Transcript of Build a Winning UX Strategy from the Kano Model with Jared Spool

Adam Churchill: Hello, and welcome to this UIE virtual seminar, "Build a Winning UX Strategy from the Kano Model," with Jared M. Spool. I'm Adam Churchill, your host.

You'll learn today that the Kano model focuses on users' basic expectations first. It predicts the investment a team needs to make to elicit delight from users. Today, Jared's going to show you how things like your competitors, existing design debt, and the evolution of ideas from innovation to market maturity all affect how you need to design today.

Jared launched User Interface Engineering almost 25 years ago. In the time since, he's validated user experience as a vital component of our work. He spends countless hours conducting research and writing tirelessly to continue that validation. Jared can often be found on stage, where he captivates crowds with stunning data that reveals how user experience can affect a company's bottom line.

He's helped thousands of companies worldwide increase their profits, identify interaction failures, and integrate user-experience research and design into their product-development process.

Thanks for joining us today. Hello, Jared. Take it away.

Jared Spool: Hey, Adam. Thank you very much. I'm very excited to be here. It's been a long time since I've actually been on this side of the studio, so it's very exciting.

Today, we're going to talk about making a UX strategy, using the Kano model as the basis. What we're going to do is we're going to start right here. A few years ago, the Hyatt hotel chain -- their CEO at the time, I guess -- announced that they were going to start this program called "Random Acts of Generosity," where they would unexpectedly pick up the tab for the hotel bill, for bar tabs or massage or room upgrades, for guests, just at random.

The various employees of the hotel would just be empowered to do this. It was an interesting idea, the idea that they would go off and do these things for people, spontaneously picking somebody and making it just work for the folks who are staying in the hotel and being there.

They went off and tried to do this, but it didn't work, because, at the same time that they were trying to upgrade their customers and give them a better experience, they had other problems in the hotel, such as the AC wasn't working in some of their hotels' rooms, and they had sloppy room service, and the elevators were often very slow, and the pies at events were coming out of the kitchen still frozen, and there was glass in the public spaces.

There was all these things that was happening, and no matter what they did in terms of giving people a free bar tab, the hotel itself, a lot of their properties were still suffering from these quality problems.

We can start to look at that and see what has happened here by looking at how to model the behavior people have when they have an experience with a product or a service. We can take these two things and we can put them into two categories. One, we would call delighters, which are the things that we often do to try and delight our customers, and then one are things called frustrations, which are things we don't try and do but, in fact, happen.

We can look at this and start to take this apart. In fact, we can begin to map this out. Chris Risdon, a few weeks ago, as part of the virtual seminar program, actually came and talked to us about creating experience maps. In its simplest form, what we do is we take the journey of our customers and we map them out on a scale that goes from frustration at the bottom to delight at the top. What we can then do is, as they move through this scale, we can list all the different things that they do.

Let's say we're dealing with an e-commerce site and we're having people come in and buy a product from us. We can start to map that out.

Here, in the act of searching for the product, it was somewhat delightful for a little while, but then, when we got and saw the product page, it became really complicated and things were difficult. Then, as it continued, getting it into the shopping cart was easy, but getting it to be an experience, with the billing information and the payment information, that became frustrating because of form problems and errors that the customer got, and having to reenter information and having things get erased when they press "submit" and then got an error message.

That became very frustrating, and finally, they get it done.

That's the experience. We can see this. We can map it out. Then we can do something like look at this experience and say, "What would it be like if it was delightful? What would be like if it was delightful all the way across?" This idea of a journey map is really powerful. We can take the experience that the user has, and we can map it out and we can keep a track of what's going on all the way across.

If we look at the way the journey map is created, we can divide it into pieces. For example, this piece at the bottom, this is where the users are getting frustrated, and this piece at the top, this is where our users and customers are delighted. The question then becomes, what do we call this thing in the middle? What is that called?

That brings me to this idea of a great meal, right? If you had a choice of eating something that was either delicious or just edible, which would you pick? I think I would pick delicious. I'm going to guess that most other people would want something that's delicious over something that's edible. But edible is often what we measure, because we measure, in essence, whether something's satisfactory or not.

"Satisfactory" is really a neutral setting. What we're doing when we talk about this is we're setting our goals low. We have these things we call satisfaction surveys that ask us about how satisfied we are, on a scale from "very dissatisfied" to "very satisfied." What does "satisfied" actually mean? I think satisfied means "edible."

This area in the middle of our chart, that's just being satisfied. I don't think satisfaction surveys are what we should have. I think we should have delight surveys. We should find out if we're delighting people. When you ask people to put, on a scale of 1 to 10, whether they are very dissatisfied or very satisfied, I think you're setting your goals low.

Someone who isn't delighted, but everything works fine and it was a very edible meal, might just choose a 10. You actually get this rating biased towards the center, but you think you have something biased towards the top, and that gets us into trouble.

When we talk about a UX strategy, what a UX strategy is, is actually about, first, getting all those frustrated people to just be satisfied. That's what traditional usability and user-centered design practices do is that they sit there and they hammer and sand out all the frustrating bits until we've reached this neutral satisfaction place.

Then, we need to get people from being satisfied to being delighted. It turns out that this is a really unexplored area in the user-experience world. That we are only now beginning to understand the basics of how we get people who are satisfied with the designs we're creating to being delighted with the designs that we're creating.

What we're going to talk about today is this idea of creating a UX strategy that is really just all about getting those users all the way from frustration, if that's what's occurring, through satisfaction, to delight.

Any strategy that we talk about is going to have to deal with a bunch of questions. These are the things that we're thinking of all the time. What do we need to build? How do we allocate our resources? Are there things in the design we can just leave out and say no to? How do we tell if we've actually achieved the goals we've set out to do?

How are we making sure that we aren't implementing the same thing that our competitors are implementing and just being another me-too? Where should we innovate? How do we figure out how to cost all this?

This idea of strategy is all about answering these questions. Any strategy that we come up with, we can think of as basically being a hanger that we hang our decisions on. The shape of the hanger is actually going to dictate the outcome of the decisions. If we want the decisions to be crisp and clean, we need a hanger that's going to make sure that it keeps it all flat and crisp and clean.

Today, we're going to pick one such of these hangers, these frameworks, that we're going to look at, and it's going to give us a chance to explain what's going on at things like the Hyatt, where we've got these delighters that they want to do. It'd be cool if I got my bar tab paid for or my room upgraded. But at the same time, there are all these frustrations, and how do we deal with that?

