Developing new thinking for clients can often mean me beavering away, honing and polishing an idea until it shines with a high-gloss sheen, before sharing it with anyone else.
But in the spirit of moving from Research>Insight>Strategy to my new(ish) method of Research>Insight>Provocation (and then co-creating business strategy with my client), I decided to try a different approach to developing my thinking.
I came up with a model, jotted it onto Brushes on my iPad, then with it barely a sketch, sent it round to some of my smarter friends. I billed it as a “thinking toy” and invited them to play with it, and let me know what they thought.
Their answers were fascinating, not just in terms of what they added, but in terms of how they approached (or on some cases, didn’t approach) the task. And as a process for developing thinking, I’ll definitely use this again in the future. It’s like the online equivalent of scrawling on a paper napkin in a restaurant.
I’ve decided to post my friends’ comments below verbatim. Aside from their thoughts which really helped me see the gaps in the model, and the edges of its potential use, one of the most surprising things is how many are flattered to have been included in this list – it seems the smarter the folk, the more self-effacing they are. This was also reflected in the fact that several thought what they thought would have already have been covered by others.
Anyway, if you’d like to have a play with the toy, embedded above, and add your own comments, feel free…
From: Louise Benson (Director of Edinburgh TV Festival)
Subject: RE: Help me build a toy…
Date: 10 June 2013 23:07:00 GMT+01:00
To: Andrew Missingham
Thank you for considering me a smart friend! For what my small opinion is worth, I think there’s a further graph that pits the nicheness or specialism of the content against the need/desire for it. To my mind that will determine how far the consumer will go to pursue it. The more niche/specialist the need, the more you should err towards the content over interface part of the graph. Are you utility/mass market (low barrier to entry, content wise, so make the interface the lure) or are you expert (people will forgive you your interface foibles).
From: Louise Benson
Subject: basically…
Date: 10 June 2013 23:22:23 GMT+01:00
To: Andrew Missingham
…the better (and harder to replicate) the content the more you want to improve that, so it is NOT nice to know it is NEED to know. The interface can wait. The opposite also applies.
From: Michaeljon Alexander-Scott (Strategist, M&C Saatchi)
Subject: RE: Help me build a toy…
Date: 10 June 2013 12:25:09 BST
To: Andrew Missingham
Hi Andrew,
How are you?
I really like this. It made me think about a problem I was working on slightly differently. To very slightly answer your question, for me the question on what to concentrate on first depends on the context and market you’re going into.
Are there any competitors that have great content and poor interface, so that your client is a substitute? If so I would concentrate on interface.
Are there any competitors that have poor content and great interface? If so I would concentrate on content.
If neither already exists, and you’re after a specific demographic, I would focus on content first so as to gauge niche interest, then build out interface to take it broader.
I’m sure you’ve got your answer already, from the super-brains on the email. But thanks for sharing your model anyway.
From: Jane Young (Thinker & Entrepreneur)
Subject: Re: Help me build a toy…
Date: 30 May 2013 14:13:43 GMT+01:00
To: Andrew Missingham
Hi Andrew
Not sure if this helps, but here goes…
Maybe it’s just me, but I struggle a wee bit to differentiate between content and interface in this way…
My approach to designing platforms is defining user personas and goals, then designing a user experience that gets you there with most engagement, fewest dropouts and at best delight that inspires sharing. Sometimes that can be achieved with great content and a less-than-great interface (if it’s an application that’s all about content), other times it can be achieved with a great interface with less-than-great content (if it’s an application that’s a tool, enabling me to do something, not so reliant on good content).
So maybe it’s horses for courses.
The content sort of becomes part of the interface, for me. For instance when designing SaaS apps, I’d be testing each iteration according to qual and quant feedback, then tweaking both interface and content accordingly, seeing it as a whole. Unless of course the content is populated only by users, in which case having a reasonable interface is the means to getting them to upload content… if they can’t do so easily and stumble due to a crap interface, there will probably be too little content, which may compromise quality.
