participant experience. It's a starting point for investigation and lately I have become become fascinated by exploring the distribution of its results - the tails and the anomalies in experience that shape the superfan experience at one end and the dissatisfied at the other.
I am curious:
- Curious about what needs where met, or not met.
- What was satisfying and what was missed.
- And what they all wanted more or less of.
We can learn from both, and the in-between. And sometimes one mistake can be the difference maker. But how do we actually learn from this spectrum of inputs and expectations that shape satisfaction of the customer?
I have taken it upon myself to investigate all aspects of the distribution and trying hard to not get hung up on any one anecdote or piece of date - positive or negative. What are we doing well? What can we improve? What expectations are we not meeting? What expectations can we meet?
It's a continuous balance of tinkering and an attempt to ensure we iterate and improve at each step, while staying objective and true to what we believe in.
We have something that works well, but of course can be improved. But how much can we change it to satisfy someone who maybe the experience isn't for and risk compromising why it is we are here and exist for?
Of course at the meta level it’s very easy to say “if it’s not for someone it’s for no one” but in practice to figure out what to adapt it can be messy, grey and conflicting. Like a good story, if there’s no tension or challenge overcome things could become a bit bland!