The thing was that, using this thing that I'm about to show you, we could predict what would happen in this situation at the Hyatt very, very clearly.

What I'm about to show you was invented by this dude, Noriaki Kano. I'm sure I have said that completely wrong, but I give Noriaki permission to mispronounce my name any time he wants.

He is a behavioral economist, and he's come up with a bunch of things, mostly focusing on supply chains. He hit on this basic idea, which we've borrowed and munged a little, and it's called the Kano model.

The way the Kano model works is that it's a predictive model. What we want to do is we want to predict this idea of satisfaction, going all the way from frustration at the bottom to delight at the top. We want to predict that based on the amount of investment that we make in the design. We can make a little bit of investment, or we can make a lot of investment, and based on the investment we make, can we predict how much we will either frustrate or delight our customers?

That's, in that sense, what Hyatt was trying to do. If they pay their employees to do these things, will they get more delighted customers than if they don't pay them to do these things?

In its basis, it turns out that what Kano found out, and what has been in our data and a bunch of other people's data, to basically be extremely reliable, is that there are three groups of trends that happen, three ways that the investments get turned into some outcome.

The first one is called the performance payoff. The performance payoff is basically a pure feature play. In terms of the hotel, it's adding a new bar or putting new machines in the exercise room or making sure that the TVs have the latest technology in the guest rooms. It is really just, we keep adding feature after feature after feature in to the system.

Then there are excitement generators. Excitement generators are things that are pure-play delighters. The whole idea is to get delight. Now, in many hotels, you can delight customers by just having more friendly staff. There are a lot of hotels where the staff just ignore you. You're supposed to ignore the staff and they're supposed to ignore you, and everybody walks by each other. But really friendly staff, for a lot of people, that could be a delighter. That's not a very big investment. You can get that delight right away.

All of a sudden, we can look at this and we can see what's going on. In terms of the Hyatt, we could see that they were trying to do delighters with these free upgrades and these generosities of kindness, but they also had these basic-expectation problems that were causing frustration because they weren't making the proper investment there.

At the same time, they were generating frustration and they were generating delight. Unfortunately, delight and frustration don't cancel each other out. It's more like frustration trumps delight. The folks at Hyatt got a little stuck.

The other thing I wanted to tell you about the Kano model is that over time what's a delighter today becomes a basic expectation tomorrow. That's really important.

10 years ago, if you went to a hotel and they had some Internet or wireless in it, it was a delightful thing. You went, "This is cool! I can actually check my mail from the hotel. That's really awesome." Today, if you're a businessperson and you go to a hotel and there's no WiFi or wired Internet -- or worse, if it's just got crappy service and it's really slow and unreliable -- that's just a failed expectation. What used to generate excitement now is just a basic expectation.

That's something that we have to be aware of, that just because we can do something to generate delight now, we are actually going to have to deal with the fact that over time, people are going to expect it. We have to keep coming up with new delighters.

What I want to do now is actually just take a little bit of a dive into these, and we're going to start with the performance payoff. As I mentioned, the performance payoff is really just a pure performance feature play. If you go to Apple's website and you look up the Mountain Lion operating-system release, you'll see that they have 200 new features that you can get. This is a great example of just performance-payoff stuff.

You just keep adding features in. You want to keep adding to that count. You want to be able to put that plus sign after the 200. If you can get it up to 300, that's even better. It's just feature after feature after feature, and you just keep adding them and you just keep putting them in.

This is what we're really good at in product development and service development is adding features. We can think about this all day long. We can go to the white board. We can come up with new features. We can put them in. We can see what our competitors are doing, put in their features, too. We just keep adding them.

For a long time, this was all you needed to do to get upgrades or be more successful. But we started to run into a problem. A company would come out with a product, and in the first release, maybe they'd have three different features in it. Let's say it was really well received, so everybody's really happy. Three features, you couldn't do this before, all of a sudden you can do this now -- bam, it's making everybody really, really, really happy.

What do they do? They quickly pump out another feature. Now, they put out a point release, and in the point release, it's got one more feature in it, makes everybody even happier. Excellent. Now, we're moving here.

What do we do? We take that reinforcement, put in more features. Release 2.0, now we've got a few more features in there. 3.0, we add more. 4.0, we add more.

Finally, we've got all these different features in the product, right? Let's say we get it up to release six. In release six, we've got a ton of features, but now we have to explain all these features to people, and they're all competing with the user's attention. Suddenly, the product's getting really, really, really complicated, and you're hearing complaints that it's hard to use.

Those customers who weren't there at the very beginning, they are really getting angry because, even though it's got all this promise, this thing is upsetting them because it's complicated. It's really difficult to use.

Then you start to do some research and some analysis, and what you discover is, of all those features, there's only a handful of those features that people are actually using on a regular basis. You're building all these features and you're spending all the money to build all these features, and most of those features are hardly being used, which means that that's wasted product. You're getting a lot of support calls, and you're having all sorts of issues, and maybe people aren't even buying the product because it's just gotten super-complicated.

Now, you've got all this problem. You've got all these things that are getting in your way.

There's really not many choices. The next thing you need to do is you need to pull out those features that aren't what people want. Prune away the features that are getting in the way and come back and put out something that has just got the right features in it, a better experience.

This is really, really hard, from a strategy standpoint, for a company, particularly a market leader that has made their reputation on having this product that does everything for everybody. This idea that you would take out the features that are less used and possibly piss some people off, that's a really hard call to make.

In fact, Apple just did this with their "Final Cut Pro" app. Final Cut Pro was this application that did things for -- I don't remember how much it costs. What was it, about 1,200 bucks, I think, that you could buy this thing for. The nearest competitor was like $80,000 or $100,000, with hardware involved.

All these people were making incredible movies with this movie-making software that they couldn't make because they couldn't afford the more-expensive equipment, but the product got really hard to use. Only people who could send their stuff into Sundance could afford to learn how to use it. Suddenly, they decided to pull back and take out a lot of the features, so much so that you actually couldn't load files from the previous version into the most-recent version. They went and did just this.

One could say, "That's suicide." They got rid of all those high-end folks who were using that product. But Apple was seeing it differently. They were quite clear on this. They thought that the people who would want to make movies in their home, who would want something that was more sophisticated than their other iMovie product, would be willing to have this new thing if it was simpler.

