selfish" could be better applied.

I get the idea that honesty and straightforwardness is not a necessary character trait in Mr. Nielsen's preferred line of work. In fact, it may be a hinderance. So, in my mind, "projection" seems to be the operative word here.

The internet seems to be a "leveller" in a sense. It forces people to consider your thoughts, feelings and values in order to get your attention - and no force can be be applied to make you stay on a website or choose where you spend your money.
I think that probably doesn't sit well with people in Jakob Nielsen's line of work.


Footnote:
I'm not intending to pick on Splenda. It was my fault I fell for the marketing line as stated above.
The sweet taste, according to Splenda's formulators, comes from the chlorine that's added to the man-made compound "sucralose". Sorry if I ruined it for anybody.
 
Re: Web users who ignore \

There are promotions on the web pages? First I've heard of it!

And 'hot potato'? I haven't been called that in many a year (preens!)
 
Re: Web users who ignore \

After operating a specialized local resources website now for several years (now located at tg.far2go.net), I have to agree about web user "selfishness." Perhaps some of it is a reflection of the medium--the web and search engines--but I am sure that it is deeper than that. My original idea was to operate a Wiki, and to let people share what information they had while, hopefully, finding what they were looking for. There was zero participation. They were happy to take whatever information they needed, but not one was willing to actually contribute anything.

I was not totally surprised because I knew some of these people personally and I had seen a somewhat similar pattern of behavior offline. But I approached people in person, and I wrote a number of newsletter articles about the Wiki that many of them saw, and still no one would contribute. It's not as though I just created the website and waited to see if anyone would come. For several years I kept hearing "why doesn't somebody put all this information on the web where we can find it easily." So I did, and they came, in significant numbers. But nobody wanted to actually help. Eventually one person, a medical doctor, did begin to contribute and I still rely on her for medical resources on the website. But that's it.

One other thing I did find was that the Wiki editing features were too hard for many people to learn to use. Eventually, I shifted to content manager software instead of the Wiki, and instead of asking people to contribute or edit articles (which they still can do, but no one has done so), I simply asked them to leave comments about their experiences with the different resources, or to merely "rate" them by clicking a radio button and hitting submit. In the last year since I switched to this system two or three people actually did leave a general comment, and a tiny handful have used the rating feature once or twice.

Part of it is the web culture, I think, because I do occasionally see some of the website users in person, and they say that they appreciate having it. Some will even promise to help me with it or to "maybe" contribute articles, but they don't. But if I relied entirely upon online feedback, I would have no reason to think that anyone cared at all, other than the steady stream of "hits," mostly from Google but also from two "web rings" that I recently joined and several related websites that link to this site.

I also operate a private forum (using the same Simple Machines Forum software that we have here now--love it) that is intended to provide a type of support that people have asked for, but which depends entirely upon forum members' contributions in order for it to be useful. The members there have more in common than the public website users, and more reason to be supportive of each other, but the pattern is almost the same, and participation is poor for the most part.

What bothers me the most about all of this is that I know that the website would be much more useful if it contained personal comments and ratings. By not contributing, they are limiting their own ability to find what they need. But apparently that is the way people work. These people, anyway, but I haven't found them to be fundamentally different from other people I know.
 
Re: Web users who ignore \

I would like to help dispel this notion of the "selfish" web user, if by "selfish" we are meant to accept one of the

various negative connotations of the word. I know that 'individuals' can be selfish in many different ways, but I'm

referring to the general category of web user that's being described as selfish.
Megan,
Are you open to some constructive critism? If so, maybe I have an observation or two I can offer to help shed some light on

your dilema.
After reading and studying your post, I loaded your web page and the very first thing that catches my eye is a statement

that contains "...because it makes my life easier..." and "...I hope you like it..." Now, who is being selfish here? You're

creating a site for ME, that makes YOUR life easier while only HOPING that I like it?

Your site layout is a classic blocky type very appropriate to article and news content, but it is boring to me. I responded

the same way as if I had gone to any other news site - to read whatever I wanted to read and then move on. In fact, it's

not even obvious what the site is about until I pick out the key words here and there.

Looking at the right side of your page I notice a block that lists the most popular articles inside. The Heading of the

very top article explicitly identifies it's content so that I have no doubt what content I will find if I click the link. I

DID click it and the article that popped up contained several paragraphs. Each paragraph began with a bolded sentence that

began : "Who are we", and the next: "What is our purpose". The article is very straight-forward and leaves nothing to

figure out. Even though I have little interest in the subject matter, I can see why that article is the most popular.

Concerning the issue of user contributions:
Just scanning the webpage and noticing the overall look and perhaps looking for something interesting to read, I don't see

anything that would seem to indicate that you desire any contribution. To find that, I had to look harder - after,which, I

found two references: 1) The very BOTTOM link in the left hand column of your Main Menu and 2) the absolute bottom link of

the right hand column labeled 'Most Recent'. This link would have gone completely unnoticed if I hadn't scrolled all the

way down the page.
I clicked on both contribute links and observed that the information presented was identical. No problem with THAT, but It

was just a bland enumeration of ideas. Since you didn't seem enthusiastic yourself, my emotional reaction was similar to

yours - bland with little or no interest.
My impression of this, assuming I even notice the links, is of an absolute bottom priority - something to be done only

after everything else. Again, this is just an impression.

Megan said:
What bothers me the most about all of this is that I know that the website would be much more useful if it contained

personal comments and ratings.
How do you know this? And what difference does that make?
Just because personal comments and ratings are features of your content manager, it does not necessarily follow that it

would make your site more useful. Your visitors are already sending you this message - you just haven't correctly perceived

it yet.


Megan said:
By not contributing, they are limiting their own ability to find what they need.
Maybe so, but so what? which visitor seems to care?

Megan said:
But apparently that is the way people work. These people, anyway, but I haven't found them to be fundamentally different

from other people I know.
Exactly right. The same principle that is active in all living nature is active in your visitors...that is, the tendency to

accomplish the most possible for the least expenditure because there is no other overriding impulse. I say principle because it seems to be a common denominator everywhere. Whether you call it the law of conservation of energy, or the attempt to get the most possible value for the time, energy or money you spend, it seems to be present everywhere, and you can take advantage of it if you want to.
You even put it on public display when you revealed that your new website design makes "...your life easier", which, I am

assuming you mean that it somehow grants you the ability to do a better job for your visitors for much less time, energy,

maintainance, or whatever.

Consider for a moment, that in the 80's, singer/songwriter/artist Herbert Grönemeyer was hardly known outside his own

country, yet he was considered THE most successful German rock star, both financially and artistically. It was even

suggested that, at one point, he was the highest paid muscian in his country's history. What has that got to do with you?

Probably nothing, but it may serve to point out that even though you serve a specialized market, it doesn't necessarily

mean your website can't be the most popular one on the internet. You may just need to take a more dynamic, modular

approach. Find a way to make your usefulness more obvious, link up with their emotions, create some enthusiasm and

excitement, "Hit 'em where they live" so to speak - in their emotional worlds. And then observe the feedback. Until your

website retires, it must always be an ongoing experiment.
Whatever you do, you're success will be measured by how easy you make it for them to do what you want them to do, and what

you give them in return.

These impressions are just my opinions. I may be alone, but this is what it would take to get me involved if I were in the

category of people that your website serves.

So, is there any validity to the idea of 'webuser selfishness'? If there is, I have yet to see any evidence.

Please accept this information in the spirit in which it is intended. I'm no web expert or any other expert for that

matter...just a person who's learned a lot over the years and is still a beginner.
I welcome the same critism of this post or anything else I produce for public display.
 
Back
Top Bottom