Ignore the Content

Things I Learned the Hard WayIn this series, I’m exploring the stories I find myself coming back to in work and life. I call them Things I Learned the Hard Way.

My dad, the great psychologist, once told me that he thought kids would be a snap. In college, he’d trained rats to run mazes in the dark. Surely he had a keen insight into behavioral training.

Problem was, rats don’t smile at you, say they’ll be home by midnight, steal your car, and stay out all night. Suffice to say, dad found raising me and my sister to be more challenging than expected.

But he has taught me a few things, and one I keep coming back to is: ignore the content. Sometimes, when dealing with an interpersonal conflict, logically addressing the complaints is that last thing that will help. Instead, try to address the emotion behind it.

So, for example, when a kid is freaking out because ketchup wasn’t applied to his hot dog in just the right way, it’s never about the ketchup. It’s about a deeper issue (control, fear, low blood sugar – whatever).

Apply this to web communities. Say a well-known site, say, redesigns their homepage. The new version could be better in every objective way, but users will still freak out. Why? It’s not the content – it’s something deeper.

The freakouts mean, “I love this site, I feel ownership of it, and you changed it, and that makes me mad.” When you look at it that way, you can see why a reasonable, factual response on why the new design is better will not work. Instead, you have to address the feelings behind the complaint. For example:

“You’re a valuable member, and we really appreciate how much time and energy you’ve put into the site. We know change can be hard, and we appreciate you writing to tell us your feelings. We think the new version is better, but you don’t have to agree. All we ask is that you give it a little time. See how you feel about it next week, and write us again. We’re grateful for your participation, and sincerely thank you for your feedback.”

See what I did there? No selling the new site. Instead, praise the user for giving a shit (and you should – trust me, I’ve run sites that nobody cared about and it’s much worse), try to make them feel important, show that you take it seriously, and ask for a little time.

With most redesigns, within a week, all the bitching is over (or, at least, moved on to something new). If there are major themes in the members’ complains, maybe there really is something wrong. They’re doing you a favor by pointing out the problems. Take them seriously and implement changes. The complainers will become your most dedicated fans if they see that their input results in positive changes.

The next time someone complains to you, try to ignore the content of the complaint and address the emotion behind it instead. You’ll be amazed how quickly you can convert the haters to lovers and make your site better at the same time.


Fray

20 Comments

Good point. I learned this one the hard way, myself.

Posted by Phil Nelson on 14 January 2009 @ 6am

This is bang on.

As one of the lead drivers of the Firefox product, we find that the passion of our community often results in histrionics when we make changes. Some people lace their emotional reaction with what appears to be logical argument, laying the trap for the designers and developers of a change to respond in kind – but this leads nowhere.

I’ve been encouraging everyone to read all the feedback, but look for the patterns in it as a way of separating the emotional responses from the logical ones. Then a single reply can be used to respond individually to the emotional and factual concerns.

Great post.

Posted by Mike Beltzner on 14 January 2009 @ 7am

Very true! The act of replying is, in itself, essential and replying about emotions also removes all doubt that the reply may be canned. Indeed, while it is possible to write a neutral, plausible-sounding template that can be sent to everyone about the design of the site, replying about individual emotions makes it much more difficult. That simple fact is a great demonstration of care and mutual trust.

Posted by FJ de Kermadec on 14 January 2009 @ 8am

I don’t know. In the same way that you lie to your father about the car, users lie about their true feelings. “I hate this!,” “Why did you change it?,” etc. might be a buch of hot air.

Rather than guessing I’d define a set of key metrics that tracks the performance of your userbase and see how your new design affects them. Do fewer people sign up? Is the feedback more or less positive? Are they more engaged with the site?

That way you don’t need to guess about what users are really feeling (as opposed to what they’re telling you).

Posted by Jesse Farmer on 14 January 2009 @ 10am

Great insights. Lately I’ve been wondering about this a lot. In some ways we are giving users mixed signals.

We encourage users to feel at home at our site, we use informal language, we call the connections they make “friends”, and generally we try give them a sense that this is a space by and for them. But it isn’t! We, the site operators, still retain total control.

It’s as if we invited someone to live in a house, let them paint the walls and hold parties. And then, six months later, we change the floor plan, without consulting them or even warning them.

The outrage that some users feel is, I think, more about being reminded that there is a huge power imbalance here. To site operators it sometimes feels like ridiculous whining since of course we have no illusions about who’s in control. But I think we forget that we *encouraged* that illusion.

Posted by Neil Kandalgaonkar on 14 January 2009 @ 10am

My first thought was, that the title could be read two ways:

Ignore the content (of the book/site/whatever).
Ignore the content (people).

Part of me was hoping you’d argue for ignoring content people, but of course, I can only agree with what you did post about.

Posted by Rasmus on 14 January 2009 @ 10am

I wish this article was around when people wouldn’t shut up about hating the new facebook redesign.

