21 Nov 2003 | Brad Hurley said...

Looks like a cool bunch of products! The only annoying thing about their site is that those little submenus that appear when you click on something like "buying method" (a nice play on words) are so unobtrusive that I didn't see them for a while. I kept trying to find a place in the big window (where it says "places to buy Method") to click in order to see where to buy. Finally I figured it out, but it took a while.

But then, it's early in the morning and I've only had one cup of coffee....

21 Nov 2003 | Darrel said...

Are the products special outside of a funky container? I like them a lot, but I'm not sure if it's really that profound of a breakthrough. I kind of expect that thing from Target.

21 Nov 2003 | SU said...

I like them a lot, but I'm not sure if it's really that profound of a breakthrough. I kind of expect that thing from Target.

Check out their FAQ: What Makes Method Unique?

21 Nov 2003 | ajr said...

Outside of the packaging, there really is nothing special about their products - they smell a little different from the rest... The dish soap dispenser is neat. A true innovation would be to use biodegradable plastics - otherwise, it's just another "look at me" use of a petroleum derived product.

21 Nov 2003 | kev said...

yes yes! We've bought them because of what they look like. And they smell really good too, and also work very well. Beats the pants off of the oxi-clean, orange-thing everyone's doing right now. It's a cleaner you don't have to hide under the sink when you're done with it.

21 Nov 2003 | ~bc said...

Pretty, but, wow, they used the FONT tag in the code, and tables! How 1997. They certainly "didn't take any chances" with their code. And the text is 99% images. I can't copy that to save. And the urls? "/4-1-6" ? Wow, unusable if I saved a page in my bookmarks.

At least the products are bio-friendly, even if the site violates every law of usability, accessibility, web standards.

21 Nov 2003 | Jonny Roader said...

If these products go any way to weening people off the ecologically vicious detergents currently in majority use, then that's a step forward.

21 Nov 2003 | Paul said...

There are typos in the copy, too ("it's") but I can forgive them. I've always been intrigued by method, and I think the dish soap container is wonderful.

We already use eco-friendly products with less exciting packaging, though. I guess a mistletoe-scented cleaner would be kind of nice around the holidays....

21 Nov 2003 | Ryan Mahoney said...

I agree that the site is attractive. The lack of text (since most text are images) makes this site virtually invisible to search engines and difficult to use for people who require larger type. I found the FAQ with the image map particularly confusing. At first I was like wow... a picture of an FAQ section... then I realized it was full of links. 8)

I think they could have made the site more usable without damaging the aesthetics too much.

21 Nov 2003 | Benjy said...

Wow, I just read an article about Method last night in Business 2.0. Link only goes to preview, but for those with access to a hard copy or an online subscription, it's an interesting read.

21 Nov 2003 | Graham Hicks said...

That dish soap dispenser was designed by the infamous Karim Rashid.

When I was reading your post I was assuming that the Method in San Francisco had launched a line of soap products. That would have been kind of odd.

Maybe it is because I am in SF, but their dish soap is available at the local run-of-the-mill grocery store, not just target.

21 Nov 2003 | ajr said...

Have you changed the font style of your post titles?

21 Nov 2003 | JF said...

I generally blame the lack of good ideas making it to market on the design firm, not on the client. The design firm needs to make a compelling case why change is good, why different is good, why taking a risk is good. "It's cool" or "It will stand out" just isn't a good enough reason for most clients. Someone on the inside is making the case that the status quo is the right direction and that case is beating the "change for the sake of change" case. It's up to the design firm to make the better case.

Further, how many times to you take someone's advice when their advice is drastically different from what you are used to or comfortable with? Think about this next time you try to convince someone else to make a big change.

21 Nov 2003 | Matthew Oliphant said...

I went to Karim Rashid's Web site... Are all the

Server Error The following error occurred: A malformed ICAP request modification response was received. Contact your system administrator. (ICAP_REQMOD_SVC_INVALID_RESPONSE). Please contact the administrator.

messages part of risky design?

21 Nov 2003 | Scrivs said...

I am all about radical changes as long as they are for the better. Change just to change without adding some kind of innovation or making something more usable and attractive is nothing more than a marketing ploy. However, looking at Method's products I am intrigued to try them out simply based on looks and I could care less about soaps and whatnot. Goes to show that we do live in an aesthetically inclined society. Go figure...

21 Nov 2003 | Brad Hurley said...

Actually the most radical design in suds I've seen recently is from Lush (sorry for link to totally icky website), our favorite (er, favourite) soap and shampoo store here in Montreal. They sell shampoo in little round cakes, no packaging whatsoever. Solid shampoo's been around for ages, but their stuff is particularly wonderful...great-smelling, works nicely, and no plastic bottle to throw away or recycle when you're done.

21 Nov 2003 | One of several Steves said...

Solid shampoo cakes? Weird. I'm having a hard time picturing how those work? Dissolve them in your hand first?

