Making choices, taking the route which may be controversial or even painful, is about being willing to live with innovative outcomes.

Designing for real human needs means making choices.

Design to create decisions and actions instead of just feelings. That means Yes or No, not Maybe.

Since actions speak louder than words, design solutions that force customers to make a decision, voting with their actions, not their words. Decisions made out of ambivalence tell you less about your product and more about your relative position in time, in location, in the marketplace. Customers have an abundance of options, choices and alternatives, and yet less information, skill or desire to value their options. Simplifying and streamlining the available options simplifies the decision-making process and results in better decisions. Make it easy for people, create solutions that force them to have an opinion.

Traditionally brands have been the key to differentiating in markets where the products are closely comparable, by creating an image, a stereotype, an easy way for a customer to define the product and what it means to them in the absence of knowing the minute differences in the products. But in a world where the ability to control the brand message and meaning has been reduced, where information flows free between customers, it is difficult for companies to incite these strong reactions merely through branding.

Instead, embed these customer decisions into the design decisions. Inciting strong reactions decreases the need for companies to read peoples’ minds and forces people to self-select their product and market niche. Let them tell you what they want through their actions and resulting conversations, and pay attention.

Hello, I'm Taylor Davidson.
I'm an early-stage VC and a photographer. If you liked this post, please subscribe to this blog. For more like this, check out the archives, and follow me on Twitter @tdavidson.
  • Anonymous

    Thanks for continuing the conversation. This is really helping to clarify my thoughts. I suspect we agree more than disagree but I would like to explore the extremes.nnI agree that it is possible and important to ‘shift’ towards better business practices. But…what if your idea of ‘optimally good’ is too little too late? Western countries need to massively curtail consumption if we are to slow our destruction of the planet. “The profit-maximizing level of good” has got us into this mess. There are just too many negative externalities that don’t get priced into the products we consume. A one percent drop in GDP growth is perceived as disastrous, how can we deal with 10% or 50% drops in consumption levels?nnHow does a carrot compete with a Happy Meal? There is far too much economic pressure for firms (and individuals) to compromise their ideas of ‘good’ to sell more products and make more profits. “Why not cheat just a little to reach our quarterly sales quotas?”nnIsn’t it possible that non-commercial collaboration like volunteering, open-source, charities or philanthropy might be better models to bring about positive change? nnEverything about our economic history and development was essential up and to this point. Capitalism works and has brought about great progress to the world. However, I sense that we are getting satiated with materialism and are seeking more fulfilling ways to spend our time. Projects like CouchSurfing have shown me that not every human interaction has to be a financial transaction. In fact, I think that if we take personal economic gain out of the equation, bigger and better things can be accomplished.

  • Anonymous
  • http://www.taylordavidson.com/writing/2009/08/27/game-design/ Game design, the secret to reconstructing capitalism. | Taylor Davidson

    [...] A bounded set of social interactions that promote and incent gestures, behaviors and actions, [...]

MORE: Financial Models for Entrepreneurs