Month: July 2019

Robinhood, slick and dangerous

gary

In the same vein as my last critique, let’s take a peek at little ‘ol Robinhood.

To recap, we’re analyzing brand messaging through the lens of storytelling. Us humans seem to respond best to narratives. Not coincidentally, the best products (and companies) tell a story: one that captures our attention, is clear and coherent, and leads us from where we are to somewhere else we’d like to be.

What story is this product telling me, does it make sense, and is it captivating? 💡

Right away, the name Robinhood is meant to inspire a feeling of justice and righteousness. If I recall, it was Robinhood that stole from the rich and gave to the poor. By famously offering commission-free trades, Robinhood ostensibly robs from rich Wall St. and gives back to us, ye olde residents of Main St. It fits with the Robinhood green primary color, too. Kinda cool. 😎

Let’s invest in stuff

There’s actually quite a bit going on here, but it’s communicated in a relatively clear fashion. ✅ 

We know Robinhood is all about investing in stuff, and you won’t have to pay commissions. There’s a whole bunch of stuff we can “invest” in (more on that later). Also, we can do it from our phone or desktop. They both show and tell this, which is great. I’m also not being bombarded with color (just one soft, pleasing Robinhood green), or hyperbole. 😅

The two calls to action are clear: either sign up on the web, or go to the app store.

Also, the logo makes sense to me. My main gripe is with the complexity of the shape: could we do a simpler, more modern looking quill?

On the other hand, I don’t know anything about logo design. Or much about anything else. So there’s that. For the curious, @pieratt says: “Give it a story, As few shapes as possible, Focus on feeling”.

Moving on…

Flying cash cat 💸 

Cash management, da fuck? This placeholder is disorienting. I get it, your brand is fun and weird. However, introducing cash management as a new [complicated] concept seems odd when we haven’t even gotten into the core offering: investing.

It’ll be interesting to see how in the future they merge this into their investment story without diluting it into yet another financial institution.

So what about that investing stuff?

Plenty of investment options 😬

Mostly, I like how they bring back and flesh out the investment options listed in the opening section: stocks, ETFs, options, and crypto.

But, the icons are weak. The style is inconsistent, and if anything they highlight the differences between these products rather than making them all feel like investments (the core message).

This is part of my problem with Robinhood. It feels like a stretch to call these all investments. It also feels like a stretch for Robinhood to present itself as a place for investment rather than one for trading. It’s misleading to present options and crypto (extremely risky, high probability of total capital loss) in the same breath as stocks and ETFs (more or less reliable investment vehicles). This hurts the whole brand, for me.

Too easy?

Fine, you provide the tools and let people experiment. It’s being presented in a way that feels simple, easy, safe, etc. But the fact that it really isn’t that safe continues to bug me.

Same with a headline about being commission-free. Yes, I can see the benefit in terms of immediate savings on commissions. But, you see, what ends up killing most budding traders investors is trading too much — buying high and selling low — rather than the associated trading fees.

I’m getting off-topic with this rant, but if I was making a platform with the goal of helping people become better investors, I’d find a way to charge as much as possible in commissions. Make drunk driving expensive and you’ll have fewer drunk driving deaths.

The rest is similar. The messaging is relatively clear and coherent: a powerful investing platform that isn’t complicated — anyone can use this, and learn as you go. The design is relatively simple, fun, friendly, etc. They’re here to help make it easy for you. Overall, given a few visual and messaging quibbles, I give it a B+.

Unfortunately, my assessment of the company as a whole is a lot more negative. Apologies for being a Debbie Downer, but I’m pretty sure Robinhood is not making the world a better place.

Making sense of Haus.com

gary

I’ve been diving into product, design, and branding. Creating things is a good way to learn. I’ve also found it helpful to analyze and critique the work of others. I’m going to try doing some of these publicly to see if it’s helpful. I’ll probably stick to companies and products in the approximate territory of fintech and/or real estate, as that is where my current project is focused, but who knows maybe I’ll throw out some curveballs as well.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I’m still a total newbie, so please give me feedback. Also, please don’t take my criticism personally! I’m probably wrong about half of this, and everyone has room for improvement.

My frame for analyzing a product/design/brand/UX/etc is one of first impressions: “making sense” of it. What are my main takeaways? Specifically, what story is it telling me and how do I feel about that?

https://twitter.com/garybasin/status/1136685599786766337
Great products, and great brands, should tell a captivating story.

I may mix in more granular critique as well, but my primary objective is to understand how companies tell stories and learn to do it better myself.

Without further ado, my first victim: Haus.com.

Let’s own a home

The first thing takeaway is this is a a product that offers me a way to own a home 🏠. In fact, they claim it’s the best way. Fine. My first question is, what makes it the best?

They immediately respond to this — which I like. The answer is: it’s cheaper 💰. Interesting, but not mind-blowing. Cost is a huge factor when buying/owning a home, obviously, but my first thought after that is “how much less, and what’s the catch?”.

I’m not thrilled about the rest of the copy. I’m being thrown into new ideas right away: accessing my equity and being in control. I haven’t even started thinking about equity yet. Same with control. The fact that these are emphasized make me 1) a bit confused right off the bat, and 2) maybe even concerned. Was there a chance that I’d be lacking control?

All about that money

The next screen dives right into an awkwardly-sized form. Don’t love the visual design here. More concerning, it’s not clear what the point of this is. In the previous screen, I’m being told that “What would I pay?” is next. But what if I miss that, or forget? I need to be reminded here. Otherwise, you’re asking me to do work for no obvious payoff. 😡

But, the story is somewhat consistent. It started with owning a home with a cheaper monthly payment, and now we’re continuing that narrative: this will (presumably) tell me how much lower that monthly payment will be.

