Author Archives: Gerry McGovern

Diversity, polarization and connectivity

At one level, the Web facilitates diversity. At another, it encourages uniformity. Paradox and contradiction seem to be the hallmarks of complex, interconnected systems.

In politics, the Web has allowed those of similar views to flock together. The center struggles as the wings and peripheries bulge. Tribalism and groupthink are flourishing. “The divisions between Republicans and Democrats on fundamental political values – on government, race, immigration, national security, environmental protection and other areas – reached record levels during Barack Obama’s presidency,” as stated by Pew Research Center in October 2017. “In Donald Trump’s first year as president, these gaps have grown even larger.”

However, there are countercurrents. “Today, more than one-third of marriages start online,” according to an article in Technology Review. Online dating is now “the second most common way for heterosexual couples to meet. For homosexual couples, it is far and away the most popular.

Online dating has also led to a significant increase in interracial marriages, particularly in the United States. “It is intriguing that shortly after the introduction of the first dating websites in 1995, like, the percentage of new marriages created by interracial couples increased rapidly,” said researchers Josue Ortega (at the University of Essex in the U.K.) and Philipp Hergovich (at the University of Vienna in Austria).

In addition, according to a Pew Research Center analysis published in 2017, “In 2015, 17% of all U.S. newlyweds had a spouse of a different race or ethnicity, marking more than a fivefold increase since 1967, when 3% of newlyweds were intermarried.”

“In 2008, about 27% of OkCupid users reported that they would date someone with a vocal racial bias,” a article stated. “In 2014, only 10% of users said they’d be willing to entertain a racist date.”

Perhaps the trends of polarization and diversity are not that far apart as they might have initially seemed. Where we are born is an accident of geography and race is essentially an illusion. In 2016, Scientific American wrote that, “the mainstream belief among scientists is that race is a social construct without biological meaning.”

Consequently, Paul Reynolds, a Republican National Committeeman from Alabama, stated that “If I’ve got a choice of putting my welfare into the hands of Putin or The Washington Post, Putin wins every time.” Reynolds is, by no means, alone in his views. A 2017 Morning Consult-Politico poll found that 49% of Republicans considered Russia an ally.

The idea that a significant percentage of U.S. citizens would prefer to be ruled by a Russian who shares their worldview rather than a fellow U.S. citizen who has a different worldview is not really surprising. Nationalism is a flag of convenience for most, and patriotism, as Samuel Johnson once stated, is often “the last refuge of a scoundrel.” Most nations are no more than accidents of geography. People may be physically close but emotionally and attitudinally miles apart.

Given time, the Web will remake nations and states and create a new geography where the like-minded find each other: where those who share the same values and outlook on life come together and coalesce.

The Partisan Divide on Political Values Grows Even Wider

The Strength of Absent Ties: Social Integration via Online Dating

7 Surprising Online Dating Race Statistics

Digital needs physical representation

“Someday soon, every place and thing in the real world—every street, lamppost, building, and room—will have its full-size digital twin in the mirrorworld,” Kevin Kelly writes for Wired magazine. It maybe so. However, we also need a mirrorworld that goes the other way: one that represents the digital world in the physical world.

Imagine if you walked into your office in the morning and you saw four broken windows. Would you just ignore them and go and have your coffee? No. They’d have an impact on you. If you didn’t directly do something about them, you’d at least be likely to mention them to a colleague. And if when you reached your office there was a siren blaring and lights flashing, would you just close your door, put your headphones on, and lock it all out, so that you could concentrate on your work? Or would you wonder: What’s wrong? How can I fix it?

Well, something like this is already happening in the European offices of the Toyota digital team. They have a flying saucer-like orb called Simon that gently glows green when all is well with the various websites they help manage. However, when the page-loading speed begins to slow down on a particular website, Simon begins to change color. As the performance deteriorates, Simon gets redder. A red Simon is not to be ignored. It calls for immediate action. And it gets immediate action.

