So yesterday morning, the thing that I wanted was a black, v-neck jumper and the chosen interface to get it was Mark & Spencer at Marble Arch.
Most of us grown-ups are pretty are familiar with the way a department store works, but between going through the front door with a pocket full of cash and waltzing out the same door in a smart new outfit, a few things need happen.
Imagine for a second that M&S was a website—first, let’s take a look at the store’s information architecture, the way laying out the shop’s stock in a particular way is supposed to guide customers to their goal. Here are some possible clusters (based purely on the stock-keeping-unit, the basic building-block of what’s on display, as opposed to customer motivation or sales increasing) for a guy looking to buy a jumper:
- all men’s jumpers together
- all black jumpers together
- all v-neck jumpers together
If the store manager didn’t like that layout, the architecture might reflect the stocking infrastructure or the scheduling of the shop’s ‘front-end’ display:
- all recent arrivals together
- all unsorted but barcoded knitwear together
- all returned men’s singles together
- all discontinued lines together
If the manager wanted to get a bit goal-oriented, she might decide to group things according to how the user shops:
- all workplace / uniform knitwear together
- all casual knitwear together
- all back-to-school separates together
I’m labouring through all this because now (actually six days after the fact) I still can’t work out what M&S’s ‘information architect’ was trying to achieve. Was he was trying to get me efficiently through the store, quickly reaching my targeted purchase?
I never found the right jumper, or when I found it, I wasn’t able—through a process of comparison—to ascertain if it was ‘right’
Perhaps the layout of the store (like the infuriating Italian motorway rest-stops that guide you through a maze of produce before you can exit through the only door) was trying to get me to purchase ‘accessories’ or ‘add-ons’—the extra bits that if I saw them on the way to finding my jumper I might pick up as well?
The more time I spent trying to figure out why shades of black, v-neck jumpers were spread across the four corners of the second floor the less I was inclined to browse the otherwise perfectly nice items on sale.
From a design point of view, the fact that I quit the application—I left the store without finding a jumper—means I didn’t find the thing that I want, that the application failed in its purpose. I’ve been buying black v-neck jumpers at M&S for years so something must be very wrong indeed:-)
The web allows shop designers to apply TheThingThatiWant design principles to their virtual shop floors. This means that all the various factors that impact on what is put where in the store (selling sweets at the check-out, avoiding ‘but brush’ in the aisles and so on) can be applied differently to different people. A crude example might be that as women tend to like to browse and men want to go straight to a given sku and leave, the store interface could include both a search by sku interface and a new this season browsing tool…
I don’t think this is the last time I shop at M&S, but the more I think about it, the more I need to shop online.
Comments (2)
Marc,
Re nordstrom.com, it’s possible that they have PIM functionality built into the shopper’s account (to store things like a wife’s birthday), but I don’t know.
It’s interesting that you suggest an “on-target suggestions” service. As a man (and I’m assuming you’re one too) I share your need to cut through the overwhelming stock and get straight to the item I want. I would definitely give return business to any shop that could serve me like that. Of course in the old days, this was performed by (are you free?) the people on the shop floor. It used to be a quick “have you any…” was enough to be guided straight to the item.
My guess is that M&S is in some sort of management American-style retail overhaul and they’ve been specifically briefed to prevent your getting out quickly. I did in fact speak to an attendant on the day I describe, but she essentially said “you’ll have to walk the whole floor” which wasn’t very helpful at all. Contrast this with the performance of the guy in the green hat who will escort you through Waitrose’s aisles until you have that amareto quince chutney in you hand (and contrast the John Lewis Partnership’s performance with M&S’s for a bit of an eye-opener).
None of this addresses the needs of women unfortunately.
They have a completely different style of interfacing with a shop. It’s more like an elaborate courtship ritual that uses a whole set of non-verbal cueues—a glance, a touch a brushing past… While a woman may know the layout of a shop she will still walk the aisles, scanning, comparing, returning several times to the same item before deciding to try something on. I’m guessing this mostly applies to clothing, cosmetics and accessories—I can’t see Nicki (my wife) browsing Toys are Us in search of a football for little Clemmie in quite the same way;-)
I think Nordstrom could use a lot of help with their design. I bet I could increase sales loads by tweaking the interface. Just for starters:
The largest item on the home page (beauty 24.7) looks like a call to action but I can’t click on it. Nor can I click on “stop in. click on. call up” which sucks as for a web user an imperative is almost always a link:-(
Nordstrom has the classic problem of how to cluster and categorise a stock which includes everything for everyone. For starters, (as you suggest, Mark) what the hell is “Men” doing at item number three? Men need a different front page without all the girly makeup nonsense. By the same token, what does this menu structure suggest to women?
This is a shop for me, somewhere I go to feel special…
This is a shop for my family, if I didn’t buy him new underwear every so often I dread to think what he’d look like in a car crash…
If women are an important part of the customer base, this shop-front doesn’t leverage that.
Most top-level nav items have a sub-category called “categories”. Now this is both vague and confusing while being potentially very powerful. They should take a look at what “categories” means and try and expose that through the interface. Maybe the trick is to have a front end which behaves like a personal shopper (who are we shopping for today, husband, child self etc) and a separate one that behave like a catalog (green woolly things here, luxury Christmas dog blankets here.
Why not add to the front end by whacking these different ‘filters’ into a regular email?
Anyway, will they do anything about it? I doubt it;-) Shame really, especially considering Christmas is around the corner…
…and Mark, awesome game graphics - nice work :-)
Posted by Dug | October 5, 2004 10:00 AM
Posted on October 5, 2004 10:00
Makes me wonder if web retailers like nordstrom.com are wasting a lot of energy making their slick looking sites that appeal to ‘a wider demographic’—which on the web would basically mean women.
Perhaps they would make more sales with a service that offers automated on-target suggestions for my wife’s birthday and anniversary gifts.
Or an intelligent fulfillment service that tells you Dear Sir, statistics indicate that you are about to wear out that underwear you purchased last November 14.
Feel free to ridicule me if they already DO send automatic reminders of my wife’s birthday - (Click here to order the candles and bath chemistry: don’t delay - or it’s rush shipping!)…
Posted by Marc Holmes | October 5, 2004 9:00 AM
Posted on October 5, 2004 09:00