They thought there was more money in that market than in the niche, independent-filmmaker market. That's what they did. But they didn't have to do it. They could do what almost every other company does and wait for a competitor to come out with a simpler version that takes over the market.

Now, Apple did renege and take a couple steps back and take the old version and put it out, and there's some talk that they're going to keep upgrading the two products on different paths now. That's actually really hard, because that old product-upgrade route is probably not going to generate the revenue it needs to actually pay for the features that those high-end folks want. Those guys want really sophisticated, crazy features that are expensive to build, but there just aren't enough of them.

This is a really interesting point. This is strategy. We are talking strategy here.

What we're really looking at, in its most simplest form, is something we call experience rot, which is that as we add features, we add complexity and we degrade the experience. It turns out that we have to be really, really careful.

We're not the first ones to notice this. Our friends over 37signals wrote about this back when they wrote their first book, "Getting Real," which is you've got to start with saying no. You have to actually curate the features and functionality that you put into your product.

It's really important that we understand how to curate things. When we talk about performance payoff, the real strategy part of this is not thinking of features we should put in, but figuring out how we're going to prune the experience rot out of every release and have a strategy for doing that. We want to make sure that we keep making that investment to delight people by having the simplest, easiest-to-use product, and just because we can put a feature in doesn't mean we should put a feature in.

Now, the other piece of this, the other trend here, is basic expectations. Basic expectations say that you have to make a decent investment. Notice it's on the right side of the chart. The investment that you have to make is actually a pretty high investment relative to other things.

The other interesting thing about this is that that investment doesn't buy you a whole lot. Go back to the hotel. For most guests who've stayed at hotels before, they have this crazy expectation that when they turn on the water in the shower, it's going to be hot almost instantly. Think about this for a second. We don't think about it, really, ever. It's just this expectation. You go, you turn on the water, you expect to get in. It's part of how the deal works.

Imagine a hotel that's 30 stories high. On the 30th floor, you turn on that shower. You expect that water to be hot instantly. How does that happen? Getting water up 30 stories is actually really hard to begin with. Getting it up there so that it's hot instantly is really hard. In my house, I have two floors. I have a basement and a first floor. It takes a good four minutes for the hot water to make it from the basement to the first floor. How the hell does the hot water get to the 30th floor in seconds in a hotel?

The way that works is that the hotel is running a circulator. The circulator is constantly going, pushing hot water across the 30 floors, whether anyone's using it or not at that very moment, so that at any given time hot water is just a few inches from the mouth of the spigot.

We see this happening all the time in a lot of places. We've been studying Netflix customers for years now. In recent years, we've been hearing a lot more frustration from them than we used to hear. Back in the days when they were DVD-only, everybody loved Netflix, because of the depth of the collection and how you could get all sorts of great movies and the cost was good.

Now they have streaming, and streaming should be even better because you no longer have to wait for the DVDs. People have this expectation that the movies that they're going to get will be there streaming, and they don't understand why a movie like "Lost in Translation" is available for instant streaming but Bill Murray's "Stripes" is not.

If you're going to have one Bill Murray movie, why wouldn't you have all the Bill Murray movies? It can't be that much more expensive. They weren't that good.

It turns out that there's this frustration about that. This nascent idea of basic expectations is really, really key, because we don't know where all these expectations come from. This is the thing that will surprise most organizations. They think they're putting out something really awesome and they get completely blindsided by the missing expectation because they didn't do the research and they didn't figure it out.

You don't have to go much further than Apple's iOS6 to see a place where basic expectations just completely fell flat.

We're hearing stories that because of the problems iOS Maps, like this scene of a melted Las Vegas, don't adjust your set, this is what the actual picture looks like in iOS Maps of the strip in Las Vegas. Because of the quality issues here, the folks at Apple were completely, completely blindsided by the response they got because the maps didn't work like Google Maps did in the previous version.

The reason they decided to change was not because they felt that they had a better solution, though there are some features they've added that are pretty cool, and, in fact, those features are delightful. It's because they decided that they didn't want to pay Google anymore for the license to the map technology.

This was an internal business decision. What didn't occur to them, but it occurs to them now, is that the years and years of experience that Google had putting out quality maps and getting the quality of their maps to be great with thousands, I hear 10,000 quality people working on Google Maps, Apple was just not prepared for that.

Their worldwide map service is lacking and people had the expectation that it would be on par, if not better, than the previous release. When you say that out loud, you go, "Yeah, of course."

Apple certainly did nothing to set expectations. To say, "Hey, we're switching to this new thing and it's going to suck for a couple of years, but then it will get better." That's not what they did.

Now, to be fair, there are all sorts of very cool things in the new Apple iOS6 Maps. The turn-by-turn directions, when they have the right directions, work really amazingly well. My favorite thing is something you don't hear about at all, but iOS6 Maps is completely accessible to the blind. You can set it up in voice and sound mode so that it makes sound queues to tell you if you are walking in the right direction or not.

If you go off the path, the sound in the speakers change slightly to tell you if you've turned to the left or turned to the right. And you can just, by pointing the phone, figure out the right bearing.

You can use it as a compass. You can use it as directions. It will announce the streets as you walk past them in a city. It turns out that as a navigation tool for the blind, there's nothing better. And, of course, that's going to delight people with vision issues, tremendously.

It's not that they've completely screwed this thing up, but that one thing, quality of the data, that was something that just obviously caught them by surprise and they were not aware of that.

That's the way basic expectations hit you in the face. You don't realize that you've done this and suddenly you've got an army of customers telling you that they expected better and now you're in this panic mode to deal with this. Anything you can do upfront to figure this out is going to be hugely critical to your user experience strategy.

Here's the deal. If you don't make the investment, all you end up doing is causing a lot of frustration. You make things really frustrating for your users. But you make that investment and the best you can achieve is neutral satisfaction. Edible.

Had Apple made the investment that Google had made and gotten the quality of those maps up to par, the best they would see out of that is neutral satisfaction. Nobody would say, "I'm so pleased that this museum is right where it's supposed to be on the map." That's not what people would talk about.

When we're talking about basic expectations, what we're talking about is making sure we've met that minimum bar. When we don't meet the minimum bar, we're really opening up the doors for the competitors.

Now, one of the things that people ask me about a lot, I want to clear up. Expectations are different than consistency. Oftentimes, people think the way to solve the expectations problem is to make the application or the product or service consistent with things. While there's something to be said about having it so certain menu items are always in the same place or certain buttons always look the same, what you're really doing there is meeting the users expectations of where those menu items should be or what those buttons should look like.

