#and those are the things i as someone who craves intrigue and complexity in media appreciates

[samijey]

Subtle character beats from Sami Zayn that hurt me:

Shuffling nervously in place and even raising his fist as Jey approaches him (RAW 2023.06.03)

Taking a couple of frightened steps back as Kevin walks towards him (Smackdown 2023.17.03)

In both instances Sami’s body language is anticipating an attack even if at these points in time he wasn’t enemies with either Jey nor Kevin ... he’s been betrayed and attacked so many times in the past that even as a defiant babyface his default stance is to be fearful and ready to defend himself 😭😭

[wondereads]

Personal Review (07/24/22)

Malice by Heather Walter

Why am I reviewing this book?

I started following this author on social media ages ago, so I was really excited to read this book. I was scared my expectations would be too high, but it was very good!

Plot 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10

In the Grace Houses, women blessed with golden blood use their power to enhance people's beauty, help them make decisions, and give them special talents. Alyce works in a Grace House, but her blood is green instead of gold and brings misfortune instead of happiness. Shunned by everyone, Alyce dreams of far-off lands as she trains her powers to aid in her escape, but she finds solace and an unlikely reason to stay in Aurora, the princess of the people who hate her.

I won't lie, this book moves a little slowly. It is very interwoven with the politics of the Graces and Briar, the kingdom. Most of this book is Alyce carefully side-stepping the expectations laid upon her and societal norms in order to do what is necessary. If you're looking for something with heavy conflict or fast-paced action, this would probably bore you pretty quickly. However, if you are a political fantasy person like me, it's all very interesting.

I really liked the worldbuilding, which gave tons of attention to Briar and the neighboring fae kingdom while allowing the rest of the world to be up to the reader. I also liked how the history of the area was warped by both personal biases and the passage of time. Everyone who told the story had a personal stake in it, thus it's impossible to parse the truth from the lies, very similar to how real history plays out.

On one hand, it was intriguing how most of the issues come from Alyce's own actions. It's always better to have a mess of a protagonist that the readers can root for rather than someone perfect who just happens to get drawn into bad things. On the other, this resulted in a lot of miscommunication and jumping to conclusions, which was very frustrating. Finally, if you couldn't tell, this is a Sleeping Beauty retelling. It did it very well, but I couldn't help but notice that certain aspects of the story were altered to make it work out better for the romance.

Characters 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10

Does Alyce make a lot of mistakes? Yes. Will I ever blame her for those mistakes? No. Alyce is a very flawed character that drives the story forward through her own vices, but she is also incredibly easy to root for and very compelling. While she did have moments where I was banging my head against a wall at her stupidity (she is very easily manipulated), I never found myself in a place where I didn't want her to succeed. Also, I do like that it is made abundantly clear that Alyce is not attractive. In fact, she is incredibly unattractive (with no room for 'oh she just doesn't realize she's pretty), which is rare for a main character.

Aurora is the love interest in this one, and as a character she was alright. I did like her as a person, she seems to have strong morals and a kind heart, but I hope she gets some more depth in the sequel. To be fair, Alyce really only starts actually spending time with her halfway through the book, but compared to a character as complex and nuanced as Alyce she does pale in comparison. However, I adored their relationship. It developed very slowly, with lots of pining included, and I'm very interested to see how it'll play out.

I think there was surprising amount of depth in the side characters. People presented as wholly good and tormented at the beginning are revealed to be cruel or selfish and people that would normally be unapologetically evil are given reasoning for their behavior and perhaps a chance for redemption. It makes sense with the theme of the story considering Alyce is universally hated and yet is just a woman who craves freedom. Unfortunately, the main villain is pretty one-dimensional with predictable goals and behaviors.

Writing Style 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10

The writing style didn't particularly stand out to me, but I didn't find any issues with it either. The descriptions are detailed, I liked how Alyce's feelings came across, and there were no anachronistic phrases or concepts. However, nothing caught my eye either.

In my opinion, the pacing could use a little work. It starts off very slow. The last third or so of the book is so intense and attention-grabbing, so I wish there had been some more of that earlier on. Whether that would be higher stakes or just more going on, I just wish there was more tension considering how slowly the plot moves in the first half.

Meaning 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10

Alyce's ostracization can be a metaphor for a lot of forms of discrimination, but I think the most obvious and most related to this story is the struggle of queer people. Being gay is often something that is demonized and when someone realizes that they're queer, they can also see themselves as a monster. Alyce is also a great example of how even though she is discriminated against, she isn't free of fault. She still makes bad decisions and must deal with the consequences, she just shouldn't have to suffer from prejudice on top of it.

Overall 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10

My expectations were thoroughly met by this book. While it did have its issues, mostly with pacing, the plot was solid, I loved the characters, and it had a good message. Be warned: there's a pretty horrendous cliffhanger, which is why I plan to buy the sequel before the end of the summer. I'm excited to see how Alyce's story plays out. If fairytale retellings or political fantasy are your thing, I'd definitely recommend this book for you.

The Author

Heather Walter: American, librarian, Malice is her debut novel

The Reviewer

My name is Wonderose; I try to post a review every week, and I do themed recommendations every once in a while. I take suggestions! Check out my about me post for more!

