I’ve just had one of those experiences that sadly fails to surprise. I have a Lloyds Bank credit card, and in attempting to do an online transaction with it, was presented with the Click Safe authentication screen. This told me that I would be sent an SMS message with a code that I should enter on the next screen.
The problem was that the code was going to be sent to my old mobile number. Several months ago when I changed my mobile number I had logged in to my card account and updated it. Maybe it had regressed? I’ve checked but my online account was up to date. Clearly Lloyds have separate databases holding customer information, and they don’t always talk to each other. It’s the sort of incredibly annoying thing that still happens.
My penalty for being in this situation was that I had to phone the euphemistically named Customer Services, never something I’ve looked forward to with Lloyds.
I had to speak to three people, which included a gap in between the second and third where I was told I would have to wait at least ten minutes, and I could phone back another time. I don’t think there’s ever been a time when I’ve called when they haven’t been ‘extremely busy’.
Of course, I had to explain the issue three times. All of the staff tried to be helpful and polite. The last chap had to take me through some laborious authentication questions, and then told me that he’d updated the system to authorise the transaction I was trying to make, and he’d updated my phone number. I should wait five minutes, then try the transaction again.
I waited more than five minutes, and tried again.
I was told that the authorisation had been declined by the bank.
I waited, and tried again. Same result.
I phoned again, and although this time I check to use a number specifically for credit cards, I still had to be put through to ‘credit cards’ after explaining the problem.
The chap on the phone then explained to me that the problem was with the expiry date of the card. I guess that the error message couldn’t have told me that, as it would help someone who was trying to make a fraudulent transaction. I was using a password protection tool to auto-fill my card details, and although the information in the database is correct, it was appearing incorrectly on the payment form, and I hadn’t noticed. I still don’t know why that happens. I tried again with the correct information, and this time it worked.
There are a couple of take-outs.
Firstly, there’s no excuse for the lack of a joined-up view of the customer by Lloyds. When I updated my account online with my new phone number, it should automatically feed into whatever Click Safe uses.
Then there’s the inevitable transferring of calls, and the need to explain the problem multiple times. There has to be a better way.
It’s not all down to the business though. I did submit incorrect information when I tried again. I didn’t check, and if anyone had asked me, I would have insisted that I had entered the correct information. I know from experience on both sides of the fence that people will often swear blind that they did or didn’t do something online, only for the system logs to prove differently. People can look very sheepish when presented with the evidence, but that’s how people are. It’s not acting in bad faith. We’re fallible creatures who don’t always understand our own motives, and who don’t notice what actions we take. As far as possible, it’s the job of UX (and CX offline) to mitigate the impacts.
Have you ever taken part in an idea-generation session, and heard nothing more about it? I would guess that applies to many of you. It’s a good way of turning people off, and generating a ‘what’s the point?’ attitude.
There are great ideas lurking in many peoples’ heads that just need an audience. Some people are good at talking – but that doesn’t necessarily mean they have the best ideas. If you have an idea session, the extroverts will be clambering over each other to get their thoughts aired, whilst the introverts will be sitting at the back having a good think. It’s generally a good idea to let people know in advance if you want ideas.
There are a few situations that I think of in relation to idea generation. One is within the context of a project. Maybe you’re working on a design for a new interface, and want some critique of what you’ve done so far. An approach here is to stick up the designs on the walls, and leave pens and sticky notes around so that people can leave their thoughts. If you also post up a change log with revised designs, then those contributors can see what, if anything, became of their ideas. It provides them with reinforcement to want to contribute some more. It’s a good idea as well to list those ideas that won’t be implemented. It helps people to know that although their idea won’t be adopted, that it has nevertheless been thought about. It also helps them to understand more about the context of use, so that their subsequent suggestions can be more relevant.
Another idea-gathering context occurs when an organisation has time out, such as an away day or business unit forum. Maybe there are some business presentations, and then, to get more ‘engagement’, everyone is invited to come up with good ideas either singly or in groups, and then to present these back. There might be some voting for the best ideas, or management will gather them up for consideration.
I can’t say that I’ve seen a lot of value from these efforts. It does get people talking and thinking about things which is good, but generally the follow up has been lacking. Companies don’t typically have a lot of spare resource, in time or money or people, and so if new ideas are presented, then something else has to stop in order for them to be implemented. Some companies may be better than others at this, but it takes effort to review, compare, persuade, change course. And so the initial enthusiasm gets lost in the daily grind. For it to stand a better chance, one or more individuals should have responsibility for getting the ideas properly assessed – and it should be in their objectives. Those individuals could be at different levels in the organisation – they don’t have to be senior, and it can be a good development opportunity. If they are junior though, they should have a senior sponsor who takes the role seriously.