For me often the quality of content and interface are woven together in one experience. Maybe this muddiness comes from designing SaaS apps. If you have incredibly useful and usable features in a whizzy interface, great content should come. When you think of an information-based website instead, it becomes much easier to differentiate, as we’re all familiar with sites that have great content and crap interface… which we tolerate, but leaves them vulnerable to new entrants with more flair and equally good content.
My instinct is the content needs to be prioritised over and above the interface if the app is information-based, because substance trumps style; and perhaps the opposite applies if the app is a utility / tool… ?
Not sure whether that’s any help at all! It’s very subjective of course.
Overall I love these things and I’m a great fan of your tools – also admire the approach to getting feedback.
Good luck!
Jane xx
From: Matt Locke (Director of Storythings. Ex Head of Education, Channel 4)
Subject: Re: Help me build a toy…
Date: 28 May 2013 14:49:45 GMT+01:00
To: Andrew Missingham
Hi Andrew!
lovely to hear from you. Were you out with the Run Dem Crew at the Bupa 10k yesterday? I ran it with my twin brother in 54.04, which was a new PB! I also raised over £1k for Cancer Research, which was my real target.
I like this model, in particular because it illustrates the two pulls of content and interface. However, it doesn’t really allow for a conversation about *context*, which for me is the most important factor in designing a new product these days.
As audiences have become more and more comfortable with using digital networks for content/media/etc, the technology becomes less important than the overall context of use (eg the time, space and social context of the platform). I spoke about this at Digital Shoreditch last week:
http://storythings.com/2013/05/24/digital-shoreditch-talk-after-the-like-and-after-the-spike/
See also this article about a friend’s new start up for The Mirror – the whole product is designed around a context insight, not a content/interface question:
All the best. Speak soon!
Matt
From: Ruby Pseudo (Director Ruby Pseudo – Youth Insight Consultancy)
Subject: Re: Help me build a toy…
Date: 22 May 2013 18:59:18 GMT+01:00
To: Andrew Missingham
content wise, I like to read books, i don’t know where they land on your axis, but i expect many people think they’re cumbersome… Sumly, I found, had spelling mistakes and poor content, but interface wise, was pretty good, however, I’m always more for content, than interface, I like things being tricky, I like to have to tinker, in fact, I think flawed is rather beautiful, i mean, i’m a girl that writes in books, turns over pages, breaks the darn spine… I’m definitely not an interface girl, I’m a content girl, but then I’m not sure who your market is… if it’s an older market, I wonder if it’s that old form over substance thing, which is always a deterrent for us lot, kids however, with their attention span that [genuinely] lower than a goldfishes’ [it was 12 seconds in the year 2000, it's not 8 seconds, a Godlfish has a span of 9 seconds] want slick, sleek, fast, faster…
So it depends. Me? Content.
Kids? Interface.
I hope this helps.
Very privileged to be on your list.
Hoping it wasn’t a typing mistake 
From: Aravind Baskaran (Lead Developer, Mowbly – Bangalore, India)
Subject: Content Vs Interface
Date: 14 June 2013 09:16:51 GMT+01:00
To: Andrew Missingham
Hi Andrew,
I shared the graph with Vignesh, CEO of CloudPact (my company which builds Mowbly). Please find his feedback below,
Slide 8 – High on content, low on interface is stated as niche consumer interest. I think it even better fits enterprise B2B apps. The focus in such apps is more to solve a pain than to be attractive. In that sense such apps are also impervious to substitutes as they do not exist in the open market. Perhaps the quadrant does not consider enterprise B2B apps at all?
Slide 13 – High on interface, low on content along with vulnerable to new entrants, essentially these are ‘fads’, they might have a viral effect but have a tendency to be short lived.
Slide 15 – I am having second thoughts on whether the app journey starts in the bottom left quadrant, I feel it always starts in the upper left or bottom right corner and during the travel from there to top right quadrant of success there are valley of deaths, for the journey from top left to top right the valley of death is the adoption resistance especially for B2B apps, for the journey from bottom right to top right the valley of death is boredom or fickleness of the users.
The top left struggles to create user adoption but has good user retention, the bottom right struggles to get user retention but has good early user adoption.
I would be glad to connect you with him directly.
