Simplify your job search
Get 5+ job offers from top companies with 1 application
Get job offers

Thoughts on Corporate User Experience

Recently, I was asked to share my opinion on the subject of “Corporate Interaction Design.” Veiled as a fairly innocuous research project, the students asked questions like “Do you recognize current trends in Corporate Identity?” and “Which parts of corporate identity will be of primary importance in the foreseeable future?” Well, “to be honest,” I told them, “I really don’t know.” Truth be told, I still don’t. But ever since, I’ve had the questions running though my head—what do I think?

Like most designers, I’m a passive thinker, which means that even if I didn’t exert a lot of energy in immediately answering questions, I’ll spend a lot of time thinking about my answers after the fact. The questions that these students asked resonated with me in particular because, at one time, I worked as a computer science intern at a major US corporation. During that internship, I saw firsthand a number of design travesties that I’ve since explored in my professional work, including: design after development, landing-page politics, design by committee, etc.

Flash forward to nearly two years ago. I’m chucking along as I read Dustin Curtis’s cutting (read: brilliant) letter to American Airlines. I’m subsequently unsurprised by what I read in the response from their UX Architect. And in short, I feel vindicated. This interchange aligns with my experience: most corporate “cultures” tend to hold back the efforts of well intentioned designers. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” turns into “Even if it is broke, we’ll need to confirm that everyone understands why it’s broken and how we could possibly fix it before we begin to entertain a solution.”

Then, last month, Kristina Bjoran writes an article with eye-opening (but nonetheless unsurprising) research results: bad interaction design—even if it’s provided by world-renowned brands—is still bad interaction design. Users respond independently of their brand associations. Here, they have no allegiance.

Which leads me to conclude that, yes, I too don’t care whether a design comes from the head or the heart; whether it’s backed by Coca-Cola Corporation or by a local lemonade stand doesn’t matter to me. My experience with “corporate” design could be described as a touch jaded but, on the whole, I regard recently redesigned websites such as Delta and Bank of America with the same bemused curiosity that I approach all websites of their stature. In other words, I expect a lot from professional design.

Corporate design vs. expectation

In general, I think a user’s experience of a thing is colored by their expectations of that thing. If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, chances are, people expect it to be a duck. If it turns out that it isn’t a duck, that isn’t a bad thing, per se; it just means that now that it has someone’s attention it has to do something with it.

Which makes corporations all the more curious. In one sense, people expect great things from corporations. And in another, people tend to get quite the opposite, as so eloquently evidenced by Dustin Curtis’s letter. The corporations that are most successful tend to pull a “sheep in wolf’s clothing” routine. Apple, JetBlue, Netflix, Amazon, etc. are all corporations in the strictest sense, but where others disappoint, these companies delight and surprise. In other words, these corporations don’t fit our expectations of “corporations.”

That’s counterintuitive, though. Corporate America is the proverbial “land where dreams come true,” is it not? Shouldn’t we expect the same for the corporate user’s experience?

In theory, if an entrepreneur is lucky enough to imagine, design, build, market, and sell something—anything—boundless joy awaits him/her and, potentially, customers alike. But where capitalism giveth, capitalism taketh away. Yesterday’s largest corporations have to contend with issues of supply chain, labor management, efficiency, politics, etc. Running a successful, mature corporation requires that executives simultaneously juggle a huge number of variables that affect their bottom line. Inevitably, the cost-benefit analysis of “user experience” doesn’t add up, so it’s the first thing to go.

This doesn’t describe all corporations, of course. Consider Apple, everyone’s favorite experience-conscious corporation. In late 1983, what was then Apple Computer ran an otherwise obscure television commercial attacking their larger, “big brother” competitor, IBM

In terms of units sold, the efficacy of this ad was dubious at best. But this video did one thing remarkably well: it told the world that the Apple experience would be different from 99% of the other experiences out there. In a marketplace saturated with crap, the difference Apple promised in 1983 was exciting. Today, it still is.

Finding your Zag

The concept of difference as a marketable trait is nothing new. In his 2006 book Zag, world-renowned brand expert Marty Neumeier essentially says that being different is absolutely necessary. Throughout the book, he walks budding entrepreneurs through the various reasons why this is true. To designers, though, the logic is simple: in a world made up of countless brands and icons, fashions and fads, and marketing copy galore, how does someone—anyone— stand out? By being different, of course.

I’ll save you the book report, though. Instead, I’d like to use Marty’s thesis to frame a larger question: if today’s most successful companies must be different, then why not yesterday’s? What should consumers think about “established” brands like Pepsi or Coca Cola? Especially when it comes to the digital space? or how about American Airlines? Why are so many of today’s biggest companies, well, pedestrian?

It’s a question of trust

There are many things that large corporations can do to combat negative public perception of their brand—namely, improve their user experience! As earlier illustrated, most large corporations have a basic product/service that makes money. Throughout their routine operations, these companies must go the extra mile to objectively improve their supply chain: reducing costs and saving on time and labor.

But what these companies make up for in dollars, they can lose in customers. To bring the process full-circle, corporations must listen to their customers and improve the more subjective parts of their product’s experience. UX Designer Whitney Hess detailed a fantastic example of this early last year, when Dominos Pizza decided to rebuild their pizza from the bottom up:

Dominos isn’t not alone. More recently, JetBlue launched a campaign to bring honesty and integrity back to the business of airline travel. Rather than focusing on themselves, though, JetBlue’s slogan now proclaims: “You above all.” What does that mean to unassuming customers?

Stock photography is notably absent from JetBlue’s latest advertising campaign You Above All. Instead, CEO Dave Barger says the company’s emphasis is on “humanity.”

