Brain Breach

Research has shown that we certainly possess risk aversion. Ambiguity aversion should be considered its hidden twin in the proliferate duo that is worth understanding for your business. An awareness of this principle is certainly important enough to add to Paradigms I Follow .

It is simply this: Being psychologically prohibited to expanding decision options because of ambiguity. See, you can have a two or more choices in front of you with greater/lesser/equal worth in the end. You will most likely choose the one which requires the smallest amount of thinking. Please check out the Thirteen.org video that inspired this post. What a neat show! Further:

Frisch and Baron (1988) emphasized that the subjective experience of missing information relevant to a prediction may lead to ambiguity aversion.
Keller

This has so many implications for business and brands. A great example of popular usage and profit from Ambiguity Aversion is the show Deal Or No Deal . Forward to the middle of a show and the decision usually looks like this: Take $300,000 right now, or possibly get $800,000. It’s silly really to choose the $800,000 because the chances are still 1 in 5 or 1 in 10. Since we are averse to ambiguity, it’s easier to calculate “hmmm, I want more money, and this could work”.

This opens up a whole new field of Neuroeconomics to us, which is definitively worth further brain breaching.

Interestingly, ambiguity aversion in pairs of users actually gets worse!

The majority of the dyads exhibited a cautious shift in the face of ambiguity, stating a smaller willingness-to-pay than the two individuals’ average. Our study thus confirms the persistence of ambiguity aversion in a group setting and demonstrates the predominance of cautious shifts for dyads.
Keller

Additional resources:
Four types of Ambiguity Aversion link

Some things are in-your-face obvious: Finding great information quickly on the web is difficult; a tun of choices makes of lengthy research, and most of us would prefer just a few great ones; Myspace is visual mess.  Complexity and clutter server to alienate customers. 

Some brands see complexity as a bad thing, and profit by offering a simple alternative. Research proves that this could work:

one study shows that customers would pay an 8% premium for a simpler consumer experience, and 50% would switch brands for it. ref

This is where I find confidence in the direction we are taking ScreenBird.  Sure it has worthy competitors such as SlideRocket, PowerPoint and Keynote, but we are offering something that none of these are; utter simplicity.  This is my gamble, that allowing the customer to drop in text and media with clarity, in an uncluttered environment, will win the customer. 

Distribution, not product development is my largest hurdle coming up.

Also, see Lee’s article on Banner Blindness.  A good read for web interface developers or directors.

Naming a piece of software in a very busy name space (the web), isn’t an easy task. If I was naming a pizza parlor in Fresno California, my home town, I could easily come up with 100 names that wouldn’t step on any toes. Easy! Try such names on the www, and you hit a wall: you are forced to create a great name, or a super lousy one! My current task is to find an appropriate name for SpiceRack .

Difficulties naming on the web

• Instantly can cause problem with other large companies
• Has to be search-able – try and name your product “Audience”
• Needs appropriate domain availability

General Naming guidlines

• Sizzle factor / likability
• Positive image association
• Protect-ability
• International considerations – bad example

Naming Guidelines specific to my software

• Must be Gender neutral
• Should have link to product category

SpiceRack, as a name for desktop slide presentation software isn’t terrible. Among others, one problem lies in that it doesn’t have any association to the product category. This wouldn’t be a problem if I was creating the software for Mac, to be packaged with a well known software suite. Keynote is packaged with iWork. Keynote is a great name in fact, but I don’t (yet) have a multi-billion dollar vehicle to transport such abstract a brand as SpiceRack. Look at the abundance of abstract or arbitrary names found in the dead pool . It certainly can work, but I am playing it as smart as my little brain will allow me. This is a brainbreaching exercise!

After many hours of the naming game and input from my wise mentor, we are left with a couple of nice names: ScreenBird, SlideQ and ScreenDuo. In that order. It’s a close race between SlideQ and ScreenBird for me, but ScreenBird is so brandable, and has such positive image association: flying, soaring, elegance. Slide is a bit more sleek and technical. Check out the logo contest going on for ScreenBird
In addition, all those domains were available for me to purchase. “Let your presentation soar” would be a great slogan, if folks actually cared about those. This is a strong start, and more to come on the subject.

If you should find yourself in this worriment, check these out:
NameBoy
Bustaname
MetaGlossory

Without fail you will be faithful to whomever you are romantic with. Romance isn’t something cheap or quickly reached. It comes from seeing your loved one’s true colors, and sharing special experiences together. Product experiences, although less meaningful, share some of the same qualities.

In the branding pyramid below, notice the order. The lower form the foundation, and the means to the upper. My product must first have good core functionality. This means solid features such as the ability to undo, arrange, save, to have stability. Only then can we move to a killer experience. This takes style, and the discipline not to show off all your teams programming talent just because you can. What is my target customer reaction? “Woh, nice”.

Upon this foundation can we start to coax feeling of loyalty, sometimes irrational preference, and strong attachment. Romance! (Cheesy, I know)