[aster-ion]

Sylvie x Loki Might Not Happen and Here’s Why

***SPOILERS FOR LOKI TV SHOW***

1.  They are basically siblings

Even though they have different personalities, backstories, and physical appearances, that doesn't change the fact that they are the genetic equivalent of siblings. No matter what Timeline you're looking at, both Sylvie and Loki are the offspring of Laufey and whoever he had children with. We know this because they are Variants of the exact same person, meaning that if either of them were born to someone other than Laufey, they would have been pruned as a baby. And since they weren't, that means they must be just as genetically similar as siblings are.

Because of this, the idea of Sylvie and Loki engaging in any kind of romantic or sexual relationship is extremely disturbing to a lot of fans. It's too big an oversight to brush past, especially when the show has continued to remind us over and over that they are, in fact, both Lokis. Maybe if them being the same person wasn't such a major plot point, it would be easier to ignore the facts, but it is, and that means that Marvel is basically pushing either an incest or selfcest (depending on how you look at it) type relationship. And that’s extremely risque for a corporation as large as Marvel, especially with a character as beloved by fans as Loki. 

2.  It is terrible LGBTQ+ representation

And before anyone says anything, no, it is not because Sylvie is portrayed as female and Loki as male. I've seen a lot of Sylvie x Loki shippers say that the reason people don't like the couple is due to it being one between a male and female, but that's not true. Loki and Sylvie were both confirmed to be bisexual, meaning that they can engage in a relationship with anyone of any gender. It would be completely valid for either of them to pursue romance with someone of a different sex and still be bisexual. No one is arguing against that, and if they are, I definitely do not agree with them.

However, the problem comes in when you take into account Marvel and Disney's (who owns Marvel) long history of queerbaiting. There have been countless times that Disney advertises their "first gay character!" only for it to be a single line of dialogue or a brief shot. Marvel in particular has used the popularity of certain LGBTQ+ ships and headcanons in their fanbase to generate media popularity that they don't actually follow through with in their movies/shows. So when Loki was confirmed to be both genderfluid and bisexual in Episode Three, lots of people felt like they were finally getting a win for representation. 

But those people, myself included, appear to have been let down again. The first two official queer characters had so much potential to go off and be with anyone they wanted, but instead, the show has set them up to be in a romance with each other. Now, this wouldn't be problematic on it's own, but when you take into consideration the questionable nature of their romance from Point One as well as the fact that the show has explicitly referred to it as "twisted," it raises the question of whether or not this is actually good representation. Because the fact is, in one episode the writers went “look, it’s two queer people!” and in the next, they said “their relationship is disgusting and demented.” Marvel’s first bisexual characters being borderline incestuous/selfcestuous does not sit well with me at all.

All of this is made even more confusing when you take into account the background of the Loki crew, most notably, the director Kate Herron. She also directed the Netflix series Sex Education, which has quite a bit of very well done representation of all kinds. So how is she managing to fail so badly on this project? It makes me wonder whether she truly is just losing her touch or if this is all a misdirection. Personally, I'm hoping for the latter.

3.  It does not send the "self love" message people seem to think it does

The writers, director, and cast of Loki have said multiple times that the relationship between Sylvie and Loki is meant to act as a metaphor for self love. And in a way, that makes a lot of sense. Despite creating different identities for themselves over time, they are still ultimately the same person and therefore share a special bond because of it. And there's a lot of potential that can be done with that concept.

Loki is an extremely complex and intriguing character. He has experienced a lot of trauma in his past that has shaped him into the person he is today. And that person is clearly very broken. He has never given away or received any kind of love, with the exception of his mother and possibly his brother, Thor. Other than that, he's had no healthy friendships, romances, or perception of himself. It makes sense for him to be confused by this pull he feels towards Sylvie, who is both alarmingly alike and vastly different from himself.

Something this series does exceptionally well is breaking Loki out of his comfort zone. He is finally forced to see himself from other people's perspectives. It started with the file Mobius showed him in the first episode. Loki was able to view his actions apart from himself, and was hit with the realisation that he had been hurting people, and he didn't like that. 

Loki is also confronted by the existence of the Time Keepers and the TVA, who describe him as an antagonist and nothing more. To them, his role is to make those around him look better, even if that means he repeatedly gets the short end of the stick. Mobius mentions that he disagrees with this and that Loki "can be whoever and whatever he wants, even someone good," adding another layer of depth as to who Loki could be in the future of the series. 

Another huge moment for Loki's character development is while in the Time Loop Prison with Sif. Though he starts out annoyed with the situation and recalls not feeling apologetic when he cut off Sif's hair, the longer he is in the loop, the more he changes. Loki admits things to himself that we have never seen him say aloud, such as the fact that he is a narcissist that craves attention. Sif telling Loki over and over that he deserves to be alone makes Loki question whether or not he believes that to be true, allowing him an introspective moment where he really has to think about who he is. 

Now with all of that being said, I'd like to tie in why this is important to the writing of Loki and Sylvie. They act as a mirror to one another, representing both the flaws and strengths of "what makes a Loki a Loki." For once, Loki gets an honest, unbiased look at himself without layers of expectations or self doubt. On Lamentis, he calls Sylvie "amazing" and praises her for all her accomplishments. That's a huge moment for him because it shows that despite also finding her irritating, he can look past those traits and see someone worth being a hero underneath. And through that realisation, he begins to understand that he can also grow to love himself. That kind of character development for Loki is incredible to watch, and it's the kind of character development I want to see from this series. Unfortunately, them possibly engaging in a romantic relationship will ruin it.

