More Related Content
Similar to Website redesign as a cause of consumer dissatisfaction
Website redesign as a cause of consumer dissatisfaction
- 1. Website redesign asa cause ofconsumer dissatisfaction IFF 2-2 student Abdul Ruhulla Moscow 2016
- 2.
- 3. 8% decrease inonline
- 5. • 2 yearsof making new website design; • Redesign cost: £150 million; • Without possibility to return to old website. • Laura Wade-Grey, CEO of M&S, hired team of 50 software developers; • They attempted a startup innovation approach to redesigning this website • This was a replatform moving away from the Amazon platform. “We want to own our car, not rent it“ Laura Wade-Grey
- 6. The most commoncomplaints of visitors: • Problems with registration and resetting passwords; • Different and bad navigation; • Problems with finding items; • Erratic delivery of items. Items delivered to the wrong address; Users were asking for the old website to be brought back:
- 7. Abandoning of 6 millionuser database Customers had to unlearn and relearn how to use the website Orders were delivered to random addresses Technical issues and bugs Unable to order items Changing everything “overnight” Customers got accustomed to the old website Need of re-registrstration Previously stored details were invalid 8% decrease in online sales Stock numbers were erratic, showing that the item was out of stock 2 years of redesign £150 million cost 50 software developers Cause Effect• Or fishbone diagrams • Or cause-and- effect diagrams • Or Fishikawa ISHIKAWA DIAGRAMS WHAT WENT WRONG?
- 8. WHAT COULD THEYHAVE DONE TO AVOID IT? Amazon experience: 1. Avoid radical redesign (“Big Launches”); 2. Constantly changing individual pages and elements, but doing so on the basis of A/B or MVT testing; 3. Test how changes affect user behavior and business performance; 4. Only after the analysis of the data to decide whether to introduce a new design. At this stage it would take the learnings and move towards the global maxima with the redesign process.
- 9. Traffic drop andloss of
- 11. • A siteso popular that when it pointed its users at website, it caused a massive increase in traffic, making site not working (“Digg effect”); • Google wanted to buy site for $200 million, but it did not happen; • Digg's v4 release on August 25, 2010, was marred by site-wide bugs and glitches. • Digg - one of the first news aggregator; • The site's main function: to let users discover, share and recommend web content, making it viral; • At its peak, over 40 million unique visitors every month and over 236 million visitors annually;
- 12. • Digg leftthe main goal, stopped to follow its path and focused on trends; • After the redesign everything mixed up, and the site has lost its peculiarity; • In 2008, the company's market capitalization was about $160 million; • in 2012 the site was sold for $500 thousand; • It is possible that one of the reasons for the failure turned out to be redesign.
- 13. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Jan 2010 Feb2010 Mar 2010 Apr 2010 May 2010 Jun 2010 Jul 2010 Aug 2010 Sep 2010 Oct 2010 Nov 2010 Dec 2010 Digg traffic Reddit traffic • In the first two months after the redesign of the site, traffic on Reddit increased by 24%, with no major changes in the site; • With high probability we can assume that some users switched from Digg to Reddit.
- 14. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 5000000 10000000 15000000 20000000 25000000 30000000 35000000 40000000 45000000 v1 (2004 -0%) v2 (2005 - 8%) v3 (2006 - 15%) v4 (2010 - 25%) v5 (2012 - 52%) Unique users per month Cumulative % • v1 - Users could vote that page up ("digg") or down ("bury"). many websites added "digg" buttons to their pages, allowing users to vote as they browsed the web. (0% of changes); • v2 – new interface. New features included a friends list, and the ability to "digg" a story without being redirected to a success page. (8%); • v3 - specific categories for technology, science, world and business, videos, entertainment and gaming, as well as a "view all" section that merged all categories. Peak of 40 million users monthly. (15%); • v4 - marred by site-wide bugs and glitches. Digg users reacted with hostile verbal opposition. (25%); • v5 – full redesign and change of concept. (52%). Digg “buried” itself, like a bad content on it before. • Or the 80–20 rule; • Or the law of the vital; • Or the principle of factor sparsity. PARETO PRINCIPLE WHAT WENT WRONG?
- 15. v1 v2 v3 v4 v5 Little change(Good) A lot of change (Bad)
- 16. WHAT COULD THEYHAVE DONE TO AVOID IT? Reddit experience: 1. Do not be influenced by all the trends that surround web business; 2. Do not make a large-scale redesign, which changes the concept of the project; 3. Before rolling out a new website design for the entire audience, conduct A/B-tests on a small proportion of users; 4. If it is possible, do not change anything at all. 2010 2016
- 17.
- 19. • Basecamp Classic,launched in 2004; • "the new Basecamp“ v2, launched in 2012. Was considered by them as a failure; • Basecamp Personal, a reduction of the 2012 version. Return to old design of registration; • Basecamp 3, launched in 2015. With fresh design. • Basecamp is a web-based project management tool developed by Basecamp and launched in 2004. • Basecamp offers to-do lists, wiki-style web- based text documents, milestone management, file sharing, time tracking, and a messaging system.
- 20. The absolute numberof signups held steady, which fit with company’s expectation, so it wasn’t initially concerning problem When season of signups started, there was no increase in customers, as it was before
- 21. Loss of profits Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Conversionof visitors registration has declined Due to seasonality to new signups, but decline continued A signup form to enter the service greatly changed Constant dispute which option is the best: fast or well considered signup No one thought to hold A/B-testing and dispel doubts Absence of analysis of how authorization steps affects the use of the service FIVE WHYs WHAT WENT WRONG? Consumers were not satisfied with design
- 22. WHAT COULD THEYHAVE DONE TO AVOID IT? Basecamp correction work: 1. No one ever knows what will work best in a particular case; 2. All changes should be discussed within the team. 3. Decisions need to be made quickly; 4. Focus on something one; 5. Do not refuse A/B tests to check all hypotheses.
- 23. “This is thestory of how we made a change to the Basecamp.com site that ended up costing us millions of dollars, how we found our way back from that, and what we learned in the process.” Basecamp The net impact upon finishing the test and rolling out the change to 100% of traffic was clearly visible:
- 24. Dealing with emerged problems •M&S eliminated bugs, but design remained the same; • Cost of project was very high to just stop using redesigned site; • For big corporations 8% of loss in the short run is not a big deal. • Digg lost its influence and shares in news aggregator industry; • Completely changed their concept to attract new users; • For sites like Digg content matters more than design. • They stated that it is important to manage A/B-testing, to prevent doubt; • Listened to their customers to bring best ideas together; • Combined new design with no changes in features to satisfy customers.
- 25. 20% Use web analytics servicesfor conversion analysis 20% 20% 20% 20% Use of services for the analysis of user behavior on the page Perform user tests online or offline Need of qualitative audience analysis Make a detailed analysis of all the important web pages Conclusions
- 26. New Instagram Customers arevery sensitive to any changes, which can lead to different consequences: First significant redesign of Instagram was met with bad reviews, because people got used to it:
- 27. Get yourself preparedfor new VK design
- 28.
- 29. Reference s • http://www.digital-tonic.co.uk/digital-tonic-blog/went-wrong-marks- spencer-website-redesign-made-lose-sales/ • http://readwrite.com/2010/09/23/digg_redesign_tanks_traffic_dow n_26/ •https://signalvnoise.com/posts/3945-how-we-lost-and-found- millions-by-not-ab-testing