Saved

Meanwhile, whenever I talk to music people or book people, very quickly the conversation becomes a music industry conversation or a book industry conversation. What matters for music are artists and touring and labels and so on, and what matters for books are writers and publishers and rights and Amazon’s bargaining power in books and so on. These aren’t tech conversations.

Tech needed content to make their devices viable, but having got the content (by any means necessary), and with it of course completely resetting the dynamics of the industry, tech outgrew music and books and moved on to bigger opportunities.

All of this of course takes us to TV, the industry that’s next on the tech industry’s content journey. Just as new technology unlocked massive change in music and (rather less so) in books, it is now about to break apart the bundled, linear channel model of the TV industry (this is especially the case in the USA, which has a hugely over-served pay TV market). As this happens, there are all sorts of questions that follow on: what happens to channels that might be able to make more going direct to consumer (HBO, perhaps); what happens to channels that might benefit from being in a bundle and lose from having to go direct (ESPN, perhaps), where the syndication model goes, and so on, and so on.

Just as for music or books, though, these are all fundamentally TV industry questions. What viewing distribution, what rights structure, what exploitation chain, what relationship between creatives, financiers, aggregators and distributors - these are all southern California questions, not northern California questions. So, what are the northern California questions, and will this end up being any more strategic than books or music?

Amazon and Netflix have entered TV content creation and ownership in ways and on a scale that no-one from tech ever did for music or books. Amazon did try to get into book publishing and has a significant self-publishing arm, but it had little success recruiting existing mainstream authors; neither Apple nor Spotify created a record label.

Netflix, of course, is a TV company, in the context of this conversation - it isn’t using content for leverage for some other platform (Spotify is the same, without the commissioning). But Amazon clearly is using content for platform leverage - as something else to speed up the Prime flywheel. Prime has become a third pillar to Amazon’s business, next to logistics and the ecommerce platform, and Amazon is always looking for ways to add more perceived value to it, preferably with no marginal cost - TV content that it owns outright is exactly that.

You don't close your Facebook account - you just go there less. You might stop paying for the Youtube TV service, but that won’t cut off your access to any other part of Google - nor would anyone want it to - the purpose of these businesses is reach. Nor, really, will you fundamentally change your search behaviour if Google discovers the next Game of Thrones. That is, cancel Prime and you'd lose Amazon, but what do Google & FB have to cancel? Without some platform decision to lock you into, content is marketing, and revenue, but not a lever.

Apple has always preferred a very asset-light approach to things that are outside its core skills. It didn’t create a record label, or an MVNO, and it didn’t create a credit card for Apple Pay - it works with partners on the existing rails as much as possible (even the upcoming Apple Pay P2P service uses a partner bank).

Part of ‘content is king’ was the idea that (at least in theory) content companies can withhold access to their libraries entirely, and in the past one might have presumed that that meant they had the power to kill any new service at birth. In reality, rights-holders have always had too strong a need for short-term revenue to forgo broad distribution, and few of them individually had a strong enough brand to extract a fee that was high enough to justify exclusivity. They always have to take the cheques - individually to meet their bonus targets, and collectively to meet their earnings estimates.

This is a multi-sided market place with too many players on both sides for anyone to exert dominance: Apple dominated purchased music and Amazon dominates ebooks (thanks to the DoJ), but there is no such dominance on the buy or sell side for TV, for now.

The reason Apple TV, Chromecast, FireTV and everything else feel so anti-climactic is that getting onto the TV was a red herring - the device is the phone and the network is the internet. The smartphone is the sun and everything else orbits it. Internet advertising will be bigger than TV advertising this year, and Apple’s revenue is larger than the entire global pay TV industry. This is also why tech companies are even thinking about commissioning their own premium shows today - they are now so big that the budgets involved in buying or creating TV look a lot less daunting than they once did.

Poor design meets one need while creating a dozen others. Good design resolves problems without negatively affecting anything else in its ecosystem. We call this lens of thinking "systems thinking." It tends to separate the genuinely great designers from the pretty-great ones. The designers who do tremendous work know that what they're creating does not exist within a bubble. They understand that the context of what they're making plays a vital role in how the team should build it. They know how what they create affects everything it touches, particularly the people. The design is intentional. Trade-offs are known, weighted, and decided on. Not only in the immediate problem space but in the surrounding spaces too.

