Usability

(Click to view full size)

Here’s the thing about LingsCars.com: It works.

Yes, it’s ugly as sin, an affront to the design sensibilities of practically everyone.

And this picture doesn’t do it justice. Go to the site, you need to see the seizure-inducing blinky-blinky.

But it works. It really does.

Let’s unpack that a bit. What do I mean when I say it works?

It’s simple. The site fulfills the goals of the business, which I’m guessing are:

1. To lease cars to customers.
2. To create a memorable experience and make Ling’s Cars top-of-mind for UK people who want to lease an auto.

By those simple measures, the site is learnable, memorable, usable, and creates a unique brand experience to boot. (No, that is not a pun on the UK’s use of boot for trunk.)

Go ahead. Check it out for yourself. And give yourself these “typical” usability test goals, just to prove my point about the usability of LingsCars.com:

1. Go find the link that takes you to Ling’s cheapest leasing deals.
2. You want to ask Ling’s Cars a question. Can you chat online with someone at Ling’s cars? Find a way to do that.
3. You want to lease a Volvo automobile, but aren’t sure which one you want. What does Ling offer?
4. You’d like to see what the lease prices are for every one of Ling’s autos. Find a way to look at all the prices together in one place.

And here’s the kicker: I’ve established that it’s somewhat usable. Now, is it memorable? You bet it is. Admit it – the memory of the first time you saw lingscars.com is burned into your synapses. Psychologists call this “flashbulb memory” – memories that are so strong, you remember where you were, what you were doing, and a host of little details associated with the memory.

Granted, your flashbulb memory of Ling’s Cars is probably of the Kennedy assassination, Challenger explosion, or 9/11 variety. But still, I guarantee that you won’t soon forget about Ling’s Cars.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m actually experiencing prodromal migraine symptoms just having Ling’s site in my peripheral vision. I’m not defending the so-bad-it’s-good design in and of itself. What I’m saying is that even the worst design can serve its organization’s goals. It’s a high-risk strategy, yes. But does it work in Ling’s case? I think it does.

Update: A commenter below points out that the site doesn’t exactly fill you with warm fuzzies about the reputation of Ling’s Cars. That is, it doesn’t score points in the professionalism and trust categories.

I would argue that certain businesses need that more than others. If (like me) you grew up in the 70′s and 80′s in the NYC area, you probably remember those Crazy Eddie’s commercials. “Crazy Eddie’s! Our prices are so low, it’s insane!” And of course the pitchman jumped around like a lunatic. They didn’t come across as a staid and somber corporate entity. But they didn’t need to. They were differentiating on price. For electronics, that’s frequently the deciding factor.

Is it the same with car leasing in the UK? I have no idea. But I suspect that Ling is indeed trying to differentiate on price – notice the frequent references to “low prices” on the site. And do you need to build a staid and somber site to trumpet your price differentiation? Probably not. In fact, one could make the argument that the site actually *supports* the price differentiation claim thusly:

Ling’s Cars…our prices are so low, we don’t even bother spending a lot of money on our site…we just home-build it so we can keep our prices low.

Maybe that’s a stretch. Thoughts?

{ 13 comments }