We don't want to actually make our design consistent. That's a goal we shouldn't focus on. If you have consistency as your core value, you're going to make your life hell.

What you want to do is focus on meeting the users expectations, and the key to meeting users expectations is you have to have a way of discovering the users expectations. You have to know what those expectations are so you can meet them.

Of course, if they expect, because they have previous experience with your design or somebody else's design, that things are going to be in a certain place and certain way, then yeah, you've got to design for that. But that isn't about being consistent. It's about meeting expectations.

Once you get it in your head that you're all about meeting expectations, your job gets actually a lot easier, in some ways. But it gets a lot harder because you actually now have to go out and discover expectations.

Consistency is a lazy man's approach because consistency doesn't require that you go out and do any user research. Consistency just says, "We're going to be consistent with some target." You just figure out what the target is and just imitate it. You don't have to do user research to get there. Expectations require that you do the research. You make the investment.

That's the deal with how this works, the deal with basic expectations. You can't get there without making the investment. It just doesn't happen.

Yesterday, we published an article about failed and missed expectations. Failed expectations are things like Apple Maps where, had they used the product themselves, they would have been able to find this thing. The amount of research it would take. It's really an introspection process. It's clear that around the San Francisco area, the maps actually work pretty well. Once you get out of the San Francisco area, that's where you start to run into trouble.

When you see a lot of the problems that people are reporting, they're in places like Scotland and Turkey and there's a township in Ireland called Airfield, which doesn't have an airport in it, but for some reason, the computer generated map symbol thing put an airfield icon there. The government of Ireland got all upset because they were afraid some pilot would look at their phone and think there was an airfield where there wasn't an airfield in the city of Airfield.

They needed to fix that problem. There's lots of little things like that. Those are failed expectations.

Missed expectations are things that you just didn't even know users would want, didn't even know users would try and do. Missed expectations are much harder because you actually have to go and do the research. You have to go and see what users are trying to do, how they are trying to work here.

It's those basic expectations, the failed ones and more importantly, the missed ones, that cause extreme frustration and inevitably will get your product into trouble.

The deal here is these things don't necessarily have to be big. Yesterday, in the article, I talked about double underlines and how bookkeepers use double underlines as a way to signify that a number is grand total of all the things above. When things like Google spreadsheet don't have a capability to insert a double underline, it's not a big deal, except that it pisses off bookkeepers.

And lots of those little things, when combined, become what we call the death of a thousand cuts, so we need to make sure that we're not killing ourselves that way. Because when we do all this and we miss expectations, that's where competitors come in and produce products that take away our market and that's where we get into trouble.

We're going to take a little break here for questions, like we do. When we come back from that break, we're going to talk about excitement generators and I'm going to introduce to you, if you haven't seen it already, Dana Chisnell wonderful "Three Approaches to Delight."

We're going to talk about how innovations comes into our strategy and the tactics that we can use to actually turn this in, because as a wise person once said, "Strategy is what, in your business hierarchy, strategy is what the people above you are talking about and tactics are what the people below you need to do." We're going to figure out what those tactics should be.

But, right now, I think it would be awesome to hear some questions. So, Adam, do we got any questions?

Adam: We certainly do. We've got some good ones.

The folks at Work at Play want to know what research methods are particularly good for unearthing customer questions.

Jared: That's exactly what we're going to talk about at the end of the next section. But it's going to be a combination of -- I'll give you a teaser -- lab stuff and field stuff and also working with some other folks in your organization. But we'll talk about that coming up.

Adam: Jared, we know, that a lot of folks get, a lot of organizations get bogged down into really focusing on those satisfaction surveys and really trying to, and in a lot of cases, meet simply basic expectations. Fred's wondering if you can talk about maybe some of the organizations that you've worked with that have gotten out of that funk.

Has it been driven from sea level executives down, or have folks, a small handful of folks within an organization been able to champion the effort to reach towards delight?

Jared: Where it starts and what it takes to actually execute are really two different things. In some organizations, you see it starting from the top because there's some problem in the business that people are seeing coming and they need to start reacting to it.

The problem is that if you don't really understand how these things happen, you end up doing silly things like the CEO at Hyatt did by making these pronouncements of what you're going to do to delight customers without dealing with the basic expectation problem. That gets you into trouble.

It can't just be at the top. It's got to be coming from the bottom because, at some level, this is an execution issue. And, you've got to be focused completely on executing this right and if you're not executing this on all three parts of the Kano model, you're going to fail.

Whether it starts at the top or it starts at the bottom, it has to be all the way through the organization. That's the way strategies work, right. Strategies are basically a collection of principles and ideals and rules by which everybody is going to deal with the particulars of the tactics. It's going to help you say yes. It's going to help you say no. It's going to help you figure out where you spend and it's going to help you figure out where you save.

And, you have to have that strategy clear and everybody has to be clear as to what it is.

This is the thing. You can't have a strategy that's known only to a couple of people and then have everybody else execute on that strategy. It doesn't work that way. You have to have everybody aware of the strategy, and they have to know how that strategy translates into the day-by-day and minute-by-minute decisions that they are making.

The customer support people know what they are doing. The people at the desk at the hotel know what they're doing. The people that are working on the website know what they're doing. The people in housekeeping know what they're doing. Everybody in the organization has to know this and they all have to know how it all fits together. All of this is part of the user experience.

We can sit here and say, "I'm only responsible for digital. I'm only responsible for what happens on the website, or I'm only responsible for what happens in the app," that's where you start to lose because experience is the whole gamut. It's the whole enchilada and you can't just focus on one little piece. It has to be all the way through.

The organizations that succeed at this spend a lot of time hammering that strategy all the way through and refining it as questions come up and things happen.

Adam: Jared, Andrea wants to know how the Kano Model speaks to the success of a no-frills industry, like the airline industry. Features like food that used to be the basic expectation. They've stripped that stuff away. How are they still having success? How are they still generating lots of business?

Jared: They generate lots of business because they don't give people choice. It's actually very hard for a new airline to come in and compete in that market. Several have tried. Jet Blue is probably doing the best of it. Southwest is up there. Virgin America is trying very hard to make inroads into that marketplace, and what's interesting is that they are doing it by switching things up a little.

But you're absolutely right. Food was a basic expectation, but then, unilaterally, the entire industry decided to say, "Yeah, too bad." And they took it away. Then, as soon as they took it away, you could have it as an expectation, but since you didn't have a competitive choice to go to someone who still offered it, you were basically out of luck.