This lack of feedback and visible impact causes demotivation and cynicism over time. When I started at British Airways as a young developer, I enthusiastically joined in a Process Improvement Plan workshop. I remember well one of the old hands shrugging his shoulders, saying he’d seen it before, nothing ever happened, but at least he’d join in and help. I thought it was a poor attitude. Years later I found myself in the role of the old hand offering similar views, the result of having been through the mill many times.
Yet positive things can happen. When I was UX Manager at BA, a colleague and I went to the contact centres in the UK and the USA to get feedback. We wanted to know what the agents thought of ba.com. We wanted to know what we could improve so that customers wouldn’t be phoning them up with complaints or problems that the agents didn’t even know existed. The contact centre management set us up with different groups, and we sat round a table to talk about what the issues were. We had assumed that there would be some common themes, but were surprised at how diverse the problems were – different by geography and also the role of the agent. The one thing that was common across the groups was the sense of cynicism, that they’d all been through this process before, and nothing ever happened.
My colleague and I documented all of the issues – not just some – on a spreadsheet. We took it back to base, and sat down with the rest of the management team, and agreed who would be responsible for fixing which issues. We also agreed that for various reasons, some were unlikely to be fixed, and we recorded it all in the spreadsheet. As we made progress with fixes, we periodically shared the spreadsheet, warts and all, with the contact centre staff. The response was incredible. People were so happy that we’d actually really listened to them, that we were actually doing something about it, and that we were letting them know about it. Even the old hands got enthusiastic.
This isn’t rocket science.
If you want ideas, let people know in advance
Provide a forum or method that lets everyone have their say, not just the loudmouths
Ensure someone has responsibility for gathering and feeding back
Immediately feed back on what the ideas were (and make sure you don’t place your own interpretation on someone else’s idea)
Feed back on progress to appropriate timescales
If you’re not going to do anything with the ideas, don’t ask in the first place
There are books you can read and sites to explore about good writing for the web. Yet I still see so many of the basic guidelines being broken.
It’s important to note that what counts as good writing will vary according to context. A good marketing blurb that gets you excited about a product or travel destination will usually differ in style from straight factual information, which may again vary from the way that functional error messages are written. On top that those contexts, writers often have to factor in a Brand tone of voice. Is it formal, or playful, or quirky? As you move along the scale from inspirational to factual there is generally less opportunity to bring in a tone of voice – but some brands do. Bringing in tone of voice often means that you need more words and a turn of phrase that can get in the way of clarity, which needs to take precedence.
There are exceptions, but generally when you get to facts, people just want the punchy facts, and then they want to leave. You might get an amusing error message, and it can work. It can also become annoying.
In this post I’m looking at the middle ground where you want to present factual information. You want to make it easy for people to find the information that’s relevant to them, and present it in a way that is unambiguous as far as possible. It’s not a completely comprehensive list of dos and don’ts (that would be a book).
It shouldn’t come as a surprise to know that people don’t read websites or apps like they read novels. Users have a goal – they’re not there for the pleasure of your prose. They scan, looking for the cues and keywords that relate to their goal. If the information that you want to impart is a series of individual facts, then structure it as bullets, don’t write it into a sentence.
It’s quite hard to scan that paragraph, and pick out the rules in a way that you can get your head round. It would be better as follows:-
Some of the unnecessary verbosity is tidied up. Now it’s ‘We have great fares in all our cabins’ rather than ‘There’s great fares in both premium and non-premium cabins’. The original makes you stop and think. The new version also makes it a lot easier to pick out the relevant dates.
It would help the reader if some of that first paragraph was broken into bullet points, and then you could see at a glance that there are three venues available for hire. Other aspects of this page are also worthy of comment.
Why on earth is there a link to download venue logos? I don’t know their business, but as a prospective hirer, it doesn’t seem relevant. And the link just seems to be plonked on the page at random. It doesn’t relate to any of the other content, and immediately follows some text telling me to follow the links to find out more. It takes the user to a page full of logos.
Also, there is no explanation of what the four pictures are of – even if you click on them. And although there are three venues (apparently), there are only links to two of them, under an odd heading of ‘related content’. I don’t think it’s ‘related’ content. It IS the content. This page needs some work.
