Tests, Tests, and More Tests

Both of these articles focus on business strategy for new technologies, one relates to mobile and the other to disruptive technologies. Working for a tech company I have some first hand experience with these issues. Not too long ago the company I work for was developing a mobile app for a major American retail company (sorry for being vague but I'm technically not allowed to say much more than that), and I was involved in the user testing. Every 2 weeks the team would bring in two in house people and two external people to do the same test. The basic process is you receive a set of instructions and talk through everything you're doing in the app while being recorded (both what you are doing on the phone as well as your voice). For example the instruction might be "Go to xxJustine129's profile and follow her account," or "add a post to your own account and tag Beanies2go," and you talk through your process of completing that step. Our team did about 20 user tests at different stages of the app, and constantly tweaked their design depending on what worked in the tests and what didn't. When talking to the team who created this app, they all talked about how most companies when designing an app don't do user testing. It's either not in their budget, or they don't have the time, or don't think its worth it. I thought 20 was a pretty small number of user tests but apparently thats huge (especially for a 16 week project).
User testing is a huge part of developing any application/disruptive technology/advertisement. And there's a big difference between a focus group and user testing. This article talks about the importance of user testing in any situation and the best steps to make sure you're getting the most out of your tests. Even with how simple this sounds, tons of companies are still reluctant to engage in this practice. In the case of the app my company was involved in, the major retailer was incredibly surprised about our wanting to do user testing, and at first didn't understand why we needed it. They were reluctant because some of the external people our team wanted to bring in were not their usual customer base. However, our team explained that these people were big social media influencers and were important in knowing what people would or would not want in an app of this kind. Just a real life example of big companies being reluctant to look outside of their usual user base.

It's Good Enough For Me

I am a big proponent of "good enough" technologies. I had a flip camera when they first came out, and I used Facetime/Skype all summer while I was studying abroad. Since I was in England all summer bought an English SIM card for my phone. I paid about $30-$40 for unlimited data in the UK and most of Europe. The network I used didn't have the best coverage, but it was cheap and accessible everywhere I traveled. It was as the article says "good enough." I could always Facetime or Skype home and I never had to worry about how many texts I was using as long as they were iMessages. Or I could just use Facebook to message people. If I got lost I could pull up a map - it might have been slower than others but at least I had it.
To me this article seems to have a lot to do with attribution theory that we talked about in the beginning of the semester. Quality is not the only thing people are looking for anymore. Of course professionals will always pay for the top of the line (you aren't going to see a videographer walking around with a Flip cam). But I don't think the good enough mentality is a bad thing. Especially if the price reflects that. No one wants to pay lots of money for something that is low quality, but we are talking about cheap and cheerful here. People who want to be the first to adopt are going to pay the higher price - but money is a hugely limited factor there. These good enough technologies will improve over time thanks to Moore's law, but the mass market doesn't need the best of the best right away. This article talks about how Apple actually lost market share in China to cheap and cheerful phones.
To be fair though, mobile technologies like iPhones are game changers in this area. You can now shoot (and edit) 4K on your phone, your point and shoot camera is in your back pocket. You can access Google drive from your phone, make skype calls from your phone, watch Netflix or Hulu, listen to music, even read books from your phone. Everything is now on mobile. And it's the same principle. No the screen might not be the biggest or the best to watch movies on but I always have my phone and 90% of the time I have a strong enough internet connection to watch something if I want to. Same thing for shooting video. I might not have the funds to buy myself a nice video camera, but I can still make a video about my trip to where ever that looks pretty darn good. It lowers those barriers to entry. So while the phone itself might not be cheap, it gives access to lots of these good enough technologies.

Why Do I Have To Choose?

As a kid, I remember that lots of my friends got rewarded for good grades on their report card - most of them with money. A dollar or so for every A, etc. My mom, however, rewarded me with something different - books. When I did well on my report card, my mom and I would make a trip to Barnes and Nobel and I would get to pick out three or four new books. It was one of my favorite things growing up. My dad and I went to the Harry Potter book premieres and waited in line to get our pre-ordered copy of the newest book. My freshman year of college I drove for hours to just find a Barnes and Nobel - for me you just can't beat being surrounded by physical books. And given the choice I'll always choose a paper book over an e-book. In this sense I completely agree with a lot of what the article is saying about how e-books just can't quite measure up to print books.

However...