The market, actually, works because it's able to keep competitors out. The way that it keeps competitors out is through a whole bunch of silly things, like the fact that the number of gates at airports is extremely limited. For an airline like Virgin America to be able to add more routes to their map and compete with a United or an American, they'd have to get a whole boatload more gates than they have. And because gates are so limited, the price for a new gate is rocking expensive.

The bigger airlines just lock them up. They actually have gates they pay for just to keep their competitors out that they don't use on a regular basis. That's just one of many things that caused the airline industry to be in this position.

You see the same thing in banking. You see the same thing in a handful of other industries. People are trying to gnaw at the edges of it. Health care is one where you see concierge health care, which is gnawing at the edges of standard health care, but standard health care is still tied up because of the way the insurance companies work.

But you can count the number of industries where that happens on two hands, and everybody else is actually in a pretty fair market where people have choice. And being in a fair market where people have choice, it suddenly becomes much more difficult to do that thing.

Adam: Stan wants to know how we change that mindset that wants consistency.

Jared: Well, the best way to do it is to actually get the people who are insistent on consistency to actually start watching users. As soon as they start watching users, they'll see that users aren't that interested in consistency all the time. They're inconsistent about their need for consistency. So that will start creating these problems for their mindset where they can't predict when they'll want it and when they won't. And then you can say, "This is based on expectations."

If you have a customer who only used one of 10 different products you own, the fact that that product works like the other nine products doesn't matter. The fact that you've made it harder for that one product because you've decided to make it work like products that are unlike it but happen to be owned by the same producer is crippling and frustrating.

And so, then, you're faced with this challenge. Do we make it easier for the user and less frustrating and therefore more delightful, or do we keep it frustrating just because we think all of the ways we do this one operation should be consistent even though the user won't experience it on any more than this one place.

Once they start to see that problem, it becomes pretty clear which way they should go and consistency starts to dissipate like a wisp in the fog and expectations is what you end up working on. I have to write that down. It was pretty good.

Adam: Very poetic.

Jared: Thank you.

Adam: Jared, let's sneak one more in before we jump back in. The team at Seiber wants to know how you handle expectations for a product with a very diverse international user group.

Jared: Welcome to the world of personas, ladies and gentlemen. What you need to do is you need to start figuring out which audiences you're going to focus on and who you're going to build for. It is very, very hard to build one thing for everyone. What you end up doing is making food that's edible. That's how school cafeterias work.

You need to ask yourself, do you want to be a great restaurant or do you want to be an institutional cafeteria. If you're happy with the institutional cafeteria, and by the way, there's a lot of money in institutionalism, then stop trying to be everything to everybody. But if the true goal, if the strategy is to become that great restaurant and move beyond institutional thinking, then you have to start saying, "What are we not going to do?"

A lot of folks do that. If you want to step outside the computer industry, one of the organizations that I think does this fabulously is "Cirque Du Soleil." They very early on said, "Well, we're going to provide a circus, but we're not going to have any animals." The basic expectation of circus is animals. You've got an elephant. You've got a lion. You've got horses. You've got to have the animals. The dogs that jump through the little rings. They've all got to be there.

But Cirque didn't go that route. No animals. Of course, once you have no animals, your cost structure goes down tremendously. What it takes to move the circus from one city is about one-fifth the cost. Yet, somehow or other, Cirque manages to actually charge more money. In fact, Cirque makes more money every day than all of Broadway, and their next-biggest circus competitor, Barnum and Bailey, they are 10 times bigger than them.

They have less cost by saying no to what they're doing, and they said, "Look, we're only going to go after adult audiences. When we only go after adult audiences, we can actually charge $150 or $200 a ticket and get those prices." Because you're not going to pay $200 for a three-year-old to go to the circus. Well, some people do, but I'm not going to pay 200 for that, even if I had a three-year-old. I wouldn't even pay $200 to get a three-year-old.

The key thing is that, all of a sudden, when they said no, they could do things that they couldn't do when they were saying yes to everyone. The trick is to decide, are you going to be that institution, or are you going to go and be that fine-dining, great restaurant? You can be a great restaurant that has inexpensive food. You can be a great restaurant that has expensive food. You can do however you want, but you're not going to do that by trying to be everything to everybody.

Adam: Jared, let's dive back in.

Jared: Let's talk about excitement generators. This is exciting!

The way this works is very simple. You can actually get delight from a very, very small investment. If we go back to our journey map, the way to think about how delight maps in is we look at all those frustrating bits and we ask the question, what happens when we make it all just be delightful? We do that by grabbing those worst frustrating bits and just, through baby steps, working their way up, one little piece at a time, until we get to the point where we've got even delight all the way across.

That's really the key to excitement generators. Now, where the Kano Model stops is that he doesn't really define how you get there. But, fortunately, Dana Chisnell has been doing some really cool work in this area. She's taken this a bit further.

She says that there are basically three components to delight. Three approaches. You can go for pleasure, you can enhance flow, or you can increase meaning. Those three things, one or more of them, are ways to generate excitement from the customer.

What's really interesting is that in Dana's model, it actually maps to the amount of investment you have to make. Pleasure is much cheaper than meaning. I'll show you what I mean. Our friends over at MailChimp have this application that lets you send out mail. They're an email provider.

Every time you bring up the dashboard for the product, Freddy has something to say. He says, "If I ever lose my job, I'm opening up an octopus shoe store." Which there was a link to someone's who sold octopus shoes I guess.

Or, "Lauren, I'll be back for more bananas." Now, he doesn't always say Lauren. He just says Lauren because Lauren's the person here who sends out our emails. "Lauren, you know it's hard out there for a chimp."

Every time, it's something a little different. They got hundreds of these things. Freddy's always got something crazy to say. The thing is that customers love Freddy. They're always talking about it. They get emails about it. People write in to see how Freddy's doing.

He's just one of these elements. This doesn't cost very much. This is really inexpensive. They keep putting it there. But it does have some investment, because you have to write all these things.

You have to think about writing them all of them. As they started to do this more, they actually came up with a persona for Freddy. Using a traditional UX persona, they documented what Freddy's experience should be and how he approaches the world and what he should say.

They've come up with this great little sub-site. If you just Google "MailChimp Voice and Tone," you'll see this site that is basically just a style guide, but it's specifically a style guide to how their jokes and their humor come out. They have very specific rules, like when the server's having a problem or where there's an error message, you're not supposed to joke at that point. You're supposed to show empathy and let people know that you know that they're frustrated and you'll get back to them.

