“I have with me two gods, Persuasion and Compulsion.”
Themistocles (527 BC – 460 BC)
In my last posting Persuasion Architecture Part 1 I talked about the theory behind this idea. Namely, a site visitor needs resolution and answers to questions before following down a path and the better we can address those issues the more likely we can nudge our visitor along (towards our conversion point). We begin our work by getting clear about where we want our site visitor to end up- what does a conversion look like? A paid donation? A completed registration? A purchased book?When we know where we want the visitor to end up then we can anticipate the questions a visitor might have along that path.
The Eisenberg’s add an intersting spin to this by factoring in the personality type of the person we’re trying to persuade. Like most systems that attempt to describe human nature their system also uses four categories: the competitive, methodical, spontaneous, and humanistic. These types run spectrum around the use of time, attitude, and desires.
Competitive: driven, busy and wants the benefits: what can this do for me (i.e. what will it get me)?
Methodical: driven, deliberate and wants the mechanics: how will this help me (i.e. how does it work)?
Spontaneous: easy going, engaging and wants acceptance: why will this make me better (i.e. why are these features important)?
Humanistic: easy going, diffuse and wants to belong: who else has done/used this (i.e. who will I be like)?
Now we can begin sketching out how one of these types moves along a path of links to end up at the conversion point. Let’s use the example of making an online donation; our conversion point is the “Thank you for donating” page. A great many sites who take donations simply have a link:
Donate
If you received a plain white note in the mail and it said “marry me”- would you? Of course, the risks in marriage are more substantial than simply clicking a link in error and my point is that- wouldn’t be better to know a little more about what I’m getting myself into before I commit?
Before our visitor commits to the Donate link (a Conversion Beacon in PA-speak) he or she may need to have a few questions answered. The Eisenberg’s call these Points of Resolution. And it’s at these points that we use the four types and their needs to anticipate those questions. This process is meant to mirror the traditional sales process and in our case, since we can’t speak to this visitor face to face and sell him or her on donating (or registering, buying, subscribing, posting, etc.) our site needs to antipcate those things that might need to be resolved before the visitor continues and donates, registers, or buys.
Dan, a competitive type will see the Donate and link and (perhaps) need to have the following points of resolution answered:
- What credit cards does the site accept?
- What happens to the money?
- What is the process for making a donation?
Some of these can be presented as links- for example, “How do I donate online?” that links to a brief explanation of how the online process works. Others, like “what happens to the money” can be preseted as short text near the Conversion Beacon (read: Near the donate block there is a block that contains a short teaser about the charities supported by these donations). Small icons of credit cards can answer Dan’s first question. In a few seconds these questions can be resolved and the visitor feels more confident in making his or choice to donate.
This methodology has been used traditionally in ecommerce type sites because the monetary benefits can easily be measured (and are- the Eisenberg’s have some great case studies with hard numbers backing up their methods). Aside from any capitalistic gains, it certainly fits nicely within the desire for more humane interfaces since it provides the end user with more information to make better choices for himself or herself.