Big Savings

A number is what I was hoping for, so this is good. Adding the bit about tapping equity echoes the introduction of “access[ing] your equity” from the first screen. Presumably, they’re trying to transition to talking about how equity works in this model? I would have preferred a more linear narrative 📗. First let’s talk about the main value prop: saving money every month. Then, how this relates to equity. Instead, we’re juggling two big ideas at once.

Let’s pause to digest. So far, I’m associating Haus with owning a home in a way that costs less per month. Saving money is intriguing, but it’s not groundbreaking — even though they say it’s “the best way to own a home”. I’m starting to associate the Haus brand with “same but cheaper”, and this isn’t a great way to be remembered. It’s not unique — any other brand can offer to save me money. I wish they branded off of what makes them special: something something own a home without a mortgage.

They’re branding on preference, not relevance. ☝️

https://twitter.com/garybasin/status/1131248799559639041

They then re-emphasize the savings (and tell me why savings is nice: more spending on other things). Followed by telling me more about the equity in a more complex way: now we’re buying and selling equity.

And using equity to pay when I can’t make my payments? It seems like the actual message here is flexibility. This is more interesting than savings — other companies can offer me savings, but flexibility is more unique. If flexibility is their main differentiator, they should have put it first and focused the messaging around that. 😕

I’m going to stop there. The rest of the landing page starts digging into the mechanics of equity co-ownership, with some confusing charts. The worst part? The nav menu has a SELL section. Bros, what does selling have to do with this core value proposition?

Overall grade is a C-

It took me a while to understand that what is really being offered is flexibility. The lower monthly cost is interesting but not unique. Also, it obfuscates the product — you’re not getting the same “thing” as you would at the typical monthly mortgage cost. You don’t “own” the whole home, not right away and maybe not ever.

Mission over metrics

gary

The biggest difference between a company with everyone rowing in the same direction and disorganized chaos is mission. In the former, the team knows the mission, cares about it, and is executing towards it.

As Scott explained to me over lunch one day in downtown New York City, “I love the idea of every person understanding how their small role aligns with the broader mission. . . . Elon Musk says that you can stop anyone on the SpaceX factory floor and ask them what they’re doing and why it’s important. Someone could be making bolts and you could say, ‘Why do you do it? What’s your job?’ And they’ll say, ‘Oh, I’m making these bolts so that we can have a landable vehicle, because if we do a landable vehicle, then we can get to Mars. And if we can get to Mars, then humanity will da-da-da-da . . .’” When people know where their small part fits in the whole, they recognize how indispensable their work is. They feel more accountable.

From The Messy Middle by Scott Belsky
Image result for bolt

The force is strong with this one. Not only is Musk good at helping outsiders believe (see: Tesla’s rocky ride), but he also brings it home with his team. Both inside and out, Musk’s main weapon is preaching his mission. Why are we doing what we’re doing? Why should I care?

Wait. Really, why should you care? Why is it important to have everyone thinking in terms of mission, rather their individual OKRs or KPIs or APIs? Quite simple: Grey. The answer is grey. What? Well, the world isn’t black and white. Every action taken by a team member is in some grey area. There are always tradeoffs. A little bit more performance, slightly higher cost, maybe some vendor lock in, etc. And your team can’t read your mind. Well, they can, if the mission is the summation of what’s on your mind and you’ve drilled it into theirs. But I’m getting ahead of myself.

Anyway, imagine a typical gray-area decision. If the team member only understands her part of the puzzle, you may find yourself frustrated with the decision they make. They fail to see the big picture! Why do I have to do everything? Argh. The solution? Well, as you may have guessed: get everyone thinking in terms of the mission. Whenever there is greyness (read: always), they can always look to the mission to resolve ambiguity. Does this get us closer to achieving our mission? Then it’s probably the right move. This is how we get everyone rowing in the same direction.

Oh, and there’s another benefit, perhaps even more valuable. When someone knows why they’re doing what they’re doing, it tends to be more motivating. It’s more meaningful, and often more enjoyable.

When people know where their small part fits in the whole, they recognize how indispensable their work is. They feel more accountable.

A common mistake is only getting “key players” on board with the mission, assuming that will be enough. Well, it’s better than nothing, but expect to be frustrated. The more you bottleneck the knowledge to make good decisions, the slower your organization will move, and the dumber it’ll behave. Do you want to be a Human who relies on their single brain to move their big dumb limbs, or a sleek Octopus who can do eight things at once?

For some reason, I have an octopus tattoo on my arm

So now we know we need everyone onboard. Wouldn’t you love your whole team to care about the mission? Everyone from an executive assistant to the head of sales. Well, it’s possible. Even if your mission isn’t about getting to Mars, it can be done. You need a story about why what you’re doing matters, and you need to repeat that story. For your team to know and care, they need to have it framed from their perspective and hear it over and over.

Elon Musk says that you can stop anyone on the SpaceX factory floor and ask them what they’re doing and why it’s important.

This all sounds good in theory, but then you get back to “work” and it falls by the wayside. I know because I’m pretty good at doing that. The hard part? Prioritizing the communication of mission.

To prioritize communicating the mission, you have to make a sacrifice. That means less focus on whatever fires are burning right now. Less focus on your OKRs and KPIs. Less energy spent pushing something that is immediately actionable and measurable. More energy spent on the ephemeral: getting everyone pointed in the same direction and excited about their role in the journey. In the long run, that will probably be the most valuable thing you do as a leader.