Toyota are seeking to develop a culture of digital quality matching the quality they have in their factories. “Every month, quality dashboards are circulated in the organization, and every Friday, my entire team has a digital quality meeting,” Karen Peeters, who oversees all digital activities at Toyota European HQ in Brussels, explains. “We recently started an internal awareness campaign entitled ‘Digital quality is everyone’s responsibility’,” Karen tells me as we attend an evening event for Toyota managers. Her phone rings. It is a senior manager at the HQ. Simon is getting red. Calls are made. Action is taken. The problem is fixed. And Simon can have another good night’s sleep.

Imagine if when a content creator opened their computer, a small bowl of virtual fruit appeared. If all the content this creator was responsible for was up-to-date, then the everything would look fresh and the bowl would quickly disappear. However, the staler the content, the uglier and more rotten the fruit would look. And if things were really rotten, then a horrible squelching, rotting noise would be heard, and the bowl would stay longer and longer on the screen. Now, also imagine that the manager who commissioned this content saw an even bigger bowl made up of the bowls of all those reporting to him or her. Would that manager continue demanding the publication of new content as the website sank into utter rottenness?

We don’t get digital. We don’t feel digital. We only experience digital in a very limited, sensorially deprived way. Every day, I see digital teams accept shoddy customer experiences. These experiences would never, ever be allowed in a physical store or office. We need help to experience what our customers are experiencing. We need to share in some way the pain, frustration and annoyance our customers feel as they give up on our useless search engines, as they are confused by badly-named navigation, incredibly irritating carousels, and jargon-filled content. We also need to share their joy and satisfaction when everything is humming along perfectly. To do this, we need to physicalize the digital, give the experience a concrete shape and form. Every digital team needs a Simon.

AR Will Spark the Next Big Tech Platform—Call It Mirrorworld, Kevin Kelly

Interface as luxury

We can understand the notion of luxury in the physical world. But what is digital luxury? What does a luxurious interface mean? And, what is a luxurious digital experience?

Recently, we’ve been doing some work for Toyota Lexus, and I was asked to present a talk to a group of managers about the future of customer experience in the luxury car market. As I was conducting my research, it became clear that like everything else, cars are also becoming more and more digitalized.

A car seat can be luxurious because of the material used for making it, due to its visual design and ergonomics. Beautiful craftwork and expensive materials can set a dashboard or steering wheel apart.

What about the Sat Nav (GPS) system? What kind of luxury is available there? Should the roads look luxurious? Should the signposts be handcrafted, so that they look more beautiful? Would that be luxury? Or, in fact, could it be dangerously distracting and confusing? Would luxury be more like real-time traffic information spoken in a way that perfectly suits your personality? However, some Sat Nav systems, on certain occasions, talk too much for instance (Here’s looking at you, Google). Imagine if you could train the system with easy commands. Imagine if when the system says you’d arrive at 10:33, you actually do arrive at 10:33. Would that be luxury?

The one thing rich people don’t possess any more than others is time. Time is luxury. Every minute saved goes into the luxury bank. Telling the driver that there are friends of theirs fifteen minutes away who are about to order at their favorite restaurant and that a free chair is available there—that’s luxury. Or, is it actually so? If you tell the driver this just after they’ve had their meal, perhaps it’s not luxury. If the friends happen to be the driver’s spouse and the next-door neighbor, then maybe . . .

It’s very easy to get things wrong in digital. Today, Google kept mistaking me for being Spanish just because I was visiting Madrid. One time, that’s ok. Again and again and again—that’s simply annoying.

Luxury is a unique, special, exclusive experience. In the digital world, this often requires a very deep understanding of the person involved. And, therein lies a tension, because those who seek digital luxury would be required to give up more of their information and become more dependent on their digital assistants.

Those who create physical luxury will be challenged by digital luxury. As physical luxury takes time, craft, tradition, and even an obsessive focus on quality, nothing can be released until it is absolutely perfect. At times, digital luxury delivers an amazing new service but can be rough around the edges. Digital luxury, by virtue of its very highly fluid and malleable nature, iterates rapidly, and it is constantly changing and being refined further.

The first people who bought computers partook in unique, exclusive experiences. They were the special few who experienced what a word processor or spreadsheet was like. The first people who used mobile phones thought they were special too.

The luxury is in the interface. We don’t marvel at the physical engine; we marvel (if at all) at its representation on the dashboard. Have you ever seen someone gazing lovingly at the battery of an electric car? When it comes to digital technology, it’s the interface, the screen, the voice, the information that denote luxury and the experience.

FANG is coming for you!

Recently, I had the opportunity to deal with a government agency that was reviewing its digital strategy. Like many government entities, the organization functioned as a monopoly. However, during our engagement, an executive pointed out that they couldn’t be complacent because FANG might come after them one day.

FANG stands for Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, and Google. You may wonder why a non-commercial entity would have to worry about FANG. Quite a lot, actually. In many countries, governments are suffering a crisis of legitimacy. Businesses are seen as efficient. Governments are seen as inefficient. Businesses are usable. Governments are often seen as clunky, awkward, time-consuming, and unyielding of results.

FANG is sucking up all the data into which it can sink its teeth. It’s sifting, organizing, and then presenting that data in often easy-to-digest bites. Often, it’s easier to get an answer from Google than going to the government site that created the data from which the answer is built.

The problem is that if FANG presents the answers, then many people may think that FANG did all the hard work to create the base data from which the answer was built. All that hard, monotonous, boring, behind-the-scenes work that governments do is invisible to most people. Nobody cares. They just want answers, and they get the answers from FANG, thinking “that’s cool.” When they go to government websites and are faced by poor search and navigation options as well as lots of jargon, they think, “that’s not cool.” Some of them even begin to think, “What good is government if it can’t even give me the answer. Google gives me the answer.”

FANG has a wonderful business model. They usually let others do all the hard work of creating the base data (Netflix is a bit of an exception). Then they organize and present it better and make money off of it. Just like Google News doesn’t create news. Just like Apple doesn’t create music. Musicians and the media are being bled dry as Google and Apple suck out more and more profits. They will do just enough to keep their hosts alive, just about.

Regardless of whether you’re a government agency, a non-profit, or whatever, if you’ve got potentially useful data and information, then FANG is your potential competitor. If you’re neglecting your search engine, if you’re not investing in your navigation and the general usability of your digital environment, then you’re just asking for trouble.

The interface is the product. The interface is the service. FANG wants to own the interface for everything. All the boring, necessary, costly stuff that make societies work will still be left to governments. But the public won’t see that effort. They’ll just see the cool FANG interface and wonder why governments can’t be like that.

Moreover, the crisis of legitimacy for governments will only grow as more and more people question what good are governments. Nobody will ever remember that government funding and research created the entire computer industry and the Internet in the first place. Nobody will care. Whoever owns the interface will own the future.

Traditional communications reflects a feudal mindset

A new opening in our marketing and communications department for a traditional old-school communicator who can write endless quantities of condescending, deflecting, happy-clappy mumbo jumbo, stating-the-bleeding-obvious content. Ideal candidate should be able to see every crisis as an opportunity to waffle endlessly.

As Brexit looms like a plague of starving locusts, Tom Enders, the chief executive of Airbus, stated that a no deal would be hugely damaging to Airbus employment in the UK. “Please don’t listen to the Brexiteers’ madness which asserts that, because we have huge plants here, we will not move and we will always be here,” Mr Enders stated. “They are wrong.”

And how did a UK government spokesperson respond? By stating the following: “The UK is a world leader in aerospace. We are the home of the jet engine, the wing factory of the world and are world-renowned for our skills and capabilities in the most technically-advanced parts of aerospace manufacturing.”

Hello? Well, at least they didn’t respond like this. “The United Kingdom, made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, is an island nation in northwestern Europe. England – birthplace of Shakespeare and The Beatles – is home to the capital, London, a globally influential centre of finance and culture.”

Faced with one of its greatest emergencies in modern times, responding to the CEO of one of the world’s largest airplane manufactures, the UK government feels the need to explain to Mr Enders that, “The UK is a world leader in aerospace.” Chances are he knows that.

Would that such gibberish was a rarity. Far from it. Large organizations, in particular, tend to have an endless capacity to be vain, petulant, arrogant and out-of-touch. Communications and marketing departments behave like the tailors in The Emperor’s New Clothes, as they outdo themselves to come up with more images of eternally smiling super-happy content. 

Either organizations are spewing out fantasy worlds for their products, services and policies, or else they’re droning on ad nauseum with endless quantities of utterly useless content that nobody is interested in reading. Unnecessary context. Verbose explanations of how this thing or that policy was developed. A myriad swamp of legalese to cover themselves just in case someone might actually understand what they are talking about. A relentless covering of every possible scenario that is pumped up on the website like slurry spread on a Spring field. Only this slurry doesn’t make the grass grow; it smothers and kills the useful content.  

Even the stuff that people do need is often written in a way that is designed to confuse and obfuscate rather than illuminate. Because if you say something clearly then that means you must master your subject and be accountable. Better to muddy things up. Then you can claim that what you actually meant was …

Stop! There is a huge cost for all this propaganda hogwash. A 2018 study found that only 9% of British people believe that their government will “do the right thing”. 9%. The huge cynicism people feel towards government and many other organizations is at least partly down to feudal and condescending way they are communicated with.

We need a massive root-and-branch overhaul of how content is created. Content must be measured based on its use and usefulness. We must measure much more effectively how people find, use and understand content.

Perverse incentives create perverse behavior

“Anyone else find the new Gmail interface sluggish?” The question was asked on a forum and there was a deluge of replies. “For me it’s so unresponsive that I’m at a loss for words how google put this into production,” the commenter continued. “I have a modern, new computer and modern, urban internet good enough for streaming 1080p on Twitch without interruption, but I can’t delete or archive an email anymore without waiting 4-6 seconds for it to complete the action.”

Why would Google do that? Why would it create such a bad experience? “Google GREATLY encourages “launches” – releasing something publicly,” a Googler explained. “And keep in mind – no penalties if it’s half baked, not working, only works on chrome, or some such nonsense! This is the norm! Why? Promotion. You cannot get promoted beyond a certain level in this place unless you “launch” something big.”

When I saw these comments, I was reminded of other conversations I’ve had with Google employees who told me the exact same thing. That Google senior management might waffle on about noble principles of making things simple and fast, but that Google culture is fast-becoming like all big company culture.

“Do you know how many bugs you need to fix to get promoted,” the Googler asked? “Infinity. No matter how many you fix, it will never get you enough “impact” for promotion. Never. How many useless redesigns do you need to launch to get promoted? ONE! Extra fun: people internally usually warn about this, complain about it, file bugs about poor performance, etc. It is ALL ignored. Most people who’ve been here for over a few years have given up filing bugs even. Because the reply is always the same: “you’re not the target audience”! And we all know it! We all do! Some quit when they realize it, others just begin optimizing for promotion as opposed to optimizing for what is good for the user or the company. And this is how you get new gmail, for example.”

Perverse incentives and metrics create a perverse culture. All great empires rot from within. When you measure and reward production, you get production. When you measure and reward launches of new things, you get launches of new things.

I once made a presentation to a large organization about the state of their website. It sucked. 80% of the content was either useless or out-of-date. I proposed that they needed to remove that 80%. “We all agree with you,” one of the writers said, “but it’s not going to happen.” Why not, I asked? “Because if I meet my boss on Friday and she asks me what I did this week and I tell her I deleted 200 pages, she’ll look at me and say: “Nice. But what did you do? How many pages did you create?”

We must reward employees based on customer use. We must focus on the consumption, not on the production. We must measure customer effort, task completions rates, time-on-task.

Ask HN: Anyone else find the new Gmail interface sluggish?

Use and convenience replace trust and security

“Sheryl Sandberg: The Teens ‘Consented’ to Putting Facebook Spyware on Their Phones.” Another day, another screaming headline exposes negative behavior by Facebook.

Adweek reported on a survey which asked U.S. adults how they would trust 100 of the biggest brands with their personal data in exchange for “more relevant offers, goods and services”. Facebook ranked last. A 2018 Honest Data poll found that U.S. citizens think Facebook is worse for society than McDonalds or Walmart. The only company ranked worse than Facebook was Marlboro. A 2018 CB Insights survey asked which company will have a net negative for society 10 years from now? “The answer was pretty overwhelmingly Facebook.”

Any yet … And yet … Facebook revenue rose to $16.9 billion in the last three months of 2018, up 30%. Monthly active users rose to 2.32 billion, up 9%. Consequently, Facebook’s share price soared more than 13%. What’s happening?

Does trust matter? Clearly, not very much when it comes to Facebook. Why is Facebook still so successful?

There’s a pattern to many of the negative stories about Facebook. Most of them tell of Facebook’s relentless pursuit of understanding their customers deepest needs, desires and behaviors. The Facebook app that Sheryl Sandberg defended by saying that teens ‘consented’ to installing it, was used to target teens as young as 13 so as to track and monitor everything they did on their phones, from private messages and browsing histories to app messages. (I recently read a story about how the Silicon Valley elite, like Sandberg, “are now restricting, or outright banning, screen time for their children.”).

Facebook is relentlessly focused on usability and simplicity. It wants to understand you better than you understand yourself so that it can craft a world through which its advertisers can get you to buy more and more of their products. (There are almost 7 million advertisers using Facebook.) That’s the Facebook business model. Every time you use Facebook, you pay. The currency? Your personal data.

It’s the things we don’t talk about that seem to matter most to us. Today, we choose simplicity, usefulness and convenience over trust and security. We don’t trust Facebook. We use Facebook. So, trust doesn’t matter? Or does convenience simply trump trust?

Just like with the BP oil slick scandal. People didn’t stop using BP stations to fill up their cars, because these stations were too convenient, too close to their homes or workplaces to avoid.

Those that make it simple and easy are ruling the world. Those that understand what people do, rather than what people say, are ruling the world. For good or ill, you can’t craft an effective customer experience on a website or app, `if you don’t first and foremost truly understand your customers. Facebook knows this. Google knows this. But nine out of ten organizations that I deal with don’t. And then we wonder why Facebook and Google have become so dominant?

Sheryl Sandberg: The Teens ‘Consented’ to Putting Facebook Spyware on Their Phones

Silicon Valley parents are raising their kids tech-free — and it should be a red flag

Americans say Facebook is worse for society than Walmart or McDonald’s

Consumers Don’t Trust Facebook With Personal Data, Survey Says

Facebook fares very poorly in this survey

The changing nature of trust

The 2019 Edelman Trust Barometer “reveals that trust has changed profoundly in the past year—people have shifted their trust to the relationships within their control, most notably their employers.”

Trust has not disappeared. We still trust. In many ways, we trust more than ever. We just trust differently. There has been a huge decline in institutions and organizations that are seen as remote from us and beyond our control.

On one side, people are trusting more themselves, their friends, their peers (That what Uber, Airbnb, etc., have been so successful.) On the other side, there is a collapse in institutional trust. Brexit is not so much about Britain leaving Europe, but Britain leaving Britain. Only 9% of British people believe that their government will “do the right thing” according to a 2018 Centre for Policy Studies 2018 study. During the Brexit referendum, being called an “expert” was a form of insult.

According to the 2018 Edelman survey, 80% of people globally think the system is broken and have “an urgent desire for change … there is a growing move toward engagement and action.”

People today want to change the world rather than want the world to be changed for them. They want to play an active part in the change. We are at a pivotal moment in society. The easy answers of religion and politicians are increasingly been proven to be empty but there is a void, a vacuum being left behind. We realize that the system is broken, but where is the new system?

The slow, dawning realization is that this new system is within everyone of us. There is no master architect out there who knows how to build this new system. There is no great leader. If we’re going to solve challenges like climate change, then it is us the people who must lead. We do that by first changing out habits, then by trying to convince our family and friends, and then by looking to our employers.

According the Edelman survey, people are “ready and willing to trust their employers, but the trust must be earned through more than “business as usual.” Employees’ expectation that prospective employers will join them in taking action on societal issues (67 percent) is nearly as high as their expectations of personal empowerment (74 percent) and job opportunity (80 percent).”

We want to be part of networks we can be an active part of, not networks where we are passive consumers. Sure, the world is still being flooded by scams like the Fyre Festival, which promised that you too can live like a criminal high-flyer for a few days, but there is a greater and much more positive movement out there too. Take responsibility. Take action. Don’t wait for the experts or the politicians to