Growing Happy Users–One Customer at a Time

Technical writing is a profession in transition. The way companies think of, use, and manage the people who help users make sense of and use products is absolutely changing. A lot of companies have started to use the term “information developer” to describe their technical writing positions. I don’t really care what label the profession chooses for itself, but I do know this: if technical writers don’t transition more than their job title then they will be missing out on a huge opportunity to move from the “gotta do it” category into the “can’t live without it” one.
It’s the Community, Stupid
————————–

Three years ago the value of a strong customer community was not as immediately obvious. Today, however, there is no doubt that if you can transform your passive users into engaged users you can reap significant rewards.

Consider the difference between a passive and engaged user. A passive user is typically only a consumer of company resources (aside from the initial purchase of the product, of course). An engaged user–someone who follows what you have say, gives you feedback, and interacts with a community of fellow users–is in contrast a measurably positive force for your company and product. My personal estimate is that the value of an engaged user is worth at least 10 times that of a passive one.

user-community.jpg

Having engaged users can bring tremendous benefit, but for the company trying to build and sell product there must be a deliberate effort to encourage the establishment of a community. This is not without a cost. These types of users demand certain things that they’ve become accustomed to across the web. Google has trained them on a specific way to find answers and social networks are now training them on a new method of online interaction and feedback. Put simply, these users expect to be able to find what they need and, perhaps more importantly, they expect to be heard.

Social Documentation
——————–

Unfortunately, for most companies this can be a huge problem. It requires a huge shift in the way documentation is created, edited, published, and revised. Should writers be free to simply revise a paragraph at the behest of a comment from a user without waiting for a new release of the product? How do you manage and integrate user-contributed content with the “official” documentation? Should your technical writers also be bloggers–communicating with users in a less formal, more frequent way? The issues are numerous and go well beyond what I could list here.

stack-of-books.jpg

A daunting problem is that the concept of the traditional manual slowly fades away. A product’s documentation is becoming much more organic–growing and shrinking, almost living, as the product and community around it evolve over time. This is a good thing, and is part of the engine that motivates your users to interact and stay engaged with the community.

The days of the 400 page PDF that is the user’s manual are dying a slow death, but there is no doubt it’s happening. One of the consequences of this is that the tools that writers use to create, manage, publish, and revise their content must change as well. Engaged users are demanding: they want wikis, screen casts, blogs, forums, and more–all uniformly searchable and each beckoning the user to come closer and engage in a deeper interaction with the company if they so desire. Got a question or comment about the how-to article you just read? Ask it! Need more information about the screen cast you just saw? Request it! Figure out a complicated part of the product and you want to share your experiences? Write it up and post it! This is hugely valuable and it means that the changing role of the technical writer will be to not only create content more quickly and for more consumable mediums, but they must also be prepared to directly interact with the user and incorporating the feedback from those interactions into future documentation.

Happy Users
———–

Achieving this is hard, but the potential to create a virtuous cycle is enormous. Engaged users help your community grow and their happiness is infectious. smiley-face.jpg Happy users are advocates and they make for a powerful force in helping you define, build, and grow your products.

There are pitfalls. If you don’t engage the community openly, honestly, and with transparency they an be a vengeful force. Work hard to build the community, but work even harder listening to what they have to say. Users who feel engaged will forgive a lot of sins, as long as they believe you’re operating in good faith.

Are you a technical writer or information developer? We’d love to hear your thoughts and feedback on this post. Take a minute to leave a comment and let us know what’s on your mind.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

-->
  • alex
    Typically I have more questions than answers ...

    There is, in my view, an interesting question in the more community-oriented approach to documentation (or information development). At what point do you switch from creating content for a currently available release to the "next" release. Tech writers are *traditionally* working towards creating content for the next release. In the community model, which I have some exposure to, we spend quite a bit of time working on content for the currently shipping release.

    Which has more value? Content for a product currently generating revenue, or working towards content for the next thing? When do you make the switch? How many of your team resources (staff, materials, time, etc) should be spent divided between each type of release? How many releases could you ever support at one time (does the community decide)?

    Another question I would throw out is: if the community decides what is needed, what happens if/when they are wrong? People assume the community will provide for its own needs as and when they are needed, but what if they don't.

