Comments on: 7 ways to define an emotionally engaging product http://andrewchenblog.com/2007/04/15/7-ways-to-define-an-emotionally-engaging-product/ Essays on viral marketing, freemium, and social gaming Sun, 30 Oct 2011 02:46:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Gabe http://andrewchenblog.com/2007/04/15/7-ways-to-define-an-emotionally-engaging-product/comment-page-1/#comment-730 Gabe Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:46:25 +0000 http://andrewchenblog.com/2007/04/15/7-ways-to-define-an-emotionally-engaging-product/#comment-730 <p>>The interesting point of being able to make your website bond to the core emotions of >the audience is that you then start to compete on a different plane.</p> <p>I agree with you regarding the importance of emotional attachment to a service in general.</p> <p>However, you've suggested in earlier posts that sites should - through their design and branding - try to evoke the specific emotions associated with a site’s product/service category. Therefore, travel sites should evoke the mystery of travel and dating sites should evoke the seductive intrigue of courtship. </p> <p>Perhaps. But, from a branding perspective, there’s nothing on the Flickr website that would really tell you it’s a service related to photographs. </p> <p>I think the most important element of branding – especially in the early stages – is for the people behind the service to be passionate about the product category. I love Pandora and Lala, but there’s nothing especially music-y about the brands and site design. However, if their branding fails to make me feel like I just scored front-row seats for my favorite band, that’s OK. After seeing that a service works, I like to get a sense for who the people running the show are and whether they care about the community. And I get the sense that the people behind Pandora and Lala really like music and musicians.</p> <p>eHarmony contravenes your advice and completely divests the dating experience of any intrigue. Some doddering psychologist created a test and a computer has matched you, now go and meet your potential love for eternity. Yikes. Nothing too flirty there. Yet the company invests all of its branding into trying to convince you that a) the service works, and b) the people behind the service really care about helping people find love. And that’s what seems to matter the most.</p> <p>I suppose I don’t disagree with you as a matter of fact – sure it’s great to be able to connect with relevant core emotions in your audience. I just don’t agree with you as a matter of priority. Besides, historically, trying too hard to brand websites resulted in websites drenched in annoying Flash. In its place has come a welcome emphasis on speed, trust, discovery, authenticity, and community.</p> <p>In short, if I’m understanding your thinking correctly after subscribing to your blog for a month or two (perhaps I’m oversimplifying or missing some key gloss), I agree with you on the importance of emotions, but disagree with you on how to provoke them. In other words, I agree that emotion as you define it in the general sense in this post is important. I just don't think the emotions have to be directly related to the vertical in question. </p> >The interesting point of being able to make your website bond to the core emotions of >the audience is that you then start to compete on a different plane.

I agree with you regarding the importance of emotional attachment to a service in general.

However, you’ve suggested in earlier posts that sites should – through their design and branding – try to evoke the specific emotions associated with a site’s product/service category. Therefore, travel sites should evoke the mystery of travel and dating sites should evoke the seductive intrigue of courtship.

Perhaps. But, from a branding perspective, there’s nothing on the Flickr website that would really tell you it’s a service related to photographs.

I think the most important element of branding – especially in the early stages – is for the people behind the service to be passionate about the product category. I love Pandora and Lala, but there’s nothing especially music-y about the brands and site design. However, if their branding fails to make me feel like I just scored front-row seats for my favorite band, that’s OK. After seeing that a service works, I like to get a sense for who the people running the show are and whether they care about the community. And I get the sense that the people behind Pandora and Lala really like music and musicians.

eHarmony contravenes your advice and completely divests the dating experience of any intrigue. Some doddering psychologist created a test and a computer has matched you, now go and meet your potential love for eternity. Yikes. Nothing too flirty there. Yet the company invests all of its branding into trying to convince you that a) the service works, and b) the people behind the service really care about helping people find love. And that’s what seems to matter the most.

I suppose I don’t disagree with you as a matter of fact – sure it’s great to be able to connect with relevant core emotions in your audience. I just don’t agree with you as a matter of priority. Besides, historically, trying too hard to brand websites resulted in websites drenched in annoying Flash. In its place has come a welcome emphasis on speed, trust, discovery, authenticity, and community.

In short, if I’m understanding your thinking correctly after subscribing to your blog for a month or two (perhaps I’m oversimplifying or missing some key gloss), I agree with you on the importance of emotions, but disagree with you on how to provoke them. In other words, I agree that emotion as you define it in the general sense in this post is important. I just don’t think the emotions have to be directly related to the vertical in question.

]]>