They've created this entire set of guidelines. Of course, creating this guideline set is fairly expensive. It takes effort. Policing it and training everybody to use it and making sure that the whole organization understands it, there's an investment there.

Even the cheapest of delighters has a cost associated with it, just helping people understand when they're supposed to smile and when they're supposed to be chummy with a guest, versus when they shouldn't be and they should be professional. When somebody's having a medical emergency, being chummy and joking around probably isn't an appropriate moment. When someone's not happy because something happened -- let's say the fire alarm went off in the middle of the night and sleep was lost -- joking around then, too, probably isn't going to go well.

You have to train your staff to be able to know when it's appropriate and when it's not and what type of response is good when. That costs. Even the nicest thing, like "smile and just be courteous," that's got a cost associated with it. You have to understand that those costs are there.

This idea of pleasure, it's easy to get there. Good aesthetic, good copy -- those are the things that we know about in design that get us to that point.

Flow is different. Flow has to do with, how is it that we make sure that we're not distracting our user? This goes back to the work of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, who wrote a fabulous book, which he boringly entitled "Flow." If you haven't read it, I highly recommend it.

In this seminal book, he talked about what happens when people achieve this mental state that he calls flow. The idea is that people are more productive, they are more able to concentrate, they do more creative work, they're able to produce work faster, when they are in this state of flow than when they're not.

The idea of being in flow has to do with concentrating. Have you ever been working on something and you've just been sitting there and you've just focused and you've gotten into this state where you've been working so hard that, all of a sudden, you look up and you realize, oh my gosh, hours have gone by and you haven't had any food, but you've gotten so much done, and it was just great?

What he found was that people who were really good at their work, one of the ways that they were really good was they got into this state of flow as best they could. It turned out that when they were in this state of flow, they were more productive, they were more creative, but they also were susceptible to interruption.

Something as simple as a phone ringing would break them out of flow. Something that only takes a second or two would break them out of flow, and then it would take them another half-hour to get back into flow. Flow happens in design, too. We can optimize for flow by removing distraction and making things easier.

One of the places that we see this is in things like insurance quotes. In the old days, when I started in this business, the first websites that came out for insurance, it would take 20, 25 minutes to get a quote for insurance, and you would have to fill out maybe 100, 150 different questions. You'd have to go in and put in your address and describe all your cars. Say what safety features the car has, because, of course, you know what safety features your car has.

If there are other cars in your household, you'd have to know the safety features of those too, and what makes and models they had. How much you paid for it and what date you bought it. Whether they'd ever been in an accident. Then you'd have to go through all the drivers and put all that information in.

Then, at the end, it would give you a quote. You'd spend 20 minutes filling out hundreds of questions to get there. People wouldn't finish. People wouldn't complete the task. In fact, insurance companies started just putting their phone number on every page so that they would get people to just finish on the phone. That was a more reliable way to get them to complete the process.

Then came along Progressive and Progressive changed everything. In Progressive, you just start by putting in your zip code. Then after you put in your zip code, you put in your name and your address. Then, this is the clever part, it goes off and it looks up your car. It actually goes and looks in the registry or department of motor vehicles database and finds what cars are registered at that address and shows you pictures of them. A little creepy, but it works.

What it does is says "If this is your car, how many miles?" Estimating the number of miles your probably have on it, based on how long you've had it, and how far you probably go to work. They then have you put in a little bit of information about the drivers and any other details. Then they give you a quote.

Average time? About six minutes for the average person to go through this process. Some can do it as fast as two to get a price for a quote. They've done this by not having you have to go and look up data and do all this stuff. They get all that from databases that already exist.

They know which car you have from the Motor Vehicles Department. They know what the make and model of that car is so they can look up the safety features that come standard in the car and just ask you if you have anything extra that you've added. They can guess on the mileage and they can guess on the drivers based on who's registered with the Department of Motor Vehicles.

All the sudden, they have all this information that they can get access to. They can actually even see in some cases other insurance policies that you have and the details of those insurance policies in a centralized database that was originally used for claims processing.

They now are able to put that together. They've automated out a lot of the work of getting a quote. They can come up with a pretty accurate quote. As a result, their completion rate and their conversion to actual policies is way higher than the industry average.

That's the idea behind flow, to make sure that you're removing all these steps and make it easier to do things. Another example of this would be setting up appointments for customer service calls, like getting a product fixed or repaired. Whereas before you'd come in and you'd spend a lot of time in a waiting room, auto mechanics are now taking on the same approach that doctors are. Even the Apple Store lets you make an appointment for a genius instead of coming in and signing up. That's the preferred way of doing it.

Suddenly, you can cut out a lot of that cruft and have just a beautiful flow. Those things are there. So we've talked about pleasure and flow, the next thing has to do with meaning.

Zipcar is a by-the-hour rental car website. They actually make it easy. They have a lot of flow-like things. They have great copy which makes them very pleasurable to work with, but they also have done amazing stuff with meaning. On Thanksgiving, you can rent a car for free and use it to deliver meals to people who otherwise wouldn't get Thanksgiving meals. On Election Day, they're giving half-off all their cars and encouraging people to help people get to the polls.

They're doing all these things that have a much bigger and better picture to them. That's more than just saving a little buck or getting access to a product. It's something bigger in the world.

A lot of companies do this. United Airlines, for example, tries to do this. They had a big campaign. They spent millions of dollars advertising that they were actually transporting the American Olympic and Paralympic teams to London for the festivities and the competition there. That got a lot of mileage.

But, like the Hyatt thing, people who are really frustrated by the fact that while the teams get to fly for free, their own flights are getting cancelled out from under them, or the service is miserable, or they're stuck on the tarmac for hours on end with no explanation. Those types of experiences are really, really difficult.

That experience is one that has to be met. You have to make sure you've got the basic expectations down or none of this works. Now, the way you build this out is really quite straight forward. You can get to these things, not with huge innovations, but with tiny little steps. If you look at a feature of iOS 6, for example, in iOS 5 and previous versions of the phone, when a phone call came in, you really had just two options.

You could either answer the phone or you could decline the call. Now with iOS 6 you have two more options, you can reply with a message or you can get reminded later. To reply with a message, you have canned messages or you can put in custom messages. It's just two taps and instead of the person having to leave a voicemail, you just quickly send a message that tells them what you're going to do.