Make sure it’s understandable English (or whatever the language is)
This has clearly been written by someone who does not have English as their first language, and it hasn’t been checked. This can matter. Even if someone can get the gist of it, it’s hard work. Many times I’ve agonised over nuances of wording, and sometimes people challenge me as to why I’m worrying so much over some minor point of detail. The reason is that to the customer this might be the most important thing they read, and those nuances can really matter. It’s easy to be lazy and write copy that has unintentional ambiguity, and you might never know it. If I say ‘loyalty scheme members must go to gate A’, does that mean only loyalty scheme members can go to gate A ? It doesn’t say, so it’s ambiguous.
Limit line length
If the user is reading your content on a mobile device, this isn’t an issue. If someone has designed for mobile first, and not thought too much about the presentation on desktop, then it’s easy to let line length run amok, although it also happens on non-responsive sites. This is an example from Manchester Airport.
It doesn’t matter particularly if you can’t read the text here. The visual impact is of small text size and long lines, which is immediately daunting. Any research that I’ve found suggests that users read faster with long line lengths, but prefer shorter lengths. That reflects my personal preference. 80 characters is a good rule of thumb for line length.
On a positive note, the main questions are in bold. That’s good. It helps the user to scan and pick out the relevant items, and it shows the structure of the page. The sub-headings though are in italic, and it would be better to have a design style that’s between the main heading and body copy that is clearer and easier to read.
Putting the whole thing on a background image of clouds is just annoying, and makes the text harder to read. It doesn’t add information or usability. This isn’t the place for clouds.
Categorise and structure
The Manchester Airport example above does attempt to give structure to the content. Many sites have a really long list of FAQs. This example is from Camp America.
There are 70 FAQs. Other sites have more. In this case, there is a drop-down at the top where you can filter by category. That’s good, but I predict that most people will miss it, as they will look immediately at the FAQs for the information they want, rather than start by looking around the page just to see what other navigation or content there is. Since the categorisation is there, why not turn it on by default, rather than off? It would help.
Put active information at the start of the line
Some time ago I was working on some copy to help customers who were due to fly, and were in wheelchairs, and wanted some help at the airport.
We had some words along the lines of ‘If you call our contact centre, then when you travel we can arrange for help with your wheelchair’. We changed this to ‘If you are in a wheelchair, and need help when travelling…’ Again, people scan content. With bullets and short sentences, they scan the first words of each item looking for relevance. The change that we made meant that people in wheelchairs didn’t have to read the whole thing to know they had found relevant content, and others could stop reading as it didn’t apply to them.
Most of the links start with ‘Terms & Conditions’ and I have to read further to find the relevant ones. I’m on a T&Cs page, so I know it’s all about terms and conditions. Switch the content to ‘English credit card Terms and Conditions’.
I often see words on sites that don’t add information, and shouldn’t be there. Sometimes, it seems, site owners feel they need some introductory text. This is from Hitched, a UK site about weddings.
Someone has come to the site, usually excited, looking for advice and information. That introductory paragraph adds nothing (IMHO). It’s just there for the sake of it. I predict that most people won’t read it, and those who do get no value from it, which means it’s clutter.
Also, the text is centred, as other text is on the site. This makes it harder to read. We get used to starting at the same left-hand (in English) position for each line. Centred text forces us to take time and effort – even if it’s not conscious – locating the start of the line. It becomes fatiguing if there’s too much.
Users have goals. When it comes to facts, there are some simple guidelines that in most cases will help people to get what they want quickly.
Write good English (or whatever the language is), and make it unambiguous
Limit line length
Categorise and structure the content
Put active information at the start of the line
Don’t blather – make every word justify its existence
Don’t centre text
Make it physically easy to read – large enough text size, no patterned backgrounds, good contrast
Whilst user interfaces have by definition been based on hardware, the increasing ubiquity of the Internet of Things (IOT) will likely challenge product managers to develop a broader range of skills. Once, you had a computer, built, let’s say, by IBM. There needed to be an operating system for it, and a young Microsoft came along with DOS, which stood for Disk Operating System. It was before Windows. One company made the hardware, another made the software, and if something didn’t work, there was always a chance that they could say ‘it’s not our fault, it’s the other guys’.