With all of the “honesty,” “integrity,” and “humanity” being bandied about, it can certainly feel that today’s corporations are being more than a little bit disingenuous. After all, every corporation can’t be about me, can it?

Actions speak louder

While some corporations feel the need to document their process and openly tell customers that they’re improving their experience (pardon the mess, we’re under construction), others start from a more humble place. Google’s corporate user experience manifesto, for example, clearly shows that they care about the people using their software, but they don’t plaster that fact on their homepage.

Which brings me back to one of the last, most telling responses I gave to that survey:
In my mind ‘corporate’ tends to mean means cold, but also well–orchestrated.
I expect the corporations in my life to have things under control. If I message the event manager of a hastily-prepared after party, I can reasonably expect some delay. When I message the company that’s managing my company’s holiday party, I expect something completely different. At some level, it’s all about trust.

Abstracting away the details, the word “corporation” is great for getting things done, but it also bring with it qualities that are difficult to empathize with. All that most customers want out of their perceived experience with a “corporation”—not to be confused with the product it sells, mind you— can actually be summed up in the Three Laws of Robotics. If, here, we replace “robots” with “corporations”:

  1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
  2. A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
  3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Ironically, were corporations to act according to the laws of robotics, consumers might find these entities are less self-interested and more customer friendly in all of their interactions.

Related resources

About the Author

Andrew Maier

Andrew Maier is a lifelong student of the design community who believes that creation and learning are synonymous. His current interests include security, law, cities, and autonomy. He lives in Washington, D.C., in Dupont Circle.


  • sean hogge Reply

    You meant to type “per se,” not “per say.”

  • Lauren Reply

    Thanks for the thoughtful article. I think about things like this all the time and it’s always nice to get others’ perspective.

    A couple of small typos to note:

    The caption for the “You Above All” tagline image references AirTran.

    The link to Mullen’s site (Under Related Resources) reads: “You About All…”

  • Andrew Maier Reply

    Thanks for the feedback, guys! I’ve updated the article accordingly.

  • Richard Reply

    You thought Dustin Curtis’s open letter was brilliant? I followed the links, and I thought it was pathetic. The response from the AA guy was brilliant. His followup impression from the AA guy’s response was even more pathetic. He doesn’t really understand the world.

    • Stacia Reply

      I totally agree. I work in a similar corporate environment to AA and feel Mr. X’s pain. If you haven’t lived it, don’t assume things about it. I’m on a UX team that wants desperately to greatly improve the UI and general experience of our app, but we literally aren’t allowed to go as far as we’d like for several reasons. But, we certainly do improve the app over what dev would do by itself. We have to make do with that, unfortunately.

    • Andrew Maier Reply

      Richard: Brilliant may have been poor word choice. I think that what Dustin did was unique in a different sense. Dustin’s letter put into words a something that’s universal: bad design is a travesty. We inherently believe that corporations–like American Airlines–will provide an excellent experience, but their website fails to deliver.

      While I don’t think Dustin did his *own* point justice, I do think Dustin pointed the finger at an appropriate design problem. It’s obviously an “immature” and certainly inappropriate letter to post for the world to see, but that doesn’t make the underlying issue false.

    • Keith Aric Hall Reply

      While your article provides some interesting commentary, it does little to talk about the issues faced by “corporate” design departments. Those issues are many and varied depending on the class of product. For example, the issues and fallout from changing the formula for Coca Cola is different from those associated with improving the workflow for purchasing round trip airline tickets. So for this discussion, my comments will focus mainly on the user experience of digital products.

      Enterprise software companies have an enormous amount of technical debt. Legacy code that they must maintain for various reasons. In many cases, it’s an enormous install base that still uses older versions of their products. For enterprise software applications, upgrade can be a scary and almost certainly a painful process.

      I can tell you from personal experience that there are times when a seemingly simple enhacement like bubbling up more useful information to users can be a non-trivial undertaking due to application architecture. Many companies are not willing to take on the cost of overhauling their applications from top to bottom. The fear of meeting quarterly estimates and the investor expectations of constantly increasing the companies stock price makes them risk averse. That does not mean an overhaul shouldn’t or can’t be done. It simply means that doing so requires a lot of thought and planning by the entire organization. The bottom line is that designers can’t design in a vacuum. Their work is affected by many factors.

      Diverging a bit for my last point, I find it aggravating that there seems to be this divide between designers and developers. Both sides tend to be a bit arrogant. Each thinking they are more important than the other, or that the other side does not respect their point of view, experience and contributions. We all need a reality check here. After all, we are all working together to build the best products that we can. That includes user experience and functionality. And let’s not forget, helping our companies become successful, which keeps food on our own tables.

      Finally, I think you forgot to properly attribute the Three Laws of Robotics to the great Isaac Asimov.

      Thanks for an interesting article. Though I found it was a bit over simplistic, it definitely opens the door from some important conversations about corporate design.

  • Adrian Reply

    I must say I did like Dustin’s letter and this article too. Corporate inefficiency isn’t a particularly good excuse for poor customer experience.

  • Carl – Web Courses Bangkok Reply

    It is such a shame when politics effect the UX of a website. I found this with a recent consultancy for a large organisation.

    Essentially the polictics stopped the progression of the website and thus we had to just make do with what we had and were only able to make a few minor tweaks.

    When you said : “most corporate “cultures” tend to hold back the efforts of well intentioned designers.” you could not have been more correct.

    Thanks again and hi from everyone at Web Courses Bangkok.

  • rGenieters Reply

    Great article Andrew – very valuable for companies/corporations that they should indeed embrace critique and comments.

    Still I find it hard to completely believe Domino’s – but they sure do get credits for trying to convince me :)

Leave a Comment on This Article