It’s definitely a great time to be a UX designer. On LinkedIn there are more than 900,000 profiles of UX designers. Every day there are more and more job offers. More and more companies are deciding to invest in their own UX team. We have at our disposal masters, conferences and meetings where we can meet, exchange opinions and learn. There are books and blogs everywhere for those who want to learn and keep up to date. And yet, we face a very big and complex challenge: the commoditisation of UX.
What does “commoditisation” mean? Commoditisation is a word adapted from “commodity“, and refers to a mass-produced good (product or service) that has lost (or has no unique value).
Why do I say that UX is becoming commoditised?
It has been twenty years since Don Norman used the title “User Experience Architect” when he joined Apple in 1995. It has been fifteen years since Jesse James Garrett published the famous PDF (and later the book) “Elements of User Experience”.
And yet, UX is a term (concept) that still has no agreed definition.
This would remain a mere question of semantics, were it not for the fact that…
- It is not known whether “UX” is a philosophy, a conceptual framework, a methodology, a job, a team name or a description of a type of designer. Or all of it.
- There is no clear scope as to what we do, nor an agreed methodology, beyond that proposed by usability, HCI, UCD (User-Centred Design) and, more recently, by Lean UX.
- It is not agreed completely how UX differs from CX (Customer Experience) or BX (Brand Experience) or from Service Design or Design Thinking. This is not surprising, because it is not clear what is a digital product and what is a service. (Is Facebook a product or a service? What about Uber?)
- The practice of UX (“UX Design”) is often confused with “Usability”. And it goes without saying that usability is only one part of UX.
- The term UX is misleading: it explicitly mentions the user, and can make people think that we only design for what the user is interested in, when business strategy is just as important as the user’s needs.
- UX is treated as if it were a goal is yes, a must-have. Nobody wants “UX” (understood as the design activity) They want results and achieve objectives. UX is a means to achieve them, nothing more.
- The mere fact that only designers have “UX” in their title suggests that it is only a matter of “designers”, when an optimal user experience is built collaboratively, across many different areas.
- A “UX designer” position can include any (or all, if the company decides to look for a “ninja unicorn UX designer”).
This discussion has been going on for more than 20 years. Despite the wear and tear that this entails, we are still unable to prevent UX from being used as a catch-all that detracts from its value.
This lack of definition means that UX ends up being what everyone wants it to be, and so the value of what it proposes is reduced to that “magic potion” that many companies believe UX is, and that they want to increase sales and loyalty. The value of UX is reduced to a catch-all “word” that is fashionable and yet almost nobody outside the business world (and few inside) know it exists (and I don’t think they even should).
A commoditised UX does a lot of damage because it distorts the very values that in theory define it.
And what happens when the value of what we do is lost? When there is no agreement on what we are supposed to do, how to do it, when?
Nobody wins. Neither the user, nor the business or the designer.
Users and the commoditisation of UX
For the “users”, who don’t even know there is such a thing as “UX”, all that matters is that they are discovering that there is a new and better way of doing things: no longer do they have to tolerate the frustration of being a number for companies, a necessary nuisance.
With the paradigm shift led by companies like Airbnb, Uber, and so many others, and with a strong service (and user) orientation by mega companies like Apple, Amazon and Booking.com, the mental models of what is and should be a good experience when interacting with a product, service or brand are changing.
The user who has already discovered that it is possible to have an excellent end-to-end experience when interacting with a product, service or company is no longer served by just having a website or app that has been “UX-enhanced” (i.e. improved using a commoditised version of UX).
If it is easy to use, has a lot of clear calls to action, gamification or persuasiveness it may motivate you to make a transaction, but if the content is not relevant, if the pricing policy is confusing, if the customer service is not good, if the second you leave the app, the company doesn’t even know who you are, you really have to ask yourself: will you repeat? Will you recommend us? Will you remember this transaction, or even this company?
Business and the commoditisation of UX
Companies that adopt a commoditised UX tend to have the following characteristics:
- They are focused on the short-term. They want immediate return on investment, and live in a world of “come on, we have to deliver” and demand results “without touching much” (the infamous “lipstick on a pig”).
- They do not think holistically. They don’t realise that the experience of buying something online doesn’t end at the confirmation page. It ends when you have received it and you are using it and you are happy, because you received it well, on time, the product is so good that you are excited. The experience of booking a room with Airbnb does not end with a “click of a button on a screen”. It ends when the trip ends, and Airbnb is well aware of this.
- They do not work collaboratively. Even if they have the development team working with agile methodology, if the rest of the company is structured in separate silos, they are not organised to deliver a user-oriented experience.
Focusing on only one aspect of the experience (usability, conversion) and putting the “UX team” to work on improving these aspects is reducing the value of UX to mere commercial actions or removing unnecessary blockages. In the short term these “commoditised UX improvements” may seem like a good thing, but in the long term it can be counterproductive, because the user’s expectations are raised, demanding something that they will not get (that optimal end-to-end experience).
Designers and the commoditisation of UX
Designers who have “UX” stamped on their job title suffer from the commoditisation of UX possibly more than anyone else, because the pressure is immense. They have to adapt to working in an environment where you don’t understand what you do, why or what for, and also, anyone can have an opinion (and even worse, change our work because someone didn’t like it).
