I heard a clever analogy about the misuse of the mobile platform: that performing a complex task on mobile is "like eating a cheeseburger with a toothpick." You can do it, but it will be sloppy and tedious, not to mention disgusting for anyone else to watch. In essence, it's like being a sideshow freak in that it's the uncanny "talent" to do something that seems impractical and even a bit nonsensical. It's mildly interesting to see someone else do it, but it's not something you'd care to try at home, and it certainly isn't going to become "the new way" that everyone is going to want follow.
That makes perfect sense to me, but many in the CX profession (or business in general) seem inclined to adopt the opposite perspective. They are so impressed with mobile that they think it's going to replace the desktop computer as the primary means of accessing the Internet or any digital services in the future - and that we should in effect stop designing silverware because in the near future everyone will be eating every meal with toothpicks.
That is not to say that we should disregard the value of toothpicks, either, because they are the right tool for some jobs, such as consuming an hors d'oeuvre at a cocktail party. I do think the metaphor can be handily extended that far at least - in that people at a party don't want to break off from their groups to sit down and eat a plate of food with a knife and fork, but just want a quick bite while doing something else ... for which a toothpick is the perfect delivery device.
This corresponds well to what some of my colleagues in customer experience are saying about their own experiments in mobile: they find that customers are using it to reference quick "bites" of information, and that when they place more complex interactions of the smartphone platform, they get very little use and often an increase in the voice channel to undo the damage. They still feel the need to facilitate these transactions in mobile, but only to the degree that the revenue contributed by the fringe element of mobile enthusiasts who will suffer through an awkward interaction for the sake of using their favorite toy is sufficient to cover the cost of development.
The adoption rate of mobile for all but the most basic transactions is a lot lower than the enthusiasts like to admit, and companies who adhere to the "mobile first" approach are subsidizing the strange behavior of a small segment with profit taken from the majority of customers who do not see fit to undergo the tedium of using an inconvenient platform just because they can. From a big picture perspective, that's just bad business and makes no financial sense.
In all, there's likely a sensible position to take between the two extremes, and financial results are likely the best way to gauge whether it is worthwhile to accommodate mobile transactions - taking into account the revenue earned in the mobile channel, the cost of accommodating the mobile channel, and the degree to which the latter is merely cannibalizing the former.
Granted, there's also an argument to be made that providing a mobile option is requisite to customer experience - but that is also a vague claim that is not backed by any reliable proof. If you can demonstrate that customers who use the mobile channel rather than (or in addition to) the Web contribute more revenue or remain loyal to the provider for a longer period of time for a given transaction, rather than in a general sense, then the transaction is certainly worth putting on the mobile platform as well - provided, again, that the marginal increase in revenue covers the additional expense.
I don't have the sense that many people are diligent in their approach to mobile, and are so overcome with excitement about the potential of this new medium that they are leaping into with with wild abandon and the assumption that anything you shovel onto the platform will be a success (someday). In time, recklessness will come home to roost when they recognize that they have made a very costly and unwise decision.
No comments:
Post a Comment