facebook = seeking frriends

and, and, and…

I think the Buyers allways are the same type of benefitcontrolled sharks as they allways were.

Michael Martin: How do you show that you know what the user wants though? Do they tend to trust you, or do you actively question a lot about their users, or conduct some tests?
Jeffrey Zeldman: We study existing user research, talk to users, and conduct tests.

I would add that even before the research and tests, simply introducing the user into the conversation is a huge help. It’s easy for developer and customer to get into a struggle over their ideas of what the site needs, but when both parties are reminded to focus on the end user, it provides common purpose and aids compromise by giving us a reason to dampen our own egos.

Even if the developers and the customer don’t agree on what the user wants (and we might not agree even after studying existing research and conducting tests), we do agree that the user is the ultimate target of the site.

Yep. Find a big community using a great tool or service.
Then cross-sell to your other sites instead of wringing all the money you can directly out of your new acquisition.

The former says “Great the new owners respect our community. Let’s see what else they have to offer.” The latter says “The bastards! I’m jumping ship so I get what I want.”

old days…less than 15 years ago…now I feel old.

So you wouldn’t focus too much on what the client thinks their users are like? You’d go beyond that, to actually discover the real truth.

I certainly don’t want to stick words on Zeldman’s mouth, but…

I think it is wise to always question the “data” clients present (especially in re: to their customers). Obviously it is better to handle this with tact. If a firm devotes time to procuring clients who also don’t take their data at face value then the relationship is easier, it’s more of a team than a “prove you know more than they do” sort of thing; you rarely know more than they do about their customers.

The goal of the team is to both discover more truths about the customer and provide said customer with better product/service/widets/whatever.

Both your firm and the client have to believe in the data. And it is better to have some checks and balances in this regard instead of a “the client is always right” attitude. And (with a wink and a nod) to thine own self be true.

No one yet has mentioned the possibility that those negotiating and consulting on the current round of buying may have struck some Great-Flamin-Crash-of-2001 gold and therefor know a little more than they did seven years ago. Just another bit of meat/veg for the stew.

maybe its just buying out a competitive products and keep a product in incubation status..

The ‘famous old-school stock photography’ company is going to have to learn a lot more from istockphoto to be a viable company in the next 10 years. The merger of an acquisition into the corporate entity might be more of a slow cooked roast this time around.

We study existing user research, talk to users, and conduct tests.

So you wouldn’t focus too much on what the client thinks their users are like? You’d go beyond that, to actually discover the real truth. A good idea.

And thanks for the replies, there’s always an interesting conversation here.

How do you show that you know what the user wants though? Do they tend to trust you, or do you actively question a lot about their users, or conduct some tests?

We study existing user research, talk to users, and conduct tests.

And on a different point, do you think there is a stage when a company can become so big that it’s actually an improvement in this sort of thing? … Larger companies (Like Google and Yahoo), don’t need [to worry about short-term profits]

I agree: a company with fat cash reserves can be more relaxed about sites it acquires, and thus less likely to screw up them up.

Yes. But that’s partly because we’ve learned to listen better. It’s also because we can keep bringing things back to the user. (It’s not about what the client likes, it’s about what the user needs.)

Hmm… That sounds like a good way to deal with some problems. How do you show that you know what the user wants though? Do they tend to trust you, or do you actively question a lot about their users, or conduct some tests?

And on a different point, do you think there is a stage when a company can become so big that it’s actually an improvement in this sort of thing? The smaller buyers would probably be more interested in short-term profits/results, wheras, the larger companies (Like Google and Yahoo), don’t need that. They have the money and resources to take their time with a buyout (Making changes slowly and subtly), and ensure that in the long-term, they will get their money’s worth.

I’m thinking of YouTube in particular here. When Google bought that over, they weren’t doing it to make their money back within a month, or a year etc. That’s because they could afford the massive investment without too much discomfort. (Google aren’t going anywhere soon, so they know they can afford it.)

A smaller company however, would have to invest a very large amount of its money when buying over another company, perhaps to the point where bankruptcy and debt become major issues if things take a turn for the worse. That may cause the buyers to look for the quickest route to a profit? (And do so by doing all the wrong things you’ve mentioned already)