It is, unfortunately, all too common to hear complaints from designers that
- have neither time nor money to do things “as they would like / as they should”… The option to this is to do “Guerrilla UX”, out of hours, without money, as best we can. And if that wasn’t enough, in addition to doing our job, we have the burden of having to “educate and evangelise”.
- have to work without a clear strategy, without clear objectives, without success indicators, without user data or contact with users, without even being able to collaborate with development.
Day-to-day work-life and the pressure of commoditised UX causes us to give up big dreams of “designing an optimal experience”, when we barely have time to deliver what is asked of us.
Agencies and Consultancies and the commoditisation of UX
Agencies are similar to in-house or freelance designers, but with their own added complexity:
The contract is limited in time and scope. Each activity has to be justified and matched to the budget. It is not uncommon that the client, in order to save time and money, wants to skip steps or activities, as if our methodology were a restaurant menu, where he/she can order “half a menu” and still get rid of hunger. It is also not uncommon for agencies to have to work without being really clear about who the audience is, what the strategy, objectives, data, access to customers, etc. are.
This means that agencies must undertake a project based on a holistic and collaborative conceptual framework or methodology but from outside and with key information that is incorrect, out of context or partial at best.
This invariably reduces the value of what is offered. The fact that the process takes place outside the company, with only a few working meetings and presentation, means that UX is reduced to deliverables made outside the company, which are presented and left as though a productwithout the value of process, of knowledge transfer, of enriching collaborative work. This is undoubtedly a commoditisation of UX.
And to complicate matters further, the agency needs to have a differential sales pitch, which will enable them to get more customers. And this is one of the many places where confusion is created and grows: “Service Design”, “Design Thinking”, “Product Thinking”, etc. This is curious, because there are many companies that barely know what UX is, and many others that only know the commoditised version, so there is no value in this: the value is the promise of results.
This is not to say that outsourcing UX is a bad thing. But we really need to think about the impact our actions have on the UX concept.
What can (should) we do to avoid commoditisation of UX?
As with any complex problem, there is no single solution or easy path.
If we work as external…
We need to reflect (as many freelancers, consultancies and agencies have already done) on the following:
- the “UX” deliverable as a product that is created and delivered as if by magic.
- offering or selling UX when we can only do usability.
- differentiation using a concept (UX) that is not really understood, or whose scope and meaning is not agreed upon.
- how to remain cost-competitive, but find a way to move the project forward by working in a truly collaborative way, and always on a data-driven basis, with the user present.
If we work in-house…
One of the questions I get asked most often by designers (especially if they are juniors) ishow can we initiate or facilitate change, especially if we don’t have power in the organisation chart?
Instead of just doing our project tasks, we must share knowledge and teach through action and results. And when I talk about sharing knowledge, I mean:
- the UX philosophy and why a shift from “feature-orientation” to “user-orientation” is so necessary.
- introduce collaborative creation techniques and activities.
- to share information and data obtained from our work beyond our team (for that “UX is made by everyone” reason). Nothing overcomes fear and resistance like a selfless gift.
Yes, it’s more work, it’s complicated and it takes time. Not everyone has the strength, patience and wisdom to try to do their job and in the meantime stop to explain how we do it, or why. But for this there are many techniques in our toolbox. What happens is that not all of us feel strong enough to do this, in addition to delivering our work.
If we don’t feel up to it or don’t feel like it to do this work, then we should not contribute to the commoditisation of UX by accepting to work under conditions that we know will make us end up “painting and colouring”. I understand that many times we don’t have the luxury of saying no to jobs or clients, because they don’t really understand what UX is, what they want or what we do, but then let’s not say we are doing UX. Let’s just say we are designers, not “UX designers”. Let’s talk about usability, not “experiences”.
In fact, designers and consultants should get rid of the UX label, because it continues to create the impression that it is something that only we do.
Nor should there be a “UX team”, because “UX” is done by everyone. (and this is something that many have already seen and started to do).
There is another avenue to take, if none of this convinces you. When a strategy or tactic does not work, a radical change of approach is needed. So those UXers who like to strategise, to plan, to look ahead, to negotiate, should perhaps consider becoming Product Owners. We may have to spend a lot more time in Excel than we would like, but in a world that is moving towards an agile working methodology, the Product Owner has a lot of influence in deciding how that product or service will be built. Many Product Owners, many founders of innovative, user-centric companies have started out as designers. If we are interested in the overall experience and strategic aspects rather than the detail, then this is a good path for you (and the company you work for).
In any case, it is essential to introspect and find out what we want, what we like, what motivates us. We are the user of our life experience, and we should apply all our knowledge to improve it, rather than reducing our working life to a commodity that frustrates or “burns us out”.
Conclusion
The concept of UX will undoubtedly continue to evolve, as rapidly as technological and social paradigms, and we cannot and should not stand still, or in a corner, in silence.
As the creative, questioning and analytical professionals that we in UX are, it is our obligation to make the time to reflect on what we learn, think and do, and to be able to stop the commoditisation of what we do.
We need to find consensus, a clear starting point – at least in our immediate environment. If we deviate from this consensus, let it be by explicit intention and not by chance or carelessness.
It’s time to show the world that we really know how to build an experience, doing our bit to build our UX experience, and to show that we refuse to let UX be commoditised by inertia or lack of reflection, analysis or creative thinking.