Whenever I'm feeling insecure about myself and my abilities, the solution has never been to look at who I am through a romantic lens. Self love is an entirely different type of love from romantic love, so if the series tries to push this relationship as a romance, it will fail to truly represent the arc that they are trying to show.

4.  Nobody likes it 

This one's a little on the nose, but it's true. Almost no one likes this ship, and more than that, most people actively hate it. Yes, there is a small minority that like Loki and Sylvie together, but there is an overwhelmingly larger group that is disgusted and angry by the fact that the show paired them up.

After Episode 4 aired, I ranted for about an hour and a half with a friend about how much we didn't want them together. My aunt whom I have never texted reached out to me to say that she hated their relationship. My homophobic neighbour came over and told me that she would prefer any other romance to this. Friends that I haven't talked to much since school let out for summer have all agreed that they collectively dislike Loki x Sylvie. This ship has brought people together purely because everyone hates it more than they hate each other.

There is no denying that the general feedback for Loki and Sylvie being a couple has been negative, even if you support them getting together for some reason. So if there are so many people out there who don't like it, I'm confused as to how it would be approved by a team of professionals.

5.  The contradicting information we have gotten so far

Before the release of Episode Four, Kate Herron said that the relationship between Loki and Sylvie was “not necessarily romantic.” During the interview, she continued to refer to them as friends and people who found solace and trust in each other.

However, after Episode Four, the head writer, Michael Waldron, and other members of the crew spoke up about Sylvie and Loki. They said things like “it just felt right that that would be Loki’s first real love story” and “these are two beings of pure chaos that are the same person falling in love with one another.” These kinds of comments very heavily imply something romantic, directly contradicting what Kate Herron said. Even Tom Hiddleston, the actor for Loki, has assessed the situation, highlighting the differing viewpoints. He’s also said before that the end of Episode Four ultimately has Loki getting in his own way. 

Now, this could all just be a misdirection on either side to build suspense for the show, but as of right now, it is entirely unclear who is telling the truth. Though it is more likely that the statements made by Michael Waldron are more accurate (as he is the writer), there is still a slight possibility that Loki x Sylvie won’t happen. I’ll link the articles I’ve found on this topic below so you can read them and decide for yourself. 

Kate Herron Statement - https://www.cbr.com/loki-sylvie-relationship-not-romantic/ 

Michael Waldron Statement - https://www.marvel.com/articles/tv-shows/loki-sylvie-in-love 

Tom Hiddleston Statement - https://thedirect.com/article/loki-tom-hiddleston-sylvie-romance 

6.  It is still salvageable

The odds are not in our favour, I’m afraid. It is highly probable that the show will put Loki and Sylvie in a romantic relationship with each other. Yet there is still a way to salvage it and turn their bond into something incredibly satisfying. Like I mentioned in Point Three, the relationship between Loki and Sylvie has the potential to be incredibly empowering and provide both characters some much-needed growth. And I believe that while unlikely, it can still do that. 

The only mention of them being romantically interested in each other came from Mobius, who at the time was angry, betrayed, and doing anything he could to get Loki to talk. Then, at the end of the episode, right before Loki is about to confess something important to Sylvie, he is pruned. This results in no explicit confirmation from either Loki or Sylvie that they are in love with each other. The audience is left not knowing whether Mobius was correct in his speculations, and honestly, I don’t think Loki knows either.

Loki is no expert on love, as I explained earlier. It is entirely possible that he doesn’t grasp how he feels about Sylvie and defaults to romance because of what Mobius said. There is undoubtedly some sort of deep bond forming between them, and I would love to see that being explored in the next two episodes. I would love to watch Loki’s journey of realising that he doesn’t want anything romantic with Sylvie, and was simply confused by the new things he was feeling towards her. Loki even says “this is new for me” when talking to Sylvie at the end of Episode Four. Him momentarily believing that he wants to be a couple with her then shifting into them becoming friends who help each other grow is still a reality that could happen. And ultimately, I think that would benefit them both as characters as well as strengthen the overall message of the show.

In a show about self love, acceptance of yourself, and figuring out who you want to be, Loki very much needs people who support him. He has that in Mobius already, and now he’s beginning to have it in Sylvie as well. I just hope that it is done in a way that resonates with the audience and subverts expectations, which just cannot be done through some twisted romantic relationship. I’ve spoken to others watching the show and seen people talking online, and everyone seems to agree that Loki and Sylvie work much better as platonic soulmates or found family than a couple. 

Of course, my hopes aren’t that high up. While I’d love for this to happen, I’ve been let down by Marvel before and wouldn’t be surprised if they went for the easy route of pairing characters up rather than dealing with the emotions correctly. Still, I have hope for this series. Everything else about it is wonderful and perfect in every way. It has the potential to become a masterpiece and easily the best thing that Marvel has ever done. However, this romance would ruin it for me and so many others. We already feel incredibly disappointed by Loki x Sylvie being suggested, so I can’t even begin to fathom how people will react if the show makes it canon. I’m begging Marvel to please do better than this. They have a wonderful story to tell and a wonderful team to do it, and I hope from the bottom of my heart that they don’t throw that away. 

[dizexplainstheuniverse]

Internet dating in the apocalypse.

Ok, I know – I know. We’re experiencing a pandemic, NOT the apocalypse… However, a lot of what I’m currently feeling right now is very reminiscent of the depths of deep personal crisis and struggles with my mental health (particularly of those teenage years) which for me, is about as apocalyptic as it gets.

