Why is your beautiful product failing

This is an interesting fact about the Craig list. It looks like it was designed in 1995, well, it was basically. Purple links, text wall, zero visual classification. Design students use it for example what to do. And yet it takes millions of transactions every month, while dozens of beautifully designed rivals have died in an attempt to eliminate it.

This should bother you. It bothers me. As a product manager, we should know better. We talk about user experience, design thinking, and all this jazz. But then the Craig list sat there, as an ugly sin, Make money on the fist.

The painful fact is that business and product teams love the wrong things. We are obsessed with the perfect interface while users just want to do things. We discuss the type of type, while the humorous breath rivals eat our lunch. It’s not just about aesthetics – it’s mainly about misunderstandings that make the product successful.

Take Google’s homepage Sarka 1999. Warl. Brutal. Just one logo and a search box. Meanwhile, Yahoo was building this beautiful portal with news, weather and stock prices. Yahoo had a better design than every traditional move. More features better visual rating. Original graphics. Google looked like a student plan. Looks like who won.

Related: Good product design is more than aesthetics – how to make a beautiful balance with practical to attract more investors

Design Theater

Psychology is interesting behind it. One important 34.6 % visitors Worldwide has indicated that they strongly support the information structure that are easy and easy to understand. Still, somehow, when we are producing the product, we agree that consumers want a bit more sophisticated. More beautiful. More beautiful.

When I say the “design theater” – when the purpose becomes a performance art rather than the work. You see it everywhere. Startups spend months that they complete their plane dynamic images while their basic products barely work. Enterprise software companies are hiring expensive design agencies to create “delightful experiences” for users that only need to export the spreadsheet.

Reddest is another great example. Is Reddate 234 million unique users8.19 billion monthly page view and 25 million daily votes. It all looks like it has not been updated since 2005. This site works because it provides exactly what users want: content, conversation and community. No Milan. No micro interaction. Just things that are important.

Preferred vs. the original behavior

But this is the place where it is interesting. Consumers say they want a beautiful design. They really do. In surveys and focus groups, they will tell you that they prefer the PRETER option every time. Then they go home and use ugly that actually works.

It is important to disconnect between priority and original behavior that product managers expect to take advantage of the data and understand emerging techniques, considering tailor talks and user needs. Data focuses differently from groups. Always trust the data.

Related: Your product design can cost your customers. Here you are doing wrong (and how to fix it).

How do you know when the form vs. Function is preferred? This is my framework.

First, understand what your product is doing. Of the Clayton Christinson “There are jobs to be“The theory applies exactly here. No one has a cragging list to have a beautiful browsing experience. They hire it to sell their sofa or find an apartment. The ugliness helps in reality-it indicates that this is a nonsense market where real people do real transactions.

Second, find your doorstep of acceptable ugliness. Yes, this is a real thing. Each product category requires baseline aesthetic. Dating apps need to look better than tax software. But even in the category, there is amazing flexibility. The hacker’s news is frightening and fostering. Designer News looks beautiful and struggle. The same audience, the same purpose, different results.

Third, check your assumptions brutally. Not with the survey. Not with the interview. With real behavior. Launch an ugly version and a beautiful version. See which one changes better. You may be surprised. I have seen this game dozens of times – wins the “worse” design because it loads fast, works well on mobile or gets out of the user’s way.

Product managers are retreating on the first idea of ​​design without becoming a villain. You do not want to be the person who killed happiness. But you can’t allow your team to raise anything for six months that should have been sent in two weeks.

What does it work

Frame everything in terms of user results. Instead of arguing whether the button should be four pixels or six pixels, ask what issue you are solving. Instead of discussing colorful schemes, talk about academic burden. Talk about the aesthetics but about the effectiveness.

Also, celebrate the ugly victory. When the price of the Reddit collides with another billion, mention it. When the Craig list describes another contenders, bring it out. Create a culture that gives importance to the consequences.

This does not mean that you make ugly products to be aimed at. Delicious design can certainly make good products great, but it only makes a difference when the product is really useful, useful and reliable in the first place. The point is that you set your preferences correctly. First work. Then the form is always in this order.

Related: The art of making excellent products

The most successful product gets sweet location – enough design to not actively remove users, but not much so that it gets in the way to work. They understand that sometimes, ugly is exactly what users need.

Your beautiful product may fail because you are solving the wrong problem. You’re making it beautiful when you are working. This is a net. And now you know how to avoid it.