Say you went to Target for some laundry detergent. Before you get to the cash register, an associate blocks your path to tell you he's put some clothes in your cart for you. You wash clothes, so obviously you need some, right? He won't let you through to check out until you say OK, though he does offer you the option of turning around and putting those clothes on the rack where he got them.
How's the Target brand doing at that moment for you?
Executive takeaway: Don't interrupt people for self-serving reasons.
Just say “OK”
Look, Messenger and SMS are cuddling!
Now to real life. The other day I had to open Facebook's Messenger app. This is something I only occasionally do, because Messenger is an annoyance that serves no purpose and meets no need for me. We already have text messaging, Google Hangouts, and Lync and now Slack for work. Other people use Snapchat and Kik, just to name a couple. There is no shortage of messaging apps, and Messenger solves no problem that hasn't already been solved many times over. Few people want to keep five or more apps running just to talk to people. The only reason I ever open it is because someone messaged me, usually because we're Facebook friends and haven't exchanged other contact info. (Which is perfectly common, but why couldn't Facebook just let us keep messaging inside the Facebook app? Why do we have to install and open a separate app?)
That's a topic for an entire blog post. Here's where I'm going today: Facebook threw up an interstitial screen telling me I can now see my text messages in Messenger. Did it ask whether I wanted this? No, it told me I now have it. They've turned it on, and I can acknowledge that with an “OK”. My only alternative is to go to Settings and turn it off.
Look, Facebook wants me to mix my text messages in with Facebook messages. Of course they do. It's in Facebook's best interest for me to mix Facebook with everything I do on my phone and online. Apparently, though, they don't think I need much of a choice in the matter. And you get a case of product management and UX design (or lack thereof) coming together to give the brand a swift, hard kick to the groin.
The sledgehammer approach
The first thing you have to understand is that interstitial screens, modals, and similar UI methods are heavy-handed. There's a reason UX and UI designers refer to them as speed bumps. They're the equivalent of interrupting someone who's running an errand, which means you's better have a damn good reason. That reason needs to be apparent not just for you (it's not enough that it's important to the business) but have some sort of reasonable explanation or value for your customer.
So the interstitial is kind of a sledgehammer, if you will. If you break out the sledgehammer for a purpose that's ultimately self-serving, here's what happens: Your company comes across as authoritarian or desperate. “Here, stop what you're doing so we can tell you how we just changed your settings for you. If you don't like it, go change it.” That kind of approach could only work for the DMV. If you rely on the good will and perception of your customers —your brand— it's a bad idea.
Muddying the waters
The second thing is that many people don't like mixing channels and applications. Many people are aware that text messaging is different from Internet channels like Hangouts and Messenger. Many people do not want to have channels and apps muddled together. Notice how I emphasized many? That's because I don't know exactly how many, and I doubt Facebook does, either. You can get an estimate with surveys, and Facebook probably does have enough data to do some analysis of metrics. Now let's say you find that number to be 23.6%. Or 78.987%. Or about 50%, plus/minus 40%. Does that actually make a difference? If the number were 10%, would it be OK to annoy those 10%? No. If you can reasonably assume many people don't want what you're proposing, give them a choice.
You trickster, you
The third thing is this screen is slightly, ever so slightly, tricky. Notice how Facebook refers to text messaging as “SMS”? I know, and you may too, that SMS is text messaging. Mobile carriers often refer to it that way. However, how many people don't, don't need to, and don't want to pay attention to the technical names for things? Ask a random sampling of people to “access a URL” or “use the browser's address bar”. All of them know perfectly well how to navigate the Internet, but many won't know what things are called. Nor should they need to. So what's that got to do with this screen? A significant number of people will see the abbreviation “SMS”, not associate that with their text messages, and blow right through. Their attention is on the message they wanted to open up in the first place, not this nag screen, so their incentive is to click OK and get on with it.
That's why I say it's slightly tricky: Everything the screen says is technically correct. If you read the explanatory text, it does mention “text messaging”. It does not lie, and it is not deceitful; it's just tricky enough to divert some people who don't pay attention and/or are in a hurry. (Mostly because they've got things to do that are important to them than whatever Facebook happens to want to inform them at this moment.)
Do you want to be the kind of company people expect to take advantage of inattention and being in a hurry?
Can you fix it?
How hard was that?
OK. Problem stated. Can I fix it? Sure! Easy. Glad you asked.
Fix number 1: Don't use an interstitial. Send me an app alert informing me I now have the option to mix text messaging and Messenger. Or send me a message in Messenger. If Messenger is a useful app with a purpose and value to me, then I'll have it running, right? Give me a simple way to turn the feature on, but don't turn it on by default.
Fix number 2: Let's say executive Bob insists on using an interstitial screen, because otherwise people won't use this feature. You know it's heavy-handed, but you have no choice. Add this: A link or button that says “No thanks”. It really is that simple.