If like me, you make a habit of falling in love with strangers, internet dating can be tricky at the best of times. My insecure attachment and subsequent relational patterns play out in such a way that I can sometimes go F.U.C.K.I.N.G crazy when dating a new person whose desire I am desperate for. They’re charming, sweet and hot as hell – of course you want their attention. Though if needing their attention so badly causes you absolute despair when they take more than 20 minutes to message you back – you know you’re in trouble.

We all know that instant messaging is a messy and incoherent way to communicate, yet for some of us, we find safety and validation in the incessant stream of the scroll. Re-reading messages, finding the hidden meaning, projecting our hopes, fears and desires onto every full stop. Rationally, we know this is dumb. But, we’re addicted to the screen. I mean, that in itself is a whole other essay, so for the sake of my current sanity I’m just going to stick with the whirl-winding, universe colliding, falling into infinity thing.

So, it’s clear messaging is a shitty way to communicate, and if navigating a new relationship is the most complex thing in the entire ether – why the fuck do we insist on doing it?

Some of you might be familiar with the term NRE – New Relationship Energy. The potent cocktail of delicious chemicals that flood our brains and bodies when we’re tuned in, turned on and fancy the fucking pants off someone new. NRE refers to a state of mind experienced at the beginning of sexual and romantic relationships, typically involving heightened emotional and sexual feelings and excitement. We just can’t get enough, and that’s totally understandable – there’s literally a whole bunch of biochemical processes happening in our brains. The culprit? Serotonin. Moreover, a lack of. And since attraction and falling in love is usually marked by your brain reducing its serotonin uptake, if you’re someone who’s struggled with depression, drugs or alcohol, sex addiction, or you’re an adrenaline junkie… this may feel all too familiar. Serotonin is responsible for many body functions, including making you feel “full” or “satisfied” after eating and having sex, which is why low serotonin can be linked to many unpleasant phenomena. Falling in love can feel like you are “addicted” to the other person. You get the dopamine high when you’re around them, but without the dose of serotonin to make you feel satisfied. Dedeker Winston describes this with perfection:

“Your lips are locked with someone you’ve been wanting to kiss for a while now. You’re overwhelmed with sensation: their smell, their taste, the warmth of their body pressed against yours. Later on, after you say your goodbyes and start heading home, your heart may still be racing and your hands may still be shaky, but you feel as if you could fly. When you get home and get into bed, it’s hours before you can fall asleep. You feel too awake and energized. Over the next days and weeks, it’s extremely difficult to keep yourself from texting your new crush every ten minutes even though it feels excruciating waiting for them to text you back. When you see their name pop up in your phone notifications, you feel a flutter in your chest.”

All this is well and good if you’re able to continue to function like a rational human being whilst all this is going on inside of you. I, however, cannot.

As someone who continues to battle with anxiety, depression and PTSD, falling in love can sometimes feel incredibly traumatic. Even more so if the current object of my desire appears to be highly desirable to others, inconsistent in their behaviour, dismissive of my emotions or defensive in communication, I feel myself slipping into complete surrender to being and doing ANYTHING just to get their attention. I completely lose myself, my sense of worth and identity. All I can think about is how I get my next hit. This pattern of behaviour is incredibly detrimental to my self-esteem and mental health. Naturally, you can see why internet dating during a global crisis might not be the best idea…

I do a hell of a lot of work grieving the parenting and the love I needed but never received as a child and whilst that’s a useful strategy most of time, currently this doesn’t feel so easy. With absolute world chaos looming, Covid-19 is really fucking with my ability to stay above water. In desperate times, I find myself turning to social media and dating apps to find comfort, reassurance, validation, safety and that big old whack of dopamine that I crave so badly. But of course, this is not the case. I feel like a teenager again. Growing up in the late 90s/early 2000s I was part of the generation glued to the family desktop computer. Dialling up the internet after school, sitting online MSN Messenger waiting for my crush to ‘pop up’. Oh, those were the heady days... Today, as I sit staring at my phone, laptop propped up on my knees, those demons grin and bear their teeth at me once again.

I’ve had a variety of thoughts over the past few days, some of complete despair, some of excitement and anticipation, but mostly many of curiosity and intrigue. Whilst it feels tempting to want to dive headfirst into an online love affair with a complete stranger (for a moment, I really thought I had) I’ve got to remind myself of who I really am now.

This is not just about internet dating, it’s anything that gives you that high, the escape. You might feel tempted to drink the nights away, get the bags in and snort the nights away. For some of us, we might feel tempted by a variety of harmful behaviours. Fears of a much darker time might be surfacing for you, or maybe fears you’ve never felt before are starting to cloud your mind. Whatever your vice - yes, all this is scary. Yes, that escape is looking ever more tempting. No matter how you try to justify it – even in love – because of course, that person is charming, and sweet, and hot as hell - but remember, you’re feeling triggered, we all are. It’s not to say what you’re craving is wrong, or your feelings for this person aren’t real – it might actually turn out to be a really wonderful thing (and this time I’m referring only to the internet love of your life, not the harmful thing you want to do that is going to really hurt you or someone you love) but, right now, we’re in a fucking global crisis. We have no idea how long for, and the world around is changing more rapidly than in most (if not all) of our lifetimes. You’re bound to be feeling a little out of control right now.

