Experience cycle “in the large” and “in the small”—an integrated experience across multiple scales: Apple as a case study.

The fractal nature of the experience cycle

Sharing Buy music for friends. Share playlists on local-area networks, which can be fairly large in libraries or universities. I show off my toys where ever I go. (People smile and often ask about them.) I become an extension of the store.

connect & attract

Advertising
iPod advertising. Billboards. TV.
A silhouetted figure against
a colorful background.
The white earbuds and cord
identify it from far away.

advocate

orient

In the large— multiple touch points across the life of a product

Software + services
i Tunes helps with
managing music collections,
buying songs through the i Tunes
store, and transferring data onto
the iPod. Once I have my stuff in
there—I don’t want to move to any
other platform. I buy the phone that
integrates iPod into my communication
world, or the Touch that extends my iPod
experience to calendars, Web browsing, and mail.

Store
The giant backlit apple
and silver/glass backdrop
lets you know you are in
a different kind of place.
Upon entering you find the iPods
among the store’s displays.

extend & retain

interact

Product You listen/watch. You are in your place wherever you are with this product—it creates your surround. (It is about the experience after all.) And everyone knows it by your identifying white cords.

May + June 2008

[ 2] Kotler, P. and G. Armstrong. Principles of Marketing. New York: Prentice Hall, 2001.

interactions

[ 3] Rittel, H., “On the Planning Crisis: Systems Analysis of the ‘First and Second Generations.’” Bedrifts Økonomen 8 (1972): 390–396.

Kotler and Armstrong [ 2] articulate another variation on the decision process: 1. Problem recognition—perceiving a need 2. Information search—seeking value 3. Alternative evaluation—assessing value 4. Purchase decision—buying value

5. Post-purchase behavior—value in consumption or use

Defining the first step as problem recognition may imply the “problem” has an objective existence, independent of the customer—and the producer. Framing the decision process as problem solving suggests the customer is a “rational actor.” The danger is that people often act more on emo-

tion than by rationally calculating self-interest. And their definitions of problems depend on their point of view and are often formed in conversations with others—including producers. Indeed, part of the innovation process is reframing an existing situation to create consensus around a new definition of a problem.

Models of decision making as problem solving echo models of the design process as problem solving, which were common in discussions of first-generation design methods. In proposing a second generation of design methods, Horst Rittel [ 3] articulated the limitations of design as problem solving and offered as an alternative a view