IOT typically encompasses a combined hardware and software offering from one company. Even if parts of the whole are contracted out for the manufacturing, there’s going to be a lead marketing company which takes responsibility for all of it. And the product manager needs to know enough to be able to manage production, software development, UX, and to work with colleagues in marketing. All of that, as well as understanding the market, competitors, customer needs, measurement and feedback processes etc. If hardware and software are developed in-house, being able to manage those processes can sometimes be as challenging as outsourcing – sometimes more so, if, say, the internal IT department has its own budget and autonomy. It’s always critical when engaging with a supplier, internal or external, to agree the terms of engagement up front. Have arguments, have disagreements, but have them before you start, so that once you’re on the path, you have a contract or terms of reference that everyone has signed off on. Everyone has to be aligned to commercial and customer needs.
I have a dog.
The dog is one of the family, and we want to keep her safe. We have bought her more than one satellite tracker that attaches to her harness. If we lose her, there’s a SIM card in the tracker that connects to an app, and we can see where she is in relation to us, on a map. It’s a great idea.
To make it work, a lot of different elements have to come together. Someone has to have the idea. It can’t just be a good idea, it has to be a commercially viable idea. So there has to be an understanding of the potential market, barriers to entry from competitors (if it’s new), cost and timescales of production, distribution, quality, and product features. That’s the hardware. There are similar consideration for the software, but it’s a different skill set to understand the UX of the app from the features of the hardware, or the technical infrastructure or data sources that are needed. The original tracker we bought wasn’t natively waterproof, but the company had brought out a case for it. Many dogs love to go swimming, as ours does, and they are going to be caught in the rain, so a waterproof tracker has to be high on the list of requirements, but adds to the expense. There’s an equation to be worked out.
Ultimately, the hardware was good, from our point of view. The software was a different story though. It seems that many companies outsource software development not only to India, but also China, as was the case here. The default location for the dog was always in China, which completely threw me when I loaded it up. The whole interface was un-intuitive. If you’re in a panic because you’ve lost your dog, your vision and thinking will shut down, and you have to have something that is utterly simple to use.
The point is that, as ever, the end-to-end experience has to work for the customer. I messaged the company repeatedly about the problems with the software, including the bugs. They didn’t help much. I don’t think they had the skills, or maybe the resources. I wonder if they even owned the IP on the software, or were committed to using a developer thousands of miles away with whom they had poor communication. That’s speculation of course, but something a product manager should be thinking of. Eventually the company stopped supporting the device, leaving me with some useless and expensive hardware, and a useless annual subscription for a SIM card.
Marketing and sales need to understand the benefits to the customer, as is the case with any product. When I realised I had to replace the tracker, I researched the market. One of my requirements was that the tracker should roam across mobile networks. There’s no point having an O2 SIM if there’s only a Vodafone signal. It should work if there’s a signal from any network. If there’s no signal, then you’re out of luck, but at least maximise the chances. This requirement means that either you provide your won SIM, or the built-in one has to be able to roam. One product I looked at comes from Europe. I messaged the very friendly people there, but was either unable to clearly communicate what the question was that I was asking (will it roam across UK networks), or they didn’t know. So I bought a different, more expensive one.
Some ideas will originate with the hardware, such as, say, a thermostat or speakers, and someone will come up with an idea that will link them to the Internet, make them controllable remotely, integrate with other functions, which requires a software interface (that doesn’t have to be an app, it could be voice, for example, or both). Equally you could start with a fitness app, and have an idea for a hardware tracker. In each case, the manager has to extend their skill set beyond their traditional competence to ensure that end-to-end experience.
IOT will also integrate with the latest tech buzzwords – robotics, AI, big data, AR, VR, and alternative interfaces, such as gestures and, particularly, voice. Interface designers will need to be clear about the underlying principles of good usability that apply across different implementations, and then understand how to apply those principles for each case. The product manager must be able to assess and trust that the designer has done their job.
New technologies demand new skills, and the IOT is no different in that respect. It does though need product managers/owners and their bosses to recognise what that range of skills is.
I see the same mistakes – as well as some new ones – being made over and again in surveys and questionnaires. Most businesses and other organisations are dependent on surveys to a greater or lesser extent. They use them to find out what customers think of them, or what products they should be developing, or what issues need fixing… etc etc. Yet often those organisations are not getting accurate information. If survey questions are confusing or ambiguous, or constrain answer choices, they will be getting a skewed view of responses. It’s like a political poll asking, for example, ‘which candidate do you like’, rather than ‘who do you intend to vote for’. What do you actually want to know?