So, just hold on a second. Cut yourself some slack - I’m here to remind you that you’re not that 14 year old anymore. You’re a real life adult, with passions and dreams, with beautiful friendships and resources, with tools and coping strategies that have paid off in times of desperate need and will absolutely work again for you now.

Remember who you are, remember your heart, remember your curiosity and compassion, remember how you dance and sing and read and journal and play and laugh and create your way through life.

Remember all the wisdom and strength you know is still sitting there at the core of you.

Remember to breathe.

You got this.

x

Instagram: @dizexplainstheuniverse | Facebook: /dizexplainstheuniverse

[webanalytics]

Unsexy Fundamentals Focus: User Experiences That Print Money

Like me, I'm sure you are working on complex challenges when it comes to data.

Multi-petabyte data warehouses. Multi-touch, cross-channel attribution analysis. Media mix modeling. Predictive analytics. Human-centric analysis. Oh, and let's not forget the application of machine learning to every facet of your work.

It is genuinely fun to work on these opportunities. They’re difficult, and every step forward offers a renewed sense of excitement and inspiration.

Despite the joy in these high-level, forward-thinking initiatives, I've disciplined myself not to let the unsexy fundamentals go overlooked. I’m particularly vigilant about avoiding friction in the core systems that facilitate the flow of money into the company and beloved products out of it.

So today, that valuable reminder for you kicked off via a case study inspired by Condé Nast. To inspire, and jump-start, a change in your focus, we’ll also look at Heal, Facebook and prAna.

Before we proceed with the stories… The unsexy fundamentals in this post focus on user experience. If you are a reader of my newsletter, The Marketing < > Analytics Intersect, you’ve seen me apply it to metrics (last TMAI was on Bounce Rate), reports, frameworks and more. The concept touches all facets of our professional universe.

Condé Nast | A Story of Unrequited Love.

Condé Nast is in a world of hurt, along with everyone else in the print business. In 2017, they've twice replaced the company's Chief Revenue Officer. They are pursuing a variety of digital experiments, and it remains unclear whether any of them will stick (unlike the New York Times, where new initiative such as "The Daily" podcast and T Brand Studio have proven overwhelmingly successful).

You might assume that Condé Nast, through these changes and new initiatives, would have solved the fundamental issue of subscriber retention.

Join me on that journey.

I love The New Yorker.

"Love" is an understatement. I ADORE The New Yorker magazine. I love David Remnick. And Amy Davidson and Sheelah Kolhatkar and John Cassidy and Jia Tolentino and… all of 'em. Hence, I'm proud to be a paying subscriber. The nourishment that your soul craves is in The New Yorker, and I encourage you to consider your own subscription.

As I almost exclusively read the articles online, I visited the website to switch to digital-only (from digital + print) when my subscription expired in October.

I recall this simple task posing a surprising challenge. I was busy, and ultimately, I gave up. Last week, in my guilt for reading articles online for free, I decided to try again.

The first step was to log into my New Yorker account.

I was already logged into the site and thus found this to be a bit of a nuisance. But, no biggie.

Post-login, I was taken to my profile page, where under the Edit button I received a lovely reminder of my tardiness.

[Full disclosure: The New Yorker, starting May 2017 had sent me at least 14 reminder letters via postal mail with a form to complete fill out and return with a check. I don't know who does this anymore, certainly not us. I want to add that I did not get a single reminder via email – with a direct link to renew. This despite the fact that The New Yorker has my email address, and it would be cheaper to send me 14 emails than printed letters. Clearly, the Department of Postal Mail is vigorous at Condé Nast.]

I clicked on Customer Care (but not before taking a tangent to explore what "Amazon Digital Subscriptions Manager" is, turns out to be the most expensive way to get a subscription to the magazine!).

Amazingly, I was asked to log in again, this time on a completely new domain.

It was a bit odd to see the captcha. I wonder just how many hackers are dying to access the Condé Nast subscription website to help process renewals!

Mildly irritated, I did as I was asked.

Once again, I was presented with a summary of my account, and I began scanning for my next action.

I simply wanted to change my subscription from digital + print to just digital, and to know what it will cost.

I scanned my options on the left navigation, with few promising options.

I give "Renew" a try.

Wrong choice.

My only choice was to up the game to two years.

I wondered what the Wired cross-sell says about New Yorker subscribers. Had it been tested?

I re-focused.

Next, I tried "Digital Access." It seemed to smell right.

Wrong choice again.

This just told me how to access the magazine anytime, anywhere! :)

Back to exploration mode.

(At this point, I was not irritated. I realized there was a lesson to be learned. So I began taking screenshots of this unnecessarily painful journey, wondering if any Condé Nast employee had ever tried to change their personal subscription.)

I revisited "Manage Your Subscription," to make the next best choice: "Adjust auto-renewal."

Right choice? No. Wrong again.

I didn't want to update my credit card.

This, I was forced to resort to the last bastion of the frustrated: "Subscription FAQs."

I hate FAQs; they are almost always useless. Will Condé Nast prove to be the one exception to the rule?

"How can I renew my New Yorker subscription," seemed somewhat promising. I dutifully choose "clicking here."

Wrong choice.

I was right back to where I started, amazed that this company is in so much trouble financially but won't offer someone desperate to pay them a seamless way to do so.

Left to the footer, I clicked "Subscribe." At that point, what did I have to lose?

This took me to a third site, where, finally I was able to choose a digital-only subscription!

