Nov
28
2006Gucci.com revisited
28
2006
Someone calling himself (or herself) ToyMaker posted a long comment on my post about the Script.aculo.us based Gucci.com site relaunch. ToyMaker’s points about its usability flaws are valid and well-reasoned, but it got me thinking about the nature of luxury brand web sites and when is it appropriate for style to trump usability. The me of a few years ago would have argued “Never!” but now I’m not so sure.
Think about the real world “usability” of the Gucci brand. Gucci products are difficult to find. They can only be found in highly upscale boutiques or department stores, and for vast swathes of the world there is simply zero availability whatsoever. If they were concerned about “usability”, they’d have a store on every street corner. Once you’re in the store, there are very few products on the actual shelves. They’re displayed mainly for visual appeal. If they were concerned about usability, they’d put every size of every product out on the sales floor. Many products are in locked cases. You need to ask for assistance to try things on. This wouldn’t be the case if Gucci were concerned with “usability”. You have to ask a salesperson for prices on many items - that’s terrible usability!
My point is that there is much more to the shopping experience than getting in, getting what you want, and getting out - especially when dealing with luxury brands. Buying a luxury product is an inherently illogical process. No one - not a single person on Earth - needs anything Gucci sells. To convince someone to buy such a vastly overpriced product, it’s important to convince them the actual act of purchasing that item is an very special experience. In the real world, this means sparse boutiques, exclusive locations, and hands-on sales personnel. All these things slow down the purchase process, but are essential in “selling the experience”. In the virtual world, this can mean long load times, odd page layouts, and sometimes confusing navigation.
Verdict: Yes, style - or, more accurately, “story” - can sometimes trump usability and standardization, for certain products. No, Gucci.com’s usability is not broken. Users may be slowed down by certain aspects of the site’s design. But that doesn’t mean the site is bad. Just that you’re not its target audience. Its target audience expects exactly what they get - a unique, rich, immersive experience - and Gucci.com provides that in spades.
Don Norman’s thoughts on Emotional Design would seem to come into play here. Gucci is expecting people to react emotionally to the site, although per ToyMaker’s argument, Gucci accomplished this at the expense of the usability.
Norman would argue that the most successful design would succeed on multiple levels, including the attractiveness/appearance, the behavior (or perhaps the usability), and the “reflective” story that the site promotes.
Personally, I would say that even if an emotional design is the goal, there’s still a place for usability, even if you’re pandering to a select few. Their audience may be economically or stylistically elite, but one shouldn’t assume that they are technically l33t.
Dave 11/28/06 @ 11:46 pmIt’s not just usability. It’s the simple fact the designer goods are caterted to a very specific target market. (the rich duh) So the rich know where to shop therefore they know the purchuse of a designer product is going to be a special experience.
Funky 11/29/06 @ 12:22 amDave - there’s nothing technically challenging about Gucci.com for users. In fact, if you go through an actual purchase process (be sure to stop before submitting the final order
), it’s incredibly smooth. I think the site succeeds as Norman describes.
Jeff 11/29/06 @ 8:11 amI guess I was using “technically challenging” to mean “difficulty in usability”, but that was before I actually got to use the site (it requires the latest browsers, I was back one version), and now I see it is indeed quite smooth.
And enjoyable… I wish more shopping sites were as fun!
Dave 11/29/06 @ 12:00 pm