Or you can say, "Remind me later about this call." It will remind you in a certain time period, when you leave wherever you are, or when you get your home or you get to your work. Of course, this is all possible because the phone knows where you are and you can tell it what the location of work is, what the location of home is. As a result, it can know these things, and because of that, it can go really well.

Suddenly, those little things, which really in the scope of things aren't that difficult to implement when bundled together, become a really cool set of features. That's what we're talking about here. What we're talking about is that you can get to innovative, delightful things by bundling up small features that are thoughtfully put together.

This isn't just randomly putting things in a package and saying, we're done. This is thinking about the user's experience, and working through those things as you go. That's key.

Going back to our map here, when your senior executive's saying, "This year, we're going to focus on innovation," we know what that is. Because we can take our current experience, think about our aspirational experience, that experience that is completely delightful. That space in between it, that space is called innovation, and so we can innovate in that way.

Excitement generatos are really about making sure we're looking at one more of these three things -- pleasure, flow and meaning. Making sure we've met our basic expectations, and innovating through these small bundles, knowing that at some point, these things that we're coming up with, they're going to become basic expectations.

In order to execute on this, we have to deal with a basic truth, which is that there are four states that at any point in time we can be in about our UX experience. We start in this world of what we call unconscious incompetence, where we don't know what we don't know.

We in fact think that we're doing a really good job, and we look at what we do, and say, "That's really awesome." Then we suddenly realize, "It's not as good as it could."

We start getting feedback and complaints, and suddenly, we've learned that we're not as competent as we thought we were, and we become conscious of our incompetence. The thing is, is that when we're in unconscious incompetence, we're actually pretty blissful, we're pretty happy, because we think we're doing a great job.

This minute we get to this conscious incompetent state, that's really depressing, that's really hard on morale. This is where having a great set of tactics to work on how we improve is going to be really key. It's all about the grind. You just have to plow through it.

There's no shortcuts. There's no easy way. In the grind, you then start focusing on what you're doing, you become competent. You begin to learn what people want, what people need, and you can start to get your processes down, so this is the stage of conscious competence.

Then you get to this point where you're so good at it, that you don't need to think about it, because it's in your nature, it's in your organization's DNA. You're able to do this. Having the strategy is one piece, but you also have to have a great set of tactics. The tactics that we have for doing this, are things we know how to do.

Nothing here in terms of making this happen is outside the realm of things we know how to do today, but, suddenly, we know when to apply it and how.

It gets as simple as things like monitoring customer support. People are calling your support lines all the time to tell you, to ask questions, how do I do X? I would bet that 90 percent of those is a plea for a missed expectation. Now, in many support organizations, they don't even record these calls.

They only record the problems, and if it's something the product just doesn't do, they just say, "I'm sorry, it doesn't do that," and they hang up, they get onto the next caller. Maybe they give them some hacky work-around, but that's that.

A good place to start, to find out about missed expectations, is to go to support, and start listening in on the calls. Start looking for those opportunities where people are asking to do things that they expect should be easy, that turn out to either not be easy or not be done at all, and to start cataloging those, and to start figuring out what's going on.

Now, chances are, if the support organization already catalogs them, the problem you run into there is that they probably aren't cataloging the context of why the person needs it, and what they're going to do with that feature.

Someone says, "I really wish that this thing had double underlines," they're not saying why it needs double underlines. Suddenly, you just have this feature, needs double underlines. The chances of you getting it right, in the right context, are slim.

This is why you have to go into the field. There is nothing that's a bigger case for field studies than putting together a great UX strategy. Field studies are an extremely effective way to get information from folks about both basic expectations and delighters, and those basic features that need to be in the performance payoff.

Going into the field, meeting with customers, seeing how they work, looking for hacks, anything that people are doing to work around the fact it's not there. Looking for things they do outside the product that you could make easier, looking for places it could be more pleasurable, looking for places where you could increase the flow, looking for places where you can deliver meaning.

All of those things can happen in field studies. Not cheap, but not that expensive either.

Then, the last piece of this, is to get back into the lab, and to make sure that you are conducting appropriate research. Basic, simple, standard usability tests won't solve it. Because standard usability tests typically use what we call scavenger hunt tasks, where you say, "Could you go look up how many shoes we have that are size eight"?

The user goes off and looks up how many shoes they have that are size eight, whether they care about shoes or they wear a size eight. Those tasks typically don't tell you very much about missed expectations or delighters. By using techniques such as interview-based task design, where you go and you...

The moderator spends the first 20 minutes or so of any session interviewing the participant in the study to learn about how they do what they do. To find out what kind of shoes they wear, to find out how they shop, to talk about the last time they bought shoes, whether online or in person. What that experience was. When did it go wrong? What happened there?

To have those conversations, and then, as a partnership between the moderator and the participant, to put together a little task or two that they would then execute on the design that you're interested in. Whether it's your design or a competitor's design, whether it's a prototype or a final design, to actually try it using this task that was just created out of the user's own experiences, matching up to what the user was just talking about.

When you do that, all of a sudden you discover those type of problems that come up for basic expectations, and you can figure out where flow issues are, and you can identify places you can be more pleasurable, all those types of things.

Another technique that we have, we call inherent value tests. Inherent value tests are basically a modified interview-based task design, where you bring in people who are completely loyal in a first group to the product. Who are dedicated to using it, and you have them give you basically a tour of the product, and what they love about it.

In essence, sharing all the meaning that they're getting from using this thing. Why do your best customers and best users use this thing all the time? You work with them on that, and they give you this tour, and they show you how they use it, and talk about their most recent experience, again using the interview-based task format.

Then from there, you bring in a second group of folks, who aren't as connected to the product or design. Who probably have never seen it or used it before, and you see if they can derive the same value and meaning from the thing, and if they have the same experience doing the same tasks that you just went through with the loyal, high-use group.

When you compare those two groups side-by-side, you learn a tremendous amount about what's easy and what's hard, what's clear and what's not. How people who are your existing customers, who are probably your most vocal ones and the ones always asking for the clever new features, how they're managing with the product and the hacks they've built, that new users are not going to get and need a much simpler, crystal-clear design.

It points you in the direction you need to go to know how to get there. Those are the basic tactics, and if you want to read more about interview-based task design, inherent value tasks, field studies, we have stuff on our website. We'll be posting on the blog some links later today, that you can go and check out and see how to do these things, if these are new ideas for you.

