The Experience Economy

&#62; <i>It is no coincidence that interaction design is replacing technical prowess as the primary competency at startups. People who create great experiences will be the most valuable to startups, and startups that create great experiences will be the most valuable to users.</i><p>Interaction design is not replacing technical prowess. <i>Interaction design is actually increasing the need for technical prowess.</i><p>Now, creating a product that is technologically funcional and fulfills business needs is not enough. It must also fit with the overall user experience strategy.

&#62;&#62;It is no coincidence that interaction design is replacing technical prowess as the primary competency at startups. People who create great experiences will be the most valuable to startups, and startups that create great experiences will be the most valuable to users.<p>That's conclusion is a step too far from the majority of the post. Usability is the most important differentiator when all technology is adequate, but when it is not the fact that the technology exists is most important.<p>Though I mean most social media, and even things like Heroku and Parse is about experiences, but real technology startups like Planetary Resources or Google care most about technical prowess.<p>Edit: I just find it somewhat annoying that this article leaps from "startups choose to innovate in experiences instead of technology" to "experiences matter more than technology".

I like Chris' writing, but putting aside from the (pretty &#62; prowess)? argument, I don't feel he has correctly mapped cause to effect here.<p>The reason that UX has become more critical for <i>certain classes</i> of software is because (a) consumers rather than business have become the predominant driver of spending for desktop computers over the last 15 years, and (b) because the web and app stores removed distribution and sales channels as competitive advantages, leaving price and experience.<p>Product design is now more important, sure, but it's because the playing field has been flattened and because more consumers are buying. NOT because of some broader macroeconomic trend that can be applied to all markets.

point taken, though to say,<p>"The emphasis on experiences also helps explain other large trends like the migration to cities. Cities have always offered the trade-off of fewer goods and less space in exchange for better experiences."<p>...is just false &#38; i certainly don't agree with this assertion -- to each is own, but i live in a small town in the mountains and it's pretty rad. i love city life just the same, but the reason most people have moved to cities is because that's where higher paying jobs typically are located. this essay makes way too many assumptions.

The whole first paragraph purports to describe the "developed world," after wwII then proceeds to describe conditions specific to the US. Britain, for example, had food rationing until 1954.

This blog post seems a bit lazy, and lacking in true references (a link is better than nothing but still isn't a great way to cite a source). It raises a good point, but I'd much rather read an article or book that used proper references and made a stronger point. I think the book that kawera linked to might do that.

I think there is a valid argument somewhere here but a lot of the points are based on things that can not be taken as fact. For example, the point about people moving to urban cores is a story that has been reiterated by just about every city mayor but when looking at statistics its not entirely clear that that is what is actually occurring... in fact it seems it may be the opposite <a href="http://www.city-journal.org/2011/eon0406jkwc.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.city-journal.org/2011/eon0406jkwc.html</a>

"Apple, the most valuable company in the world, maniacally focuses on product experiences, down to minute details like the experience of unboxing an iPhone."<p>Sure, they focus on the experience their customers have...using the physical products they just bought from Apple. I thought it was the conventional wisdom, by now, that Apple was a hardware manufacturer and they make money by getting you to buy physical objects. iTunes, iCloud, etc are ways to make their hardware more attractive.

Here's the honest reaction my brain had as I read the article: "What a load of horseshit."<p>I wanted to write something much more civil and detailed about why I think the article is weak. But then I realized there's a lot of value in just sharing the honest, immediate gut reaction. Yes, it's harsh, but you don't often get that kind of honesty.<p>(And I am aware of the studies that show experiences make us happier than things -- and I agree with them. That's not where the horseshit is).

I thought this was going to be about how you need varying levels of experience to get a job, sometimes unreasonably. Which got me thinking: that's a social problem that maybe one of these left-field startups could solve. Provide a service which gets young people 'experience' to put on their CV for when the graduate and start looking for work. I guess what it would amount to is internship/apprenticeship arbitrage.

If I get the drift of the article, then I'd say Rejection Therapy <a href="http://rejectiontherapy.com" rel="nofollow">http://rejectiontherapy.com</a> is a good example of a thoroughly experiential product (moreso than say a movie you just watch).<p>Perhaps it'll be an industry of experiential entertainment that will provide real alternative to Hollywood and the MPAA.

The problem with this article is that chris misunderstands the meaning of the word "experience".<p>In the context of the research about happiness, experience meant real live experiences.You usually remember those kinds of experiences, they become a part of who you are, and you do use memories of them to change your mood.<p>Products usually have a different happiness charasteristic. They make you happy but only for a short time and then you get used to them.<p>Is software products or experiences ? well that depends on the software. airBNB seems to fit on the product model, like a well designed lamp. Using a programming language is an experience.

An experience economy might be a possible post-scarcity form of economy, but in the world as it exists today outside of the realm of software we're nowhere close to post-scarcity.<p>Currently the idea of "experience" being the primary goal is being used as a political device in order to force unemployed people to work in for-profit companies without pay for significant periods of time, so I don't think it's a good idea to take a fetishistic attitude towards experience itself whilst simultaneously overlooking other equally or more important issues.

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Experience-Economy-Theater-Business/dp/0875848192" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/The-Experience-Economy-Theater-Busines...</a>

Four blades? I must have been missing out - I'm pretty happy with a 3-blade razor.