BTW, Cheers for the successful jaagIdea event, I have been following the tweets. The “Why you should develop for girls” slide – Awesome! Loved it 
Yours truly,
Aravind
From: “Hodge, Dom (LDN-FRU)” (Head of Business Development, Frukt)
Date: 24 May 2013 14:43:18 BST
To: Andrew Missingham
Subject: Re: Help me build a toy…
Hi Andrew,
Really interesting – not much I’d disagree with. As a model it’s definitely useful and would be a great way to roadmap out an app or social idea
The below is only the result of me forcing myself to try and break it, although finding bullet proof examples is tricky (so I might be wrong). Both related to upper left quadrant.
- I think that many audiences do tolerate shit or run of the mill interfaces just for the content. YouTube is hardly beautiful and until recently SoundCloud was the same. Tripadvisor is a headfuck to look at and eBay is only slowly improving
– Bloom.fm is an example of the opposite. An amazing interface but lacking on content and not drawing in the audiences
– The vulnerability to substitutes is true – however this is where I see brand and positioning helping counter this.
For me, and based on a nightmare project of late, the balance only works when the scope of interface and volume of content is kept in unison. Less is more – not too much to look at or too many features. There’s a clear trend of a return to human curation and limiting the volume of content available – a great example is http://12hrs.net/
Why trawl through tens and tens of tips on Unlike or even worse trip advisor? Having a clean and carefully curated plan for your trip really works
Hope this helps,
Dom
From: Antony Mayfield (Director of Brilliant Noise, earned media agency)
Date: 24 May 2013 11:25:32 BST
To: Andrew Missingham
Subject: Re: Help me build a toy…
Hi Andrew
Not sure what I can helpfully say other than I really love this, as it describes a key challenge for us at BN.
We have projects which have headed off in both directions, and we need to negotiate that wiggly line going upwards.
As the content-focused side of the equation, I have railed against “platform-ism” in the past, but recently I have realised I have been guilty of content-ism in the pas, not thinking about the interface enough.
There is a third dimension, though – which I have seen missing from both. The network, or distribution. Network-ism, when it is missing means that we are allowing it to spread fast enough. You might argue that that was implicit in both of the other axes, but not thinking enough about how you breathe life into it by getting attention / helping it spread can also hurt projects.
What are you going to do with this? If you speak about it publicly let me know, because I will cite it…
From: Jonathan MacDonald (Speaker, Strategist, Super-smart thinker)
Subject: Re: Help me build a toy…
Date: 24 May 2013 22:33:34 GMT+01:00
To: Andrew Missingham
hi
all i see is agency folk talking about nice creative executions
can’t for the life of me see the strategic reasoning, purpose, nor product
not being evasive intentionally but boy would i love an exec summary that gets to the point
From: Emeka Okoye (Accra-based Nigerian Mobile maven)
Subject: Re: How you getting on?
Date: 19 June 2013 01:42:03 BST
To: Andrew Missingham
Hi Andrew,
Sorry this came late. I had some challenges and I scribbled my views in many places (sheets of papers) and I am trying to organize them.
My response:
Would you play with this toy?
- My answer is Yes and No.
If yes, what do you get out of playing with it?
It helps me focus on what is most important at the initial design phase. That is the content, when I take into consideration the following:
- Who my audience is?
– What problem am i trying to solve? or what they will use for?
Since the fact is that users come for content not the design. Content is the most important element for the design process. If I don’t get these right then it becomes vulnerable to substitute or I have successfully lowered the bar to entry for my competitors.
Focusing on Interface posses some risks which you can see in my SWOT Toy below.
Where:
O = Opportunity
S = Strength
W = Weakness
T = Threat
Too much interface results in “Decoration”
if no, why doesn’t it work for you?
It lacks in the following areas:
– Context (Conditions under which it will be used)
– Interactivity / Usability
– Performance
And what changes and refinements would make it a better toy
Where:
poor –> CONTENT –> rich
low –> INTERACTIVITY<–> high
bad –> PERFORMANCE –> great
simple –> INTERFACE –> jazzy
* signifies the point where rich content + high interactivity + great performance + jazzy interface intersect.
I hope this makes sense
Cheers
Emeka
The post Developing a thinking toy: Content vs Interface appeared first on amissingham.com.