    There are business implications here beyond the confines of simple content creation/dissemination philosophy.
  • Absolutely and most of the answers to your questions are going to be dependent on your business and product. Great questions and I think ultimately whether a product is at version 1 or version 5, the content that is created along that release spectrum helps all users, whether they be on version 1 or 5. Version 1 users can partially use the version 5 documentation as motivation or justification to upgrade (does the feature work the way I want it to?) and version 5 users are likely large beneficiaries of community content generated over the previous four releases.
  • cw
    I think the death of the manual is exaggerated (be it print or online). Particularly for unavoidably complicated products (say a programming language), one of basic building blocks for creating an engaged community in the first place is an accurate and authoritative reference. Without that, your would-be community members will probably just flounder for awhile and then move on to a competing product.
  • I didn't say that documentation was dead, I said the delivery of that documentation as a monolithic, opaque manual is dead.
  • alex
    I agree with cw.

    Authenticity is a crucial underpinning of documentation, and given user perceptions of documentation in general, perhaps not something "we" have been very good at doing.

    Community models are gaining acceptance, and do provide some interesting pathways for the future of documentation/information development, but I think it is easy to get swept up in the romance of the notion of community. Changing methods can be very positive, but that doesn't mean we throw away the good parts of what we are already doing. It would also be good to see much more behavioral research done so we can better understand how best to facilitate information dissemination, and for my part I think we will find that for some types of information, such as reference material, large PDFs will still prevail.
  • Re: PDFs, only time will tell :).
  • evanarsdall
    I really enjoyed this post. I'm an independent consultant and have long called myself an information developer. I have no problem with "technical writer" as a job title, but I wear a lot of different hats, so coming up with a fitting title hasn't been easy.

    But titles aside, I'm very interested in the implications of social media on help and documentation. I don't have concrete answers to the questions you raise, but I certainly think a lot about where our profession is headed. I believe that getting rid of the "manual" paradigm is a first step. I have been in the field long enough to have worked extensively with both print and online media, and we have been saying for years that online media would make print obsolete. And we still joke about the fact that "nobody reads the manual." Yet, I train a lot of technical writers and help developers, and a clear majority of the companies that they work for want to produce printed output along with the help.

    Along with the cumbersome nature of printed tomes, I believe that the traditional model of online help is falling into obsolescence, too. Even recently I have searched for product help using what I felt were obvious search words, only to have the app help fail to return anything related to what I was asking.

    I firmly believe that the answers lie in effective product design: intuitive interfaces and embedded help. We have been talking and writing about embedded help for years, too, but I still find the adoption rate to be relatively slow.

    Anyway, thanks for the great post. I look forward to reading your blog regularly.
  • Excellent points. There's a need to go beyond the current set of doc deliverables, but how to convince management and the Company that this is important? How do you budget time and resources for alternate information delivery mechanisms when no one is willing (as yet) to say, that's okay, you don't HAVE to produce the 400 page PDF. Trim it to 200 pages and create screencasts/tutorials etc instead.

    So far, I haven't seen that light turn on in the right heads to make this transition happen.
  • Sandra,

    That's a very valid and astute point. Being able to quantify the ROI
    for companies before they begin to pursue this path, but in the
    beginning it doesn't have to be either or. You can experiment and try
    things to see how they work. I do believe, strongly, that tools must
    evolve to help you and your employers pursue this path. Aside from
    what these new tools do for the user, they should allow you to
    understand and value the impact you're having by using a social
    publishing model.

    Thanks for the feedback,

    Louis
  • robbyslaughter
    An old maxim in the documentation world is this: "The user manual is a list of mistakes." As Don Norman discusses in his classic book *The Design of Everyday Things*, in traditional product design, once the user has your creation in their hands you already have their money. There's more motivation to market the product as usable than there is to actually make it usable.

    Software, and especially modern software systems that are web-based, try-before-you-buy, and user-centric, cannot utilize this model. The opposite makes more sense: actively engage the user throughout the design and documentation process, and ensure that they are happy and connected at all times.

    Perhaps the most difficult component of this idea is the question of what remains proprietary. Sometimes, rather than requesting a feature, it might be more effective for a user to open up the source code and make a patch themselves. This notion threatens the idea of protecting business assets. When the work created for a community becomes owned by that community, they are no longer customers but partners. That's a model which might have every advantage except profitability.

    @robbyslaughter
blog comments powered by Disqus