No. Not really.

This is a "12 Weeks for $12" offer that only applied to new subscribers. This offered no path for an existing subscribers.

What was even more frustrating — massively so — is that there was also no answer to my other question: How much would a digital-only subscription cost?

In fact, on this subscription page (the one I linked to when recommending The New Yorker above), there is no way to determine how much The New Yorker costs per year.

Let me say that again. If you are trying to subscribe — new or returning — Condé Nast does not tell you the annual subscription cost!

#OMG

What kind of con are these people running?

This put me at my wit's end. I'd failed to give them my money.

I revisited the second site to select "Chat Now."

Having logged in three times, as indicated in the top-right corner, I am asked once again to supply my credentials.

I waited an eternity for the chat session to start, completely absent of any status indication (x minutes remaining, or you are 10th in the queue).

Bored, I jumped back to the other window to tinker.

That's where I noticed the suddenly appealing "Cancel" link. Click!

I found the three choices intriguing.

How many of those who visit the page to cancel their subscription would like to improve the experience? (It was also not clear what "experience" meant.)

I opted to "Reconsider and save $10," simply because I love The New Yorker, and I wasn't going to give up on them. I am going to subscribe no matter how inept Condé Nast is.

A friendly message informed me that I was to wait for an email containing my $10 discount.

Why do I have to wait, I wondered.

Did Condé Nast have so many employees that someone was going to review my "case history" and validate my worthiness for the $10 discount, which, let me remind you, they offered proactively?

Ding!

My chat window came alive. Hurrah!

No. Not really.

"Leah" seemed unfamiliar with the Condé Nast platform. She directed me to pages I couldn't see, and asked me to go sign up for an intro offer which I knew I wasn't allowed to get (that was clear in the legal terms on the page).

After not helping at all, I admired her chutzpah in asking if she can help me with anything else.

Frustrated, I choose "End Chat."

I decided to wait for my $10. I felt I'd earned it by now.

Now, it has been a couple weeks. Crickets from Condé Nast.

Since I still love The New Yorker, I'm considering a digital subscription under my wife's name. She'll get 12 weeks for $12, which is sad as I want to pay full price.

12 weeks into that subscription, perhaps I'll finally come to find the full annual fee.

Ensuring loyal customers are able to renew and modify their subscription is the most fundamental of functions. It is not revolutionary to say that you really don’t want friction there.

Condé Nast has analysts upon analysts upon analysts. They have a world of user experience experts. I am genuinely and absolutely confident that these 400 people are executing large complex projects to save Condé Nast from financial trouble. None of them though thinks that that starts with something simple and fundamental: Fixing renewals. Or, telling people what a subscription actually costs.

To say that this breaks my heart is an understatement of galactic proportions.

Up next, you.

Condé Nast is hardly alone. I highly recommend a close self-evaluation to ensure that this isn't true for you as well.

To inspire prompt action by you, let me share a few more UX examples that are super-close to the company making money (the thing they/you should positively nail).

Heal | A Story Unfulfilled Forms.

Heal has an irresistible value proposition: They’ll send a doctor to your house!

I’m blessed to have health insurance. Still going to a doctor is such a pain, and even with an appointment the doctor makes me wait. Heal it is.

I install the mobile app, and proceed to making my first appointment.

The very first thing I have to enter is my date of birth. Seems reasonable.

Here’s the screen I get…

What!

What is the reasonable number of times the Heal UX team thinks a human should be expected to click the little < button to get to their date of birth?

I won’t tell you how old I am (very!), it is a lot of back clicks for me. A lot.

I just gave up.

For this article I opened the app again. There has to be a (hidden) better way.

I tried to click on “January 2018” hoping it pops up a calendar. No dice. I then clicked on “Sun, Jan 7.” Nope. Nothing else seems clickable. Looking… Scanning… Then, I clicked on the little “2018” on the top left. I get a list of years, score! I scroll, scroll, scroll, I’m old, scroll, and find my year of birth.

Consider this: You are a startup trying to upend the existing insane healthcare system. Should you have a simpler way to fill out the date of birth? Unsexy fundamental.

In the month of December, when I needed an annual exam, I could not get the address field in the Heal app to get my home address in there. (Unsexy fundamental.) I had to make an appointment and drive to the doctor. Oh, the humanity!

Facebook | A Story of Unsent $100s.

The only way now to get to your followers on Facebook is to buy ads.

[Bonus read: Stop All Social Media Activity (Organic) | Solve For A Profitable Reality]

No problem. After I would post something I want my Facebook followers to see, I would click the blue Boost button and pay Facebook $100. That seemed to solve the Reach problem.

Then one day a little while back I’m greeted with a new button: Boost Unavailable.

I have 45k followers on Facebook, without boost I get just 4k.

So I want this problem fixed. I want to give Facebook my $100. Except. Boost Unavailable.

When I click on that button, I get this, to me, confusing message.

A long time ago I had a personal page on Facebook. A couple years ago they informed me that I was not a person, I was a brand and forced me to change that page to “brand page.” I lost all my connections, and got followers instead.

Now, I don’t know what to do with this message. This account is all I have.

I click on Manage Page Roles, to see what my choices are…

I have to admit I am lost.

I am confident someone at Facebook understands what is going on, they even understand every option in the 19 choices in the left nav. Sadly, I don’t. The end result is that I can’t give Facebook my $100 and get my posts boosted.