Reminds me of something I rather liked when I was living in Germany - solid dishwasher soap cakes. Just drop them in the soap bin in the diswasher, and that was it. Just the (recyclable) box they came in, as far as packaging. I've started to see them showing up in the States (well, at least California) in recent months.

21 Nov 2003 | Brad Hurley said...

Solid shampoo cakes? Weird. I'm having a hard time picturing how those work? Dissolve them in your hand first?

You just rub the cake in your hand under water, which builds up a lather, and then you rub your hands in your hair.

21 Nov 2003 | Benjy said...

Reminds me of something I rather liked when I was living in Germany - solid dishwasher soap cakes. Just drop them in the soap bin in the diswasher, and that was it.

I saw a commerical for these the other day. They even have a "JET-DRY PowerBall" in the middle. ohhhhh!

21 Nov 2003 | Richard Bird said...

I generally blame the lack of good ideas making it to market on the design firm, not on the client. The design firm needs to make a compelling case why change is good...

Recently Overheard...

[Designer] In user studies, we've consistently observed buyers of your product destroying the package in order to touch and feel the content before buying.

[Manufacturer] Yes, we are aware of that.

[Designer] We asked further about it. The retailer complained that the routine destruction of the package was cause for concern. It takes extra time to maintain their environment and sales are down.

[Manufacturer] Hmmm.

[Designer] We've created several new pack designs that allow access to the contents without destruction. We use open ends and other unique structures to allow complete access.

[Manufacturer] Can't do that. It must be a six-sided box.

[Designer] Why?

[Manufacturer] Well, because. It's a six-sided box.

True story.

21 Nov 2003 | JF said...

True story.

Yes, that happens. No doubt. But I really do believe that to be an exception. I've sat in on sessions where designers get all pissed because the client does pick the riskier design, yet the designer didn't give any solid reasons why the risk was worth taking.

21 Nov 2003 | pb said...

Sounds like the designer took a lousy approach. Why not discuss the problem and limitations before launching into the solution? That's exactly the problem with designers. They frequently seem to have little concept of what the real world is looking for.

There seems to be a massive chasm in the marketplace between no design and too much design leaving a large opportunity for Ikea, Target and West Elm.

21 Nov 2003 | chunk said...

I've heard that design is in season right now.

21 Nov 2003 | sergio said...

The site looks great and seems to suit the product well, but I agree that they could definitely make it more usable. I also have a problem with the site's structure. The first thing it did was intrigue me. I wanted to know more about the product. And I couldn't find the information right away. When I saw the link in one of the comments I thought to myself: "Oh, so there is a FAQ!" and went back to see it. The whole "what makes our product unique" bit should be one of the top level navigation elements.

Very nice, though.

21 Nov 2003 | Don Schenck said...

About the Method soap: It dispenses out the bottom.

So guess what's all over the floor at the Target where I shop, in front of the Method display?

21 Nov 2003 | Richard Bird said...

what's all over the floor at the Target...

A picture of that would be priceless.

21 Nov 2003 | JF said...

Soap on the floor reminds of me the pick-up counter at Panera... Lots of little paper receipts on the floor in front of the counter. People pick up their food, but no one ever knows what to do with the little receipt with their order number. So they drop it. Or put it on the counter, but it often blows off. An "I slipped" lawsuit waiting to happen.

21 Nov 2003 | One of several Steves said...

The receipts on the floor thing reminds me of one of my biggest pet peeves - lunch places that insist they give you a receipt. I don't need or want my receipt. If I do, I'll ask for it.

It seemed especially endemic in Chicago. When I worked in the Loop, I swear that literally every place I ever went to for lunch had signs up saying "free lunch if we don't give you your receipt" or that sort of thing. I don't want it. At the very least, give me a place right there to throw it away. I have seen some places do that - have a small little trash bin on the counter for receipts.

21 Nov 2003 | JF said...

The receipts on the floor thing reminds me of one of my biggest pet peeves - lunch places that insist they give you a receipt. I don't need or want my receipt. If I do, I'll ask for it.

Reminds me of a joke by Mitch Hedberg. Goes something like this:

"I bought a donut the other day and they gave me a receipt. Hey, man, I don't need a receipt for a donut. I give you the money, you give me the donut. End of transaction. We don't need to bring ink and paper into this."

(it's all in the delivery)

21 Nov 2003 | Brad Hurley said...

slip sliding away....it's called the Method rhythm.

22 Nov 2003 | Graham Hicks said...

A. Mitch Hedberg is brilliant. He is the Bob Hope of our time. No, really.

B. It's not always as simple as "just convince the client."
I've worked on projects where whatever the focus group says is taken as the undisputable truth, and in the ten minutes the focus groups spend looking at a foam model around a fluorescent lit conference table they decide that they don't like it.
I've also worked on projects where our client was convinced, but their "higher ups" didn't want to take any risks, and they were the ones making the real decisions.