Now everyone would be lost without it, and us designers/developers tried to tell them…

Posted by Fred Yates on 14 January 2009 @ 11am

By the way, I don’t like your new banner.

But seriously, this is some useful stuff you’ve written here, and I appreciate the message. Wish I’d thought about this with some project feedback I was receiving last year — could have saved me some time and trouble.

Posted by wayne on 14 January 2009 @ 1pm

Very well said, I couldn’t agree more.

Being defensive doesn’t help at all. Actually it automatically put the other in a attacker position, rising the chances of tensions escalation or/and endless and pointless technical arguments.

I also have a rules of thumb to avoid as much as possible such situations: the bigger the site, the smaller the changes.

Incremental changes are powerful, you can move mountains without anybody noticing.

Posted by h3 on 14 January 2009 @ 2pm

Great post, thanks! I will keep it clutched in my hand for reference this year while our company redesigns our website “with the members’s needs in mind.” In my other hand, I’ll have Horton Hears a Who.

Posted by Elle Waters on 14 January 2009 @ 8pm

Spot on, Derek.

I read this article again today after reading loads of complaints from users about the recent launch of new mobile9 design. A lot of them said the old design is better but we just couldn’t see why this is the case. Perhaps it’s like what you say, we should try to tackle the emotion behind. The unfamiliarity, the tough learning curve, and the frustration when things aren’t working like they used to be.

Posted by Patricia on 14 January 2009 @ 9pm

Thanks for writing this down. Great post—also love the introduction where you talk about your dad’s rats ;-)

Posted by Julian Schrader on 15 January 2009 @ 12am

Nope. I actually hate it when this method is “used” on me. When I make the effort to bring a complaint to a business, I expect action, not “feel good” public relations. I don’t want to be pacified, I want action–so don’t address my “emotion” rather than the issue itself, because addressing the emotion is a cheap and easy way to avoid the problem or issue being raised.

Posted by Kimn on 16 January 2009 @ 6am

I agree with this from the web stand point, it seems to make a lot of sense.

Though personally, when *I* complain about something I almost always say literally what my problem is, and I get annoyed at being coddled as opposed to getting results. It insults me if someone focuses on the emotion behind my complaint instead if the content.

Posted by Natsuki on 27 January 2009 @ 9am

In every online community there lurks a small but vocal minority of users, ready to pounce on any design change no matter how small, declare it a sign of the impending apocalypse, and announce their intention to depart in a loud, angry huff.

Unfortunately, these people never actually leave. :)

Posted by Kent Brewster on 29 January 2009 @ 10pm

I agree, I guess that’s why we call it user ‘experience’.

On a related point, never discount a ‘user error’ or a seemingly odd complaint from someone who can’t find something or use something.

To you it seems perfect but if people are reacting then they are being frustrated, that should be studied rather than ignored.

Posted by Ian Waugh on 2 February 2009 @ 1pm

Very insightful, but this is not always the case. When I complain about grammar checking in Pages, that is all I am complaining about, as I really like the overall package, but that one little thing, the grammar checking, is far too pedantic and politically correct for regular usage. While this may seem like a good thing, it is constantly complaining about “gender-specific expressions”, which most of the time is exactly what we want. For example, “monarch” is rarely a suitable replacement for “king”, or “servant” for “maid”. This makes me extremely annoyed, but it is the only part of the package that I have any trouble with. Sometimes it is good to look at the content, too.

Posted by Benjamin on 3 February 2009 @ 2pm

Playing devil’s advocate…if you squint your eyes hard enough, “ignore the content and address the emotion” looks an awful lot like “be manipulative — it’s easier than addressing the complaint”, or even “there’s no valid complaint since I’m right anyway. My goal here is to shut you up.”

So it depends on your relationship with the person. Often you are right, or maybe they’re right but it doesn’t matter in any tangible way. So you do need to tactfully tell them to get lost. This happens all of the time with software interfaces, because people generally have such a light grasp of their computer that an interface change is like having a chair pulled out from under them. Doesn’t make them right, though.

Posted by John on 4 February 2009 @ 4pm

I actually hate the emotional touchy-feely approach: the words say you care about my feedback, while the message really tells me you don’t as you think it’s just a knee-jerk reaction. I prefer much more to be told why you think the design is superior; at least to that I can reply on solid ground, without having to defend myself from the idea that I’m just being emotional.

Now, whether it’s easier for you on the other side of the screen, that’s another matter altogether. But “I’m not going to change it, live with it” works just as well and at least it’s honest.

Posted by Ian on 5 February 2009 @ 4am

They make a similar point (among others) in Difficult Conversations: http://www.amazon.com/Difficult-Conversations-Discuss-what-Matters/dp/014028852X

Posted by Yotam on 6 February 2009 @ 12pm