My advice is that if you are responsible for a survey of any sort, spend some time getting yourself up to speed with what makes for a good survey, and what some of the pitfalls are. It’s easy when you’re familiar with a topic to ask questions that respondents won’t necessarily understand, and it takes some self-discipline and customer knowledge to avoid the problem.
You can’t always entirely trust the ‘experts’ either. I’ve had many a debate with professional purveyors of surveys about their proposed wording for questions, as I’ve felt that they were
unclear to my particular customers
too similar to other questions
not offering adequate response choices
You need at least to be able to judge whether the professional advising you really knows their stuff.
It pays to test a survey on a small sample before general release – and that means talking to people, and understanding how they interpret the questions, and whether it’s the interpretation that you intended.
There are many books on how to write questionnaires and surveys. One that I’ve read and can recommend is
Don’t expect a riveting read, it’s a textbook. But it does cover the ground with good examples.
Now I’ll describe how I decided to approach a survey question at British Airways that was more complicated than it seemed, and then I’ll give some examples from recent surveys that I’ve filled in.
The British Airways question
I was working on the wording for the ba.com site survey, and ended up with some convoluted logic. It wasn’t convoluted to the people filling it in (hopefully), as the sequence would make sense to them. It didn’t make a lot of sense though to colleagues and others who reviewed the questions, and I had to defend the structure many times.
When customers filled in the feedback survey on ba.com, we wanted to know if they were
a member of the Executive Club (the frequent flyer scheme, abbreviated to EC)
if so, which tier they were (Blue, Bronze, Silver, Gold)
if they weren’t, were they registered with a site login
if they weren’t registered at all
We could have gone with this:-
An Executive Club (EC) Member
Registered on ba.com
The problem with this is that some people don’t know if they are EC members. Generally, those who are know they are, as they’ve gone through the process of joining, but otherwise people could say, “How do I tell if I am?”. They might think that just registering on the site, or buying a plane ticket would give them membership. Internally within BA it came as a surprise to some that there could be this confusion.
It would be a little better to have
An Executive Club Member
Registered on ba.com (but not an Executive Club member)
The problem would still remain though that if you are either an Executive Club member, or registered, but weren’t sure which, you would answer ‘don’t know’, and then we wouldn’t have known whether you were registered at all.
It would also potentially confuse some Executive Club members who would think that they are both a member, and also registered.
What we went with was this.
<Do you have a login for ba.com?>
If the customer said no, skip to next question, if they said yes, then we asked
<Are you an Executive Club Member?>
If they said no, then they were registered, but not EC. If they said yes, we asked what Tier they were.
It’s still not perfect, but it does at least mean that we got better quality results on whether people were registered or not (without having to interpret what ‘registered’ means).
One of the most frustrating things that I see in a survey is when none of the answers apply. I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve told people that they need an ‘other’ option. Sometimes there is a closed set of potential answers – either you bought something on this visit or you didn’t.
I filled in a survey after having attended a Rock weekend at Butlins (it was great). I answered a question saying that the experience could have been better, and then I was presented with this question asking what could be improved.
The problem is that my reason wasn’t any of these things, yet the only way to progress is to pick one. So I did. If they had an ‘other’ option which allowed me to enter text, I would have let them know that some of the behaviour from other guests who had had too much to drink had been annoying. But they’ll never know.
Butlins also asked this –
The drop-downs were the same for each, and showed this-
I would expect Butlins to have a good handle on what matters to their customers in general, but for me, Internet access can be a deal breaker for a holiday, and it’s not in the list. My wife always wants to know if there is a hair dryer in the room. These may not be our number one issue, but if you’re going as low as number five, then you risk missing out.
First Great Western (FGW) ask about reason for travel.
I think it’s reasonable to assume that business, commuting and leisure account for the majority of train journeys. But what if you’re travelling to a funeral, or other reasons? It may be a small enough proportion that FGW think it’s not worth making the survey more complex by having an ‘other’, which they are entitled to do. But each time a respondent has to think harder about a question, it’s an additional point at which they are likely to drop out.
It’s fairly common on a site survey to ask what the purpose of visiting was (again, it can be problematic to assume you know all the answers), and then to ask whether you were successful.
Maplin and First Great Western both use Foresee to serve their surveys, and they take a different approach to each other.