Almost all startups are fragile initially. And that's one of the biggest things inexperienced founders and investors (and reporters and know-it-alls on forums) get wrong about them. They unconsciously judge larval startups by the standards of established ones. They're like someone looking at a newborn baby and concluding "there's no way this tiny creature could ever accomplish anything." It's harmless if reporters and know-it-alls dismiss your startup. They always get things wrong. It's even ok if investors dismiss your startup; they'll change their minds when they see growth. The big danger is that you'll dismiss your startup yourself. I've seen it happen. I often have to encourage founders who don't see the full potential of what they're building. Even Bill Gates made that mistake. He returned to Harvard for the fall semester after starting Microsoft. He didn't stay long, but he wouldn't have returned at all if he'd realized Microsoft was going to be even a fraction of the size it turned out to be. [4] The question to ask about an early stage startup is not "is this company taking over the world?" but "how big could this company get if the founders did the right things?" And the right things often seem both laborious and inconsequential at the time. Microsoft can't have seemed very impressive when it was just a couple guys in Albuquerque writing Basic interpreters for a market of a few thousand hobbyists (as they were then called), but in retrospect that was the optimal path to dominating microcomputer software. And I know Brian Chesky and Joe Gebbia didn't feel like they were en route to the big time as they were taking "professional" photos of their first hosts' apartments. They were just trying to survive. But in retrospect that too was the optimal path to dominating a big market.

To find jobs more quickly, students tend to showcase the types of work most in demand in our industry, making website and app redesigns the overwhelming majority of case studies being published.

The myopic focus on shorter time-to-job metrics requires schools to standardize their design curricula — a trend which is reflected in the structure of case studies being produced.

The UX bootcamp also benefits from its students’ projects being published on Medium: case studies become content marketing that helps attract new students — and therefore revenue.

How can you differentiate yourself when applying to a position, if case studies from other candidates look exactly the same at first glance?

formulas create the illusion that real projects will always follow those same predetermined steps. In reality, working with both in-house and agency teams is too chaotic to apply a one-size-fits-all methodology

Research budgets are not always available; user journeys are not always necessary.

Many case studies start with an unexplained “user need” that one infers is the student’s personal need (e.g. "an easier way to share music on Spotify"). User research is then utilized in an attempt to prove that other people experience the same problem.

Because students are used to ticking boxes on a standard design process template provided by their school, they forget to explain why they are utilizing a particular method. If everyone’s process is somewhat the same, what is your unique angle to the way you work?

Insights gathered from one step are rarely applied to the next one. As a result, most case studies feel complete, but few feel smart.

Many case studies describe the project process in great detail, only to conclude with a solution which is predictable, unpolished, and/or lacking insight.

There are only so many audiences a single case study can speak to. If the student’s main objective in creating a case study is to get a foot in the industry, it might be a good idea for them to prioritize recruiters and hiring managers when thinking about their public-facing output. Ultimately, recruiters are the ones who screen candidates and hiring managers are the ones who make the final decision.

Because their time is limited, most hiring managers do not go through a designer’s entire portfolio, but instead review a couple of case studies

Since they must review a high volume of case studies as part of the recruiting process, hiring managers rarely read thoroughly, but instead quickly scan students’ work in search of talent

First [I do] just a quick scan. If the work looks interesting then I proceed to a more thorough analysis. This can range from 30 seconds to 15 or 20 minutes, it all depends on the quality and quantity of the work. Weak portfolios get discarded in seconds. Really good portfolios are analyzed in-depth and I usually end up on the candidate’s website or Twitter account. — Head of Design, 13 years of experience

Another common concern raised by the upper-level managers we spoke with was the extreme focus on the part of students on the design process, at the expense of the quality of the output. They reported that this was especially the case with UX and product-focused portfolios.

I jump to the final designs, I want to see the outcome of the case study. Only then, if the final designs are solid I go back and try to understand the designer’s process. You see a lot of people building really deep use-cases, but the execution fails and right now I need designers who can think and deliver, not one or another. — VP of Product Design, 17 years of experience

Your case study structure should reflect the areas that most interest you as well as the ones that will help you reach your personal goals. What type of company do you want to work with, and what kind of story will make the design leadership of that organization excited about the possibility of working with you?

If UI design is one of your strengths, showing personas that are shallow or unresearched can hurt more than they can help.

If you are writing about a real project for a real client, it’s important to explain the constraints and limitations around which you were working. If there were no constraints involved —as in the case of a project completed as part of a UX course— hiring managers will expect the designs to be as as innovative as possible, and will be frustrated if they are not.

Focus on insights rather than process

Reading an insightful case study is much more exciting than reading one that is complete but uninspired.

Would someone feel compelled to retweet a random sentence from your case study?

how you brought those insights to each subsequent step of the process.

The case study should tell a story about how you think and how you design — it's never about the project itself. Ideally, your case study should reflect your personality so strongly that it would feel out of place in any other designer’s portfolio.

What excited you the most about working on this project when you first received the brief?

A case study should focus less on the project it portrays and more on the skills and personality of its designer.

it should provide a platform for you to talk about the things you believe as a designer: your passion (reflected in how much time and attention you invested in the project), your thinking (demonstrated by how you connect the dots throughout your process), and your insights as you learn new things and evolve in your career.