What I wanted to talk to you about today is this. We need to make sure that we've come up with a strategy that helps us prune those features that are going to get in the user's way out, so that we avoid experience rot. We have to focus on missed and failed expectations, and constantly be scouring our experience to know whether we're getting into trouble there.

We want to apply Dana's model of pleasure, flow and meaning to help us identify possible delighters that would be in some cases just easy to get into the design. In some cases, it's going to take a little work.

We want to always keep in mind that the delighters of today are going to be the basic expectations of tomorrow, including our competitor's delighters, and even things that have nothing to do with us. We're going to have to make sure that we're constantly diligent looking for what's happening today, and see, OK, what's the plan?

As soon as we see something's delightful, what's the plan for making it a basic expectation? How are we going to get that into our long-term strategy?

Finally, we want to make sure we're not too comfortable inside the bubble of unconscious incompetence, and that we're constantly pushing ourselves out. That's what I came to talk to you about.

Adam, do we got some questions?

Adam: We have some great questions. Livia makes a comment that, if one of your user expectations for your service is that there's a consistent tone across platforms, she considers that a point to be plotted in the model. Her question is, some don't necessarily see that as a feature. How do you articulate the nature of what needs to be included?

Jared: This is the problem with the word feature, because feature -- by its simplest definition -- is something that provides benefit to the user. Imagine you took all the words out of the interface, and you just had a pure symbol-driven version of it.

You just went into the wingbats font, and you just made all your buttons completely out of wingbats, and you made it so that it just didn't have any language at all. That would probably be a really frustrating experience.

Let's say you released it that way, you frustrated the hell out of your user base, and then in the next version you say, "Hey, we're going to let you upgrade and get actual words on your screen." Now that's a feature, because it provides benefit. The right words provide benefit.

If we want to use a feature-driven model, we have to make sure that everything that actually provides benefit gets into the feature list. That's a hard message for people who come out of a strict product-management world, where a feature list is something you can charge extra money for. If all your competitors just had symbol-driven interfaces, a word-driven interface would, in fact, be a benefit.

Back in the day of the WordPerfect word processor, if you wanted to make something bold or italics, you had to put in all these funky field codes. You couldn't just select it and say "bold." Suddenly, that's a feature in a word processor that was called Word for DOS that this little company called Microsoft came out with.

You could select something, press a button that said "bold," and it bolded it. That was new. In the old days, it was symbols, and it wasn't that long ago.

Words, copy, tone and voice -- they are definitely features. They are competitive features when matched up against your competitors who don't have those things. You have to broaden the view and say, "Does this provide benefit to the customer?" Yes. "OK, it's a feature."

Adam: Jared, Carlos wants to know your thoughts on consumer fanaticism. Does that sustain delight? How do you create fan boys, or is there a reason you might not want to do that?

Jared: They're expensive. If you want to get into this, there's a whole way to do this. The best discussion of this I have seen comes out of an organization who you don't usually think of in the design world, but has actually done quite a bit in this area, which is the "Gallup Organization."

These are the same people who do the presidential polls, tell us which candidate is tied with which other one every day. They actually did a whole bunch of studies on what they call customer engagement. Put together something called the "Gallup Customer Engagement 11," which is 11 questions.

In the 11 questions, they actually talk about this idea of getting customers so engaged that they are so passionate about the product or service or brand, that they can't imagine a word without that product or brand. They get really, really upset at the thought that something could go wrong there. That's where you get that notion of fanaticism.

One person's idea of fanaticism is another person's passionate customer. They go at it with this notion of passion.

Interestingly enough, if you look at the way they measure this, their Customer Engagement 11. Basically, at the bottom, there are questions that you have to tackle first. If there's a problem, will the brand take care of it for me?

If you don't believe that, if you don't believe that American Airlines is going to help you deal with this cancelled flight, then you're never going to be a fan boy for American Airlines. You can only be there if you have that belief.

The only way you can have that belief is if you have the experiences that tell you that when problems arise, the brand will take care of it. The same comes with an online experience. The online experience has to know that when an error pops up, you're not just thrown into space.

That in fact, something is going to happen and you're going to get a good result out of it. I would start by looking at that work that Gallup has done, and go in that direction. But yeah, it's expensive. You may not want to make that investment.

Adam: Jared, we're almost out of time but let's sneak one more in. Jennifer wants to know, is it worthwhile to pursue delight when you're still trying to get from frustration to satisfactory?

Jared: Depending on your marketplace, if you are less frustrating than all your customers, you are automatically more delightful. Yes, pursuing delight, to start with, is to get all those frustrating bits and to really hone in.

Remember, though, that your competitors are going to be right on your heels, and every move you make to get rid of frustration, and you put the research in and you make the investment, some of it they're going to be able to easily copy and just put into their thing and therefore they become slightly less frustrated. You're going to have to keep making that investment over and over and over again.

You can do it but to jump right into meaning when you still have major basic-expectation problems, that's a really problematic thing, and that's really difficult.

Adam: Jared, thanks so much for joining us today.

Jared: You're welcome.

Adam: Just some upcoming virtual seminar announcements for our audience. We've got a few great ones to, believe it or not, wrap up the year. Des Traynor joins us on November 15 to talk about microcopy on your site. If you've been thinking about calls to action on your buttons, how to label form fields, all that very important thinking, he's going to help you through that.

At the end of November, PPK's going to join us and talk about "Global Solutions for Countless Devices." Talked to him this morning about his talk, and it's going to be a good one.

Then, in December, Derek Featherstone joins us again. He's the guy we turn to. He's our expert on accessibility. This particular presentation is going to be fantastic, because he's talking about accessibility as a design tool and how, when you actually focus on things for folks that have challenges or disabilities, that you can actually not only solve their problems, but make your design better.

Even more to think about, 2013 planning is underway and we have some awesome things to share with you. Stay tuned. You can get all the details at uieves.com. It's U-I-V-E-S.com.

We still have a few spots left for UI 17 and we hope that you'll take one of them. You can up your game with our full day workshops. We've got advanced design processes, flexible team based techniques, and innovative multi-device solutions.

Its three days you're not going to want to miss. Please come join us. Boston's a great place to be in November. You can get all the details at uiconf.com. U-I-C-O-N-F.com.

Lastly, you're about to be redirected to a feedback forum for today's seminar. Tell us what we've done well, what we can do better. If you miss it, don't worry. There'll be a follow up email where you can get it as well. We appreciate you joining us today.