Seems like it could be useful for a researcher or something. It screams "vitamin" to me. I'm very reluctant to install a new plugin. It has to be very compelling and this just isn't (for me).
We actually think that trying to get people to change their behaviour to keep going back to a different search portal is a greater barrier than getting them to install a plugin once and improving their experience on their current search engine.
Even if we can improve the search experience on Google just a little, we think it could be huge. And the lowest hanging fruit seems to be the RHS of the results page - there must be better uses for that space, especially with screens getting larger.
I think you're right that a plugin install is smarter than trying to get people to stop going to Google. I think you need to make it very clear why it's worth installing the plugin initially. Something concrete that we all wish Google did.
Reassuring people that the plugin is lightweight and won't compromise their security is also very important. The history recording might be great, but it sounds creepy.
I don't know if it's true, but a dark themed web site might not be a good idea when trust is important. A/B testing on install ratio?
We've de-emphasized the history part though have kept it in the product since some of our users really love it. In the latest version you can completely disable the recording elements (you could always turn recording on and off).
Interesting thought on the dark background. I hadn't thought that the color might influence trust in that way, but definitely worth testing.
Our install wizard asks the user whether they want the history component or not since we figured it's best not to make any assumptions. History is only one part of the product now - that's what I meant by 'de-emphasized'.
I've always hated that analogy. Tylenol isn't the only profitable drug; Centrum Silver makes plenty of money too. Vitamins are perfectly respectable business.
I dunno, I've bought more vitamins recently than painkillers.
It's common to take a daily multivitamin, few people take daily painkillers[1]. The vitamin industry makes plenty of money; dietary supplements are big business. Not that painkillers aren't, but there's nothing superior about a painkiller in an economic sense. There are whole stores devoted to dietary supplements, the most popular painkillers are illegal (heroin, opium, etc.).
Some links for the size of the vitamin market vs. painkiller markets:
Comments
Seems like it could be useful for a researcher or something. It screams "vitamin" to me. I'm very reluctant to install a new plugin. It has to be very compelling and this just isn't (for me).
We actually think that trying to get people to change their behaviour to keep going back to a different search portal is a greater barrier than getting them to install a plugin once and improving their experience on their current search engine.
Even if we can improve the search experience on Google just a little, we think it could be huge. And the lowest hanging fruit seems to be the RHS of the results page - there must be better uses for that space, especially with screens getting larger.
I think you're right that a plugin install is smarter than trying to get people to stop going to Google. I think you need to make it very clear why it's worth installing the plugin initially. Something concrete that we all wish Google did.
Reassuring people that the plugin is lightweight and won't compromise their security is also very important. The history recording might be great, but it sounds creepy.
I don't know if it's true, but a dark themed web site might not be a good idea when trust is important. A/B testing on install ratio?
Good points.
We've de-emphasized the history part though have kept it in the product since some of our users really love it. In the latest version you can completely disable the recording elements (you could always turn recording on and off).
Interesting thought on the dark background. I hadn't thought that the color might influence trust in that way, but definitely worth testing.
>We've de-emphasized the history part though have kept it in the product
I would default it to off, otherwise, pretty evil.
Our install wizard asks the user whether they want the history component or not since we figured it's best not to make any assumptions. History is only one part of the product now - that's what I meant by 'de-emphasized'.
I've always hated that analogy. Tylenol isn't the only profitable drug; Centrum Silver makes plenty of money too. Vitamins are perfectly respectable business.
How do you know a vitamin actually does anything? How do you know it actually contains the vitamins it says it does?
Selling a Vitamin is a considerably harder sell than pain relief.
I dunno, I've bought more vitamins recently than painkillers. It's common to take a daily multivitamin, few people take daily painkillers[1]. The vitamin industry makes plenty of money; dietary supplements are big business. Not that painkillers aren't, but there's nothing superior about a painkiller in an economic sense. There are whole stores devoted to dietary supplements, the most popular painkillers are illegal (heroin, opium, etc.).
Some links for the size of the vitamin market vs. painkiller markets:
The largest vitamin company makes $80 million a year in profit: http://www.foodnavigator.com/Financial-Industry/US-vitamin-s...
The total spent on painkillers in the US is $11 per person, which comes out to about $330 million gross, which probably means less than $80 million total profit: http://www.euromonitor.com/Specialist_products_to_revive_ana...
[1] Except aspirin, which is being taken for its blood-thinning effect rather than its analgesic qualities.