I've realized that there are exceptions to this and they have to do with the uses of the book. For a lot of my business foundations classes an online version of the book has been included with the print copy  and 9 times out of 10 I don't even open the printed copy. I think this is mostly because I'm not sitting down and actually reading the text book. I'm just using it to look up information in reference to a question - which is much easier in a digital copy than a printed copy.
Another reason is if there is a significant difference in the price. Say the printed copy is $20 and the online version is $0.99, I'll go for the digital version.

But why do I harbor such a love for print books? Is it just because I've grown up on it? What about kids who grow up with e-readers as their main source of books? Should digital just be used when a physical book just doesn't work? This article by Scholastic talks about the benefits of print and digital books for young readers. Their "bottom line is kids have a lot to gain from both reading tools." And that whether it's a digital book, or physical one it's important for parents to discuss whats happening in the story and engage with their child in the book. This article talks about the actual "problem now is that both print and e-books are popular." And that each product has "their relative drawbacks." Their bottom line? "The reality is that there is absolutely no reason print and e-books can't coexist in the market."

Food for Thought

Both readings focused on the numbers of print media vs. digital media and it's obvious that print media is still outdoing online news, and will continue to do so for awhile. Iris's theory that online goods are inferior goods (like ramen noodles) is probably true - right now. Newspapers (on average) still haven't figured out how to really make news successful online.

After our discussion in class on Tuesday, and the data shown, I began to think about print vs. digital media a little more deeply. Like Bryna I also enjoy reading book, actual physical books and I also don't share that same affinity for print newspapers. So why is it? If I'm being honest I'd rather read news online because generally I'm only reading one story at a time.
There is no denying that print only is not sustainable for Newspaper companies, but they don't need to rush themselves into the purely digital age, that much is clear. Picking up the morning newspaper and reading it is a habit for many people, it's a part of their daily routine. Just as watching the news when you get ready in the morning is a habit. But as people's tastes change, online news has to find a way to work it's way into people's morning routine, otherwise news sites are going to be in trouble. This journalist came to the same conclusion.

The American Press Institute released this study in 2015 about how millennials are consuming news, and how much news they are consuming. This goes a bit into the information surplus, but for the most part their findings are encouraging. People from the age of 18-35 are encountering news at least once a day, and often more than that. The study also says that for 13 out of 24 news topics surveyed - Facebook was the No. 1 jumping off point and the 2nd for 7 others. According to this study millennials search for news when they want more information on a topic. And even though online news might not be competing with print - this study says that 82% of millennials report consuming their news from online sources. Keeping up on what's going on around the world ranks 3rd in what they do online. All that to say there is clearly a want for news. Newspapers just have to figure out a way to make online work for them, and contrary to what they might think, they've got the time to do it.

Extra! Extra! Read All About It... On Your Phone

When doing a Google search for the question "are print newspapers dying," the first article that pops up is titled "Lets Get Over the Whole 'Newspapers are Dying' Thing." It's an article from The Guardian and it's all about the fact that newspapers are still producing content and people are still reading that content and where you read it (either on your phone or on a physical paper) doesn't matter. It does take into account that newspapers are having to be innovators - something we've talked a lot about in class. It also gave an interesting fact; apparently Gen Y consumes 38% more news (from newspapers) than Gen X.
The author or this article makes 5 major points about newspapers innovation:

1. Don't try to be an aggregator - offer informed, and unique perspectives not found elsewhere
2. Do your homework - study online behavior A LOT
3. Be smart with your add ons - don't just add stuff for the hell of it 
4. Move away from advertising money and towards content based money (i.e. subscriptions) 
5. Importance of life events - membership gets you more than just a newspaper, it gets you access

Personally I really enjoy this way of thinking. It's a nice middle ground between social media sites are taking over the world and newspapers are dying. But let's talk about print media - an article from USA Today gives the numbers for 2015 from a comprehensive Pew study. The basic premise? Print media is declining, and expensive... but a little over half of readers still prefer a print version! So it's not all bad news. If I'm being honest though, I think print media is on its way out, but it won't be for awhile. Print media is just way more expensive than digital media and as the people who prefer print become decrease the price of that print media is going to increase. And as that price goes up, the people willing to pay that price will go down (aka the law of demand) - this cycle will continue until print media continues no more. Media is changing, it has before and it will again - and I don't really think it's a bad thing. Newspapers will continue to produce important content, we will just probably be consuming that content in different ways.