As you might have heard, Facebook is just fine without my $100 every other week. They are clearing $10 bil a quarter. Still, an example of an unsexy fundamental that their user experience team could consider solving for.

prAna | A Story of Unfiltered Sadness.

I appreciate the opportunity to support businesses that solve for fair trade, green and sustainable business practices. If their products last forever, even better as I have to buy a lot less over time.

prAna is a good example of such a company. I also admire their brand building efforts – from the logo to the shipping envelopes.

I can’t afford their clothes at full price, but can’t resist looking at the men’s sale section when I need something.

Filters are your BFF when you are in environments with lots of choice. You can quickly go from being overwhelmed to narrow focus.

prAna’s site has loads of filtering choices: Gender, size, activity (yoga, hiking…), fit (slim, fitted), inseam, color, fabric (fair trade, HeiQ…), performance (PFC Free DWR, quick dry…), rating, silhouette (button down shirt, flannel, that’s it, really!), country of origin.

Guess what’s missing?

Imagine you have go trawl through hundreds of items on sale for clothing you need. What is the first thing you want to filter by?

Think.

Yes! Type of clothing.

Pants. T-Shirts. Jackets. Shorts.

That is the one filter prAna does not provide. Unsexy fundamental.

Even with the other 9 filters, it is hard to quickly find what I’m looking for.

#arrrhhh

I have received 7 emails in the last handful of weeks from them with this subject line: “40% Off: End of Season Sale – Your Favorite Looks are Going Fast – Don’t Miss Out.” I wonder how long it will take the User Experience experts at prAna to figure out why the conversion rate is zero percent.

If the UX experts shop on the site, they’ll find these unsexy fundamental issues everywhere.

The most common reason I return pants are that they are not long enough. Pants with 34” inseam fit me.

I was looking for new pair of travel pants. The Calculus Pants look like they could do the job.

Two weird things.

No waist size. I can take a gamble on M, but length is not a gamble I’m willing to take. I scroll around a bit. Nothing.

I click on “Size & Fit Guide,” in case it specifies something for these pants.

I get the generic guide. It is helpful in that it confirms that I need “Long Inseam.”

Except. That information is not on the Calculus pants page.

Scroll up. Scroll down. Scroll around. Switch to mobile site, because why not. Nope. Nothing.

Perhaps these pants don’t come in the three choices (Short, Regular and Long). But at least tell me what the inseam size the Calculus pants are! Unsexy fundamental.

prAna charges $8 for returns, for any reason. That is a lot. Hence… No pants for me.

[For prAna’s UX team, possible inspiration: Patagonia’s men’s sale page]

Bottom-line | Recommendations.

Unsexy fundamentals are very sexy. I recommend two actions on your part:

1. Create a dedicated (small) team to obsess continuously about the most fundamental functions. Ensure that you have a special rewards mechanism in place for them (like every other company out there you currently only reward people who work on shiny object projects).

The team’s work will start with the fundamentals closest to your core transactions. Cart and checkout for digital; cashier experience in your store. Build from there.

2. Create incentives for your employees to be secret shoppers. In fact, ask your CEO to try and do business with your company. The frustration she/he/they feel will drive amazing impact (on User happiness and company profit).

Sure, it will delay your multi-channel attribution predictive analytics powered single source of the truth initiative, but it'll be worth it.

2018: the year of doing the unsexy fundamentals well!

As always, it is your turn now.

Do you have a program/team in place to focus on unsexy fundamentals? What currently stands in the way of your company obsessing about ensuring all pathways to making money have been smoothed over? What is the primary mechanism in helping you figure out what unsexy fundamentals are broken? Do you have an example of a user experience, any mobile app or site, that is persistently frustrating?

Please add your insights, stories, frustrations, and wonderful accomplishments via comments below.

Thank you.

Bonus | Read: More examples and lessons in UX/Design, from HTC, United and Patagonia: Suck Less | A Plea For User-Centric Design: Powered By You

Bonus | Process to Implement: Heuristic Evaluations

Unsexy Fundamentals Focus: User Experiences That Print Money is a post from: Occam's Razor by Avinash Kaushik

from Occam's Razor by Avinash Kaushik http://ift.tt/2CNwlFR #Digital #Analytics #Website

[edgysocial]

New Post has been published on http://edgysocial.com/journalism-is-failing-us-we-need-a-transparent-authentic-and-credible-voice/

Journalism Is Failing Us. We Need A Transparent, Authentic And Credible Voice

Oscar Wilde, ever one of my favorite sources for inspiration, once said:

“In America the President reigns for four years, and Journalism governs forever and ever.”

Now, while I hate to be partisan in my writing, I do believe that while I will be primarily quoting US sources and focusing on recent events in “Lower North America,” the implications and learnings are fairly universal and I hope that all find something relevant to comment on.

What struck me about Oscar’s musings was that while that once seemed an unassailable statement of fact, a pillar of truth upon which we could always lean and be supported, my bet is that if he were alive today he would revise his thinking, perhaps saying…the President reigns for four years but Journalism doesn’t even make it to the inauguration.

Let me be clear. As is my custom, this is not a political screed, although I must say I found it amusing that I was attacked by some Trump supporters for mentioning his name in what they deemed a negative light in a prior post…honest truth? His name never appeared…and so it goes…

In fact, if anything, this is about the failure of Journalism across the board to serve any constituency with true and righteous honor. This is a problem for all of us, from simple marketers like me searching for relevant and powerful places to link my clients, to the people of the country and the world looking for some reasonable source to help them make sense of an ever more complex existence.