You can see that Maplin offer a ‘partial success’ option, which FGW don’t. It’s likely that for many sites a significant proportion of customers will be partially successful. With FGW, I might have come to buy a train ticket, and did so, but it wasn’t at the price or the time that I wanted. I count that as a partial success. By only offering the binary choice customers are forced to make a qualitative judgement which way to vote. When that happens, the survey owner loses useful information. That’s especially so if the customer votes for ‘success’, as then you don’t know there’s something that was an issue. You can still ask ‘was there anything else that would have improved your experience today’, but then you have a pile of verbatims, and the issues are lost from the headline reporting of the success question.
I filled in a Which? survey about my car. This was one of the questions, asking how I financed the purchase.
As with any web text, survey respondents don’t necessarily read the detail of each question. They will scan, and stop at the first answer they think applies to them. In this list, the choices for ‘Personal Contract Hire’ (the first option) and ‘Personal Contract Purchase’ (further down) are quite similar, and unless you are a wizard on car finance you have to read the detail to understand the difference. I suspect that Which? are going to get more responses to the first option than actually applies. You’ll get people like myself who have ‘Personal Contract Purchase’, who read just enough to decide that the first (and wrong) choice, applies to them.
In such cases, the two options should be next to each other. It doesn’t entirely solve the problem (it would further help if the order was randomised), but there’s more chance that people will spot the alternative, rather than just going with something that looks close enough.
Time and again I’m filling in a survey and think ‘what do they mean by that?’. Often, these will be technical questions, or ones requiring a subjective judgement but no guidance is offered.
On Google maps I often answer questions about places I’ve visited. It seems that Google has a standard set of questions, some of which do puzzle me.
What you and I consider to be ‘trendy’ can vary. Google may be ok with this, but I usually just go for ‘not sure’.
I always struggle with this one. Is a more expensive pub ‘upscale’? There are probably venues that clearly are, like the Ritz, and those that clearly aren’t, like McDonalds, but where’s the line?
Shouldn’t the question be ‘Is this place popular with travelers?’. Each time I see this I have to stop and think about what it means. Anyway, how can I tell who is a traveler? Does it mean tourists? People just in transit?
Google seem to be experimenting with images as well. Here’s one question I was asked.
I can well imagine that Google could be experimenting with the automation of image choices. Nevertheless, whilst asking me which image is more ‘helpful’ (what does that mean? Should it be ‘representative’?), the picture on the left is of Windsor, rather than Slough. The picture on the right is of some offices just outside Slough. I don’t think either are ‘helpful’, although the one on the right is at least of Slough.
There could be some rhyme and reason to all this. All I’m doing here is pointing out some of the confusion these things cause to me, and readers can decide for themselves whether it’s useful or relevant.
I filled in a Which? survey about pet insurance. We have a cat. The survey asks what type of cat it is.
As you can see, the response is selected with a check-box, but unlike radio buttons, check boxes are not mutually exclusive. This doesn’t make sense, as the cat can only be of one type. If you select more than one type, you get an error message.
This could easily be avoided by using radio buttons. Whilst most people aren’t going to pick multiples, if you have a cross-breed you might pick two boxes, or you might pick one, and then spot a more accurate description, and go for that. The initial question also does not specify that only one choice can be made.
Viking sell office supplies. They also use Foresee to serve their survey. At the end of the survey this is what you see.
It’s good that it says thanks, but where do you think ‘Contact Us’ links to? I’d assumed it would allow me to contact Viking, as I’m answering their survey, but it actually links you to the Foresee site.
Many years ago we discovered that some of our customers were contacting our survey supplier in the mistaken impression they were contacting us. Worse, the supplier was responding directly, rather than passing the messages back. It needs to be clear who the contact is with. Own your own survey.
A couple of positives
I’ll finish off by pointing out a couple of positives things I’ve seen.
This is a good(ish) sign-off from Butlins, thanking the customer for taking the time. It’s a shame that the message about entry into a prize draw is so small and barely readable. More could be made of it – and a happy picture would add to the experience.
Customers who respond to a survey may be inclined to help out with further research. FGW ask if customers are willing to do so, and it’s possible to build up quite a database of willing customers that can be segmented by the responses to the survey. The wording could be tightened up and made a bit more visually appealing though.
Finally, from the Which? survey on pet insurance, there’s a question about the age of the cat. It’s good that there is encouragement to answer approximately if you’re not sure. It gives that bit of permission not to sit and agonise about being precise.
This question reminds me of applying for car insurance years ago. Many insurers asked for the date when your licence was issued. In fact, all they were interested in was whether it was issued more than a certain number of years ago. It would have made my life easier if they had just asked that.