22 Nov 2003 | Richard Bird said...

whatever the focus group says...

Graham, you've hit the mark. Quant and misguided Qual (research, for you neo's) kills everything, all the time.

Thanks, Mr. Hicks, for making the point.

Our "benefactors" should only be looking to studied analysis for disaster checks. Nothing more.

22 Nov 2003 | Graham Hicks said...

I'm not sure that that is totally right. Quantitative research has its place, but putting too much faith in it can be a problem, just as putting too much trust in qualitative research can be a problem.
It seems like designers have been somewhat successful in drilling the concept of "the user is right" into our clients heads, but in much of the business world the only contact businesses have with users is through marketing focus groups, so that's what they do.
Research should always be used to inform a project, not to steer it. What value does a designer really bring if in the end, it's the user designing the product/service?

22 Nov 2003 | Benjy said...

The Pontiac Aztek is the perfect example of where a product failed because its development was steered by focus groups.

But the part of the problem is that those designing the research create biased or incomplete questions that do not assess the truest opinions of those being questioned.

22 Nov 2003 | pb said...

Don's Target got the shipment of Method missing the seal I guess.

23 Nov 2003 | MegoSteve said...

I was really impressed with the Method line the first time I saw it at Target, but not enough to want to spend an extra buck or two on it. They already cleared some of the first batch out of my local Target already (haven't really checked to see if it's back).

23 Nov 2003 | Mike said...

C'mon, JF, all the Paneras I've been to have one of those eyeball-pokey things that you're supposed to jam the receipts down on. Didn't you see it, or was it hidden behind the plexiglass bread case like it always is? :)

Since you've got the "in" with the Panera folks, you should tell them about the receipt problem.

And then tell them to put more freakin' restaurants in NY.

25 Nov 2003 | Adam said...

The Method soap leaks out because people like to play with the container to figure out how the soap comes out. You can put up display signage to tell people how it works but they still want to try it themselves unfortunately. I really like their scents though (mint dishwasher soap) and I also like being able to by a hand soap in an attractive clear design without a gender-biased scent. I think the household industry really needs to consider the male market for their products. It's almost impossible to find a tissue boxes in a muted color. (Incidentally Target's generic brand box is black or white. Simple.)

26 Nov 2003 | Richard Bird said...

tell people how it works but they still want to try it themselves

Absolutely, Adam!

At least you understand this. See my prior post: " we've consistently observed"

It defies reasoning.

Thanks for the observation.

26 Nov 2003 | pb said...

Business 2.0 on Method

27 Nov 2003 | Sheila said...

Not being American...we had to smuggle it back over the border to Canada after a trip to Oregon...some protectionist laws about dish soap, or some such bureaucracy. Anyhoo...I had to stab a hole in the top to allow soap out after it was half empty. Now I have to get the man of the house to squeeze out the soap, because I'm not strong enough.

27 Nov 2003 | Sheila said...

Not being American...we had to smuggle it back over the border to Canada after a trip to Oregon...some protectionist laws about dish soap, or some such bureaucracy. Anyhoo...I had to stab a hole in the top to allow soap out after it was half empty. Now I have to get the man of the house to squeeze out the soap, because I'm not strong enough.

02 Dec 2003 | MegoSteve said...

I checked my local Target again and it looks like they've dumped the "groundbreaking" bottom-dispensing dishwashing liquid in favor of a more traditional top-dispensing one. So much for radical design progress.

09 Dec 2003 | dw said...

Love the look of their products, but I was very disappointed with their actual performance. The dish soap containers leak (what with having the hole on the bottom) so you end up with a pretty container sitting in a pool of soap all over your counter. Also, the dispenser doesn't let you control the amount of dish soap you use, so if you just want a dab on your sponge, you end up with way too much. It's somewhat difficult to squeeze the bottle once you've used about half of the soap, particularly if your hands are soapy and wet already (what about having some sort of easy-to-grip texture, a la oxo), or if you have any kind of hand pain. You can't refill the containers (environmental concern, since my city recycling program won't take them). Most importantly, the soap is horribly over-perfumed. I bought two kinds, and ended up throwing both away because the smell was so bad. Nice idea, but they've got a ways to go.

29 Dec 2003 | fred said...

NICE BLOG!

Dread Desease Policen
D&O Managerversicherung
Edelmetallversicherung
Elektronikversicherung
Fahrzeug-Rechtsschutzversicherung
Fondssparplan
Fondspolice
Glasversicherung
Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung
Gewässerschadenhaftpflicht
Hausratversicherung
Hundehaftpflichtversicherung
Investmentpolice
Jagdhaftpflichtversicherung
Kanzlei-Inventarversicherung
Kfz Versicherung
Krankenversicherung
Kunstversicherung

16 Jan 2004 | Prospero said...

This topic is one we will tackle later in this article, but it refers to making sure that your application and the dock aren't fighting it out for supremacy of the screen.