So when BuzzFeed ignites a global debate on journalistic ethics and imperatives:

BuzzFeed News became the center of a swirling debate over journalistic ethics on Tuesday after its decision to publish a 35-page document carrying explosive, but unverified, allegations about ties between the Russian government and President-elect Donald J. Trump.

I think we need to take a step back and understand, unemotionally, in a non-political view just what is happening in the US and around the world in terms of PEOPLE…the readers, listeners, consumers of what is called journalism or news today.

From The Atlantic:

Although a great deal of excellent journalism is produced every week, it is never hard to find the low-lights. This is hardly a new phenomenon. Twenty years ago in The Atlantic, James Fallows criticized newspaper reporters and the television shows for treating politics like a partisan tug-of-war in which policy issues were reduced to playing the part of the oft-forgotten rope. “The discussion shows that are supposed to enhance public understanding may actually reduce it, by hammering home the message that issues don’t matter except as items for politicians to fight over,” he wrote.

Point number one: This is not a new issue. In fact the decline has been steady over time. Continued from The Atlantic:

As the…graph indicates, American trust in mass media seems to decline around presidential elections. It fell in 2004, and again in 2008, and again in 2012, and now it’s collapsed in 2016.

And, to be fair to journalists and their institutions, the lack of trust swirling around them is part of a greater erosion that is affecting many, if not all, the public entities we once so blindly trusted:

Fewer than half of Americans now say they trust the church, the medical system, the presidency, the Supreme Court, public schools, banks, organized labor, the criminal justice system, big business, and Congress. Public faith in each of these institutions has fallen this decade.

Yet, lest my US readers feel unduly depressed:

…declining trust in institutions is not strictly an American trend. Since the 1960s, “public trust in government and political institutions has been decreasing in all of the advanced industrial democracies,” according to one United Nations report. “Although the pattern and the pace of the decrease are dissimilar across countries, the downward trend is ubiquitous.”

And there you have it: Across the board a growing lack of trust.

But let’s get back to sources of news.

According to Pew Research:

While few have a lot of confidence in the information they get from professional outlets or friends and family, there are large majorities that have at least some trust in both; yet social media gets substantially lower trust scores than all.

What makes this so fascinating is that the data is now a year old and the study was conducted before the worst battles of the recent US election–one can only imagine how the numbers have fallen even more.

In another study the Gallup organization goes further:

Americans’ trust and confidence in the mass media “to report the news fully, accurately and fairly” has dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history, with 32% saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media. This is down eight percentage points from last year… Over the history of the entire trend, Americans’ trust and confidence hit its highest point in 1976, at 72%, in the wake of widely lauded examples of investigative journalism regarding Vietnam and the Watergate scandal…Older Americans are more likely than younger Americans to say they trust the media, but trust has declined among both age groups this year. Currently, 26% of those aged 18 to 49 (down from 36% last year) and 38% of those aged 50 and older (down from 45%) say they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media.

And newspapers who have often prided themselves as the ultimate source for honest brokerage are suffering no less. From Gallup:

The 20% of Americans who are confident in newspapers as a U.S. institution hit an all-time low this year, marking the 10th consecutive year that more Americans express little or no, rather than high, confidence in the institution. The percentage of Americans expressing “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in newspapers has been dwindling since 2000, and the percentage expressing “very little” or “none” finally eclipsed it in 2007.

So much for “all the news that’s fit to print”…

Having said all that and denigrated the entire journalistic news complex, I share one more data point from Gallup that I found to be the most intriguing:

As the ways people consume news grow more complex, Americans are becoming less likely to view their news sources in terms of how they get news — radio, television, print or internet — and more in terms of who specifically provides it. Forty-eight percent of U.S. adults still identify a type of media as their main news source, but that is down from 58% just three years ago. Meanwhile, the percentage naming a specific media organization is up from 30% to 42%.

In other words, we are desperate to find specific trusted sources even as we view platforms of distribution–in whatever formats–with skepticism and distrust.

And therein we find the big opportunity for brands, for governments, for media, and for journalists.

It seems we all crave Walter Cronkite–no matter how young or old we are, or even if we don’t know who he was…we crave the idea…a trusted, calming voice that we believe in. Someone who tells us, as Walter told our parents and theirs: “And that’s the way it is.”

As the maelstrom of mistrust and doubt swirls, as the skepticism sucks us all ever downward, we need to keep in mind that we need to break this paradigm. The winner will be transparent, authentic, credible and relevant. To the winner in every category will eventually go the spoils.

As we ponder the future and wonder about BuzzFeed…to be fair wonder about Rolling Stone and the Washington Post as well…fake news, as in evil, intended misdirection, has always been a problem, will always be a problem.

I am far more concerned with returning credibility to the things that once mattered and should still.

Frankly, once again, the issue is not technology, it’s not Facebook or Twitter or Snapchat or anything in between.

We, as business people, educators, citizens of the world need to take a stand…it’s a PEOPLE FIRST solution that can be solved because once someone, someplace, establishes credibility, the entire façade will fall.

As the US contemplates Martin Luther King Day, this week let me end with his words:

“Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men.”

And there you have it….

What do you think?

Read more at The Weekly Ramble

Follow David Sable on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DavidSable

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Business – The Huffington Post