Online communities are a popular way for organisations to gather information and insights and to better understand users’ views of their existing and potential products and services.

These usually by-invitation-only ‘Voice of the Consumer’ moderated communities also enable users share opinions, connecting with other users, exchange advice and exchange with the brand. Naturally, promoting participation is vitally important to organisations that wish to engage with users if such a community is to thrive and provide valuable feedback.

This begs the question as to why consumers would want to become part of such an online community if invited so to do and what resulting biases might arise?  Similar attitudes can derive from different motivations.  Which might cause users to join and actively participate?

Psychological ‘Social Identity Theory’ can help us here.  Online communities play a social function for their members with like-minded or similarly interested individuals.  It is a silo of sorts.  They provide participants with a degree of enhanced self-worth, because they perceived they are being listened to and have some degree influence over organisation’s decisions – otherwise they wouldn’t have been chosen to join.

So, why join?  It might be to;

• Find out, or learn more about, or in some way assist the organisation, its products or services
• Gain financial or other incentives in return for participation
• Provide a virtual soap box for the individual to express their views
• Support their self-identity as invested in the brand, products and/or services

The online community itself can provide participants with a form of social self-identification by differentiation between members (us) with non-members (them).  This emotional attachment is akin to being in a tribe.  The strength of motivations for the individual can influence the degree of engagement in such communities.

This is also a two-way street as, for example, the organisation can communicate privileged information to the members of the community (us) that only they know and not to others (them).  A real conversation is a vital element of inclusion.

Research suggests that social and self-identity-supporting user motivations are particularly important in driving participation on online communities.  Great.  But there’s a problem.  Membership becomes part of who users are and consequently they become more subjective.  They may identify too closely with the brand, and over criticise competitors to support their self-perceived status in the community.

Also, if participants have significant time and/or resources invested in the brand, they may defend their purchase decision at all costs, especially in the face of objective criticism.  This may be overlain with the tendency to post-rationalise positive aspects of our purchase to justify the user’s choice to themselves and others engaging in the online community.  Also, the participant may express views online in a way they would not if face-to-face or over the telephone.

These biases are not inevitable, nor do they necessary apply in all circumstances or to all participants.  Indeed, they can become inverted. But it is as well be cognisant of the possibility of bias and to attempt to design-out opportunities to express such biases as far as possible – and to recognise them when they do occur.

Good research avoids supporting the pre-judged view but illuminates the scene instead.

The realm of CX and UX is a constantly evolving paradigm with components morphing and interchanging as exponents and experts rapidly iterate what each actually is.  UX has expanded and evolved from being a digital extension for HCI and industrial design into the broader world of CX.

It was supposed that UX was a subset of CX, with the latter more of the physical world.  But is it that simple anymore?

We know that an organisation can no longer simply offering a product or service and expect to compete or cut through.  Convenience is already king.  In order to compete with an unique offering, a transformative experience must be on offer.  In that way you can truly differential your brand, de-commoditise your offering, add value and increase market share, etc.  No longer do you risk being a ‘me-too’ purveyor of goods and services.  Instead, the experience you offer your customers becomes an unique standard bearer for your brand.

UX is now being taught with a major Service Design component, itself moving away from a purely digital domain.  Video prototyping is becoming mainstream.

Customers expect an integrated offering that cuts across delivery channels and devices, with a streamlined, seamless experience that is both fast and provides the ultimate in convenience.

So, an overarching vision is required to encompass the whole experience paradigm.  This is about more than just touchpoints.  It needs to bring customers/users and employees together in an holistic experience with an overarching brand/organisational strategy that delivers solutions perceived by individuals as personal, whilst delivered practically in a way that matches the norms and values of all those involved.  In this environment is it meaningful to differential between customer and users in the context of experience?

Whilst this may be the current direction of travel, one thing that we can be sure of is that this will shift and evolve in ways not yet clear.

Howsoever this develops, user research will still be at its core, not just strategically, but also feeding back to the CX/UX vision, iteratively.   Customers and users neither differentiate between each other, nor between experiences in silos.  For them CX = UX = the seamless whole.  Well designed, high-quality user research can bridge any conceptual gaps and deliver synergistic insights to unify the delivery of solutions.

Ethnography remains something of a catch-all description for a wide range of qualitative research techniques that aims to get closer to understanding the user in context of product/service use – activities, actions, norms and routines.

There remains a perception amongst many that this makes ethnographic research akin to nailing a fruit jelly to a plank of wood.  All you end up with is a mess of something…

But to get the most out of ethnography it needs to be carefully designed and moderated specifically for the issue being investigated – not left to chance or random actions – considering the type of product or service, the sector and the relevant level of user engagement.  The researcher needs to understand not only the extent of the issue to be investigated, but also why the client needs to know about the issue in order to enable them to get closer to their customers, which, after all, is the whole point of ethnographic research.  But it is qualitative, and this is another reason for its perceived shortcomings.

Organisations are increasingly run by numbers.  Data is big.  Accountants call the shots.  Of course, quantitative data is important, but it is so often seen as the only definitive measurement because it produces numbers and numbers = facts…don’t they?  Well, yes and no.  Certainly, what is happening can be described by quantitative data, but if these data provide an analysis of the direction of travel (usually a far from linear progression anyway), how do you know why this is happening?  Without a good grasp of “why?”, how can a solution be created?  This requires deeper qualitative understanding.

Like any qualitative data, ethnographic data needs to be analysed and interpreted in a methodical, structured, objective way.  The framework of analysis needs to be determined in close collaboration with client stakeholders taking account of the context, relevant and salient artefacts, and the environment of use.  Key insights need to be prioritised and ranked in importance and impact.

And as with any form of research, it’s worth doing only if actionable insights can be derived from the findings.  If well designed in collaboration with key stakeholders, ethnographic research can shine a Super Trooper on behaviour, attitudes and motivations that may not have been recognised or properly understood though other methodologies.  It can add vital details and perspective from users as they experience the product or service in the context of actual use.

That can make all the difference when revising, enhancing or developing new products and services, focussing resources where they will have the greatest impact, rather than just picking low-hanging fruit.  The results of this targeted effort will show in the quantitative data and that’ll make everyone happy.

Including customers in the process of (re)designing (new) products and services is central to user experience design and what better way than to harness customer voices and perceptions to drive product and service improvement and development.

But how best to achieve this?  It’s all about using the right listening techniques in the right context.

A whole range of widely-practiced research techniques can capture customer voices, both active and passive.  Capturing satisfaction feedback and scores and utilising panels of many colours is the stock in trade of the VoTC.  But it is the passive voice that is often overlooked.  The greatest advocates and detractors typically have the loudest voices, not least on social media.  Voices must not be left to be self-selecting – softer voices need to be paid attention to also.

By engaging with users collaboratively in panels, workshops and through observational techniques very valuable, meaningful insights can be drawn out, analysed and interpreted and then communicated most appropriately to achieve actionable outcomes.

It’s vital to avoid findings overload, and therefore, essential to prioritise and rank actionable insights that illuminate tactical and strategic imperatives that support the corporate, product and service vision.

Feedback should be tested iteratively, not least to ensure that the volume of feedback is not inadvertently up-scaled to be representative of “everyone”, in a variety of contexts over time and across places.

Empathetic user engagement, feedback and improving customer satisfaction can assume an iteratively virtuous circle of success for any organisation.  Good quality research is the foundation of this success.