Defining Good

Defining Good

好的定义

I consistently get asked questions like the following: “Just look at Facebook/Amazon/Google (usually one of those three). Don’t you think they have a terrible product? How could they possibly be so successful?”

我经常被问到以下问题:“看到Facebook/Amazon/Google(通常是三者之一),你不认为他们有一个可怕的产品吗?他们怎么可能会如此成功呢?”

No matter how many times I hear the question, I always have to take a breath before I answer.

无论我听到多少次这个问题,我通常都要在回复之前深吸一口气。

I think there are three relatively minor confusions underlying this question, and two very large confusions. But they all get to the heart of what makes great products and great product people. So in that spirit, I thought I’d share my answer here.

我认为在这个问题之下有三个相对次要的混淆,以及两个非常大的混淆。但是他们都提及了造就伟大产品和伟大产品人的内心。本着这样的心情,我认为我应该分享我的答案。

First the minor issues:

首先谈谈次要的事情:

  1. Product people often fall into the trap of confusing themselves with the actual target customers. Just because you or I don’t like something doesn’t actually mean much, if we’re not the target audience.

1、产品人经常陷入到混淆他们自己和现实目标客户的陷阱之中。仅仅是因为你或者我不喜欢一些事实上有深意的事物,如果我们不是目标客户的话。

  1. Very often these backseat designers are pointing to secondary tasks that frankly don’t really matter. Good product managers and designers know that there are a few critical tasks in every product that need to be exceptionally good, and if this comes at the expense of some secondary tasks, that can be a very good trade to make.

2、通常,这些次要的设计者正在指出的辅助任务其实只是没那么重要罢了。好的产品经理和设计师知道在每个产品中有一些关键的任务需要异常的好,如果把这些次要的任务作为代价,那可能会是非常好的交易。

  1. Anyone that has been working in this industry for a while, and has actually been running A/B tests, knows that we’re very often surprised. What we think would happen with a given design or feature doesn’t always work out like that. Unless you have access to the detailed analytics, it’s very possible your intuition is wrong. Mine is wrong so often I have come to expect to be wrong. But I’ve found that helps me much more than it hurts me because I’ve learned to be very open to the data and to learn quickly.

3、已经在这个行业里工作了一段时间,事实上也一直在运行A/B测试的任何人都知道我们经常惊讶。我们认为偶遇一个给定的设计或特征并不总是他们所想的那样。除非你已经涉足了详细的分析,否则很有可能你的直觉是错误的。我所期望的错误常常是错误的。但是我发现它帮助我远远超过了它伤害我,因为我一直在学习存在可能性的数据并且学的很快。

Now the big issues:

现在谈谈重要的事情:

  1. How do you actually define good? If you define it by what you personally like, then maybe these sites are not very good. But I define good using the product scorecard. The prioritized set of business KPI’s that the business is looking to the product team to find ways to positively influence.

1、你事实上如何定义良好呢?如果你通过你个人的喜好定义它,那么或许这些站点就不会是非常好。但是我使用产品记分卡来定义它。商业KPI针对业务的优先作用就是留意产品团队找到产生积极影响的方法。

If you define goodness in a social network as the ability to rapidly grow and deeply engage users, its hard to argue that Facebook has been anything less than off-the-charts successful.

如果你在一个社会化网络中定义优良的能力快速的成长并深深的粘合用户,它就很难表明有任何事情能够阻断facebook的成功。

If you define goodness in an e-commerce site as KPI’s such as conversion rate, average shopping cart value, customer acquisition cost, and repeat use, then it’s hard to argue that Amazon has been anything less than stellar.

如果你在一个电子商务站点定义优良作为KPI,例如汇率,平均的购物车价值,客户的获得成本,以及重复使用,那么它就很难表明有什么能够超过amazon的。

If you define goodness in a search engine as the number of search results (organic or paid) that the user needs to evaluate before he finds what he is looking for, then it’s hard to argue that Google hasn’t done an outstanding job.

如果你在一个搜索引擎中定义良好作为搜索结果的数量,用户在发现他正在寻找的结果之前需要进行评估,那么就很难认为google做的并没有那么出色。

  1. Even when teams focus on the key KPI’s for their product, they still often can’t see the forest through the trees. What I mean by that is that too many people focus on what’s right in front of them, which is typically usability issues. I’m a huge advocate for removing friction cause by poor design, however, I also know that it’s mostly about value. If you focus on providing real and sustained value, that will overcome a lot of sins. If you don’t provide that value, I really don’t care how usable the product is.

即使团队把焦点放在产品关键的KPI上,他们仍然经常是只见树木,不见森林。我的意思是太多的人只关注他们的眼前,这是典型的可用性问题。为了消除摩擦而导致贫乏的设计,我是巨大的支持者,然而,我也知道这大部分是关于价值的。如果你关注提供真实和持续的价值,那将克服大部分的罪恶。如果你不提供那些价值,我真的不在乎如何使用这个产品。

The companies I highlighted above provide a ton of value to their users and customers.

我的公司提供了大量的关于他们的用户和客户的价值。

Sustained value.

持续的价值

All of them make mistakes. All of them work to improve their product every day. But mostly they focus on providing real value to their customers and driving the key KPI’s of their business.

所有他们犯的错误。所有他们的工作都是为了每天改善他们的产品。但是大多数他们关注提供真实的价值为他们的客户并驱动他们业务中关键的KPI。

That’s how I define good, and I’m hoping that’s how you define it as well.

这就是我如何定义良好,并且我也希望你是这样定义的。

分享到QQ 分享到微信 分享到微博

0 条评论

发表我的观点

取消

  • 昵称 *
  • 邮箱 *
  • 网址