[jwdunne]

Designers here may agree but programmers, of which I'm sure HN has a majority and like myself, would love to know why exactly this made you stop reading. Currently, "stopped reading there" adds nothing useful to the discussion at all and it even seems pretty rude.

[raylu]

OK, it's rude. But Basecamp makes mistake #2 from the article, which is actually a mistake to call it a mistake.

Really? Testimonials? Out of all of the potential and made-up customer feedback, you've hand-selected a few data points to advertise on your homepage. Even if they were randomly selected (obviously not), reducing the data down to mere anecdotes is... stupid. Insanely stupid. I can't even wrap my head around why people would ever base a decision on that.

And so when it presents the thought bubble of the woman thinking about how she uses Basecamp and the fact that, of the extremely unbiased sample of people who use Basecamp (haha), 97% of them recommend Basecamp, I'm just unimpressed.

Here's my number one beef with homepages: I still don't what your product actually specifically does. I don't want generalizations like "manage your projects" and "keep track of every file, discussion, and event" (what the hell is an event?). I want something concrete like "Basecamp lets you write words, puts checkboxes next to them, then moves them around randomly" (I'm not a fan of the product so my summarization may be biased).

[bprieto]

No, it's not stupid. It's how most people think: hey, this girl is like me and she loves the product, so I will love the product too.

Unless your product is developed for engineers, having testimonials in your sales materials is a must, and throwing lists of hard facts and functions is a sure way to scare customers off.

[raylu]

So you embrace the idea of catering to and selling to idiots? What's the difference between what you do and what a conman does?

[6d0debc071]

Well, if the girl really is like you, then that's a fairly good strategy and not necessarily like a con-man. If I can distinguish quality and she's another me, then in effect I already like the thing on good grounds.

The disconnect comes in the implicit question I suppose: Are they really like me? I doubt most developers are likely to see the world as being full of kindred spirits with sharp minds that distinguish quality.

It's like Amazon reviews for earphones, (or whatever.) If there are a load of really terrible reviews then that's good evidence that something really is terrible. But since most people know little about a product or class of products their ability to compare things to the top-end is pretty much non-existent.

If they really are like you, then the deal makes sense. If you know a bit more about the subject than average then the deal is atrocious.

An even better deal would be if they were like an idealised you, I suppose. Make the choices that you'd make if you knew better. But you can't communicate with most people on those grounds for obvious reasons.

[raylu]

So you're saying Basecamp tries to accurately portray a neutral individual making a decision to use or not use their product rather than someone who's conclusion supports their agenda? That's beyond ridiculous.

That's one step beyond believing an "independent, third-party" report commissioned by McDonalds to show that their burgers make you healthy or cure cancer or whatever. Basecamp is not even pretending to be neutral.

[6d0debc071]

I'm not saying they try to accurately portray anything. I'm just saying that's what it hooks into. Obviously, as with any communication medium, you can lie your arse off - and I'm sure people frequently do. You can do the same with stats as with testimonials - who's going to check, and how?

If you assume a company's lying, there's probably very little that they can say to get you on board.

[jwdunne]

The woman might not be a real customer of Basecamp, it's fairly common to use models, especially since consent for photos is pretty tough to get and keep (believe me, the amount of photos I've taken down due to change in consent...). The testimonial clearly states who it's from underneath such as 'Joy is a designer at Pitchfork'. What makes you believe this is made up? I'd be interested to know.

Also, testimonials have always generally had an impact on conversions when I've used them. If you have a product with a decent amount of unique visitors p/m and decent testimonial then split test it if you don't believe me - you have nothing to lose with a 30-day VWO sub and some time setting it up. I can't give access to the data I have access to, this isn't mine to give away, but great testimonials always help.

Also, the second mistake was "Pretend that no one says anything nice about you". Basecamp actually does the opposite by featuring a testimonial on the homepage, which is meant to be the right thing to do.

I think "manage your project" and then further "keep track of every file, discussion and event" is fairly decent brief description because that's exactly what it does. To the people I work with, an event is pretty straight forward: a calendar event (which is how you manipulate them in basecamp).

Either way, "Basecamp lets you write words, puts checkboxes next to them, then moves them around randomly" or "Basecamp lets you make todos" is never going to make a sale or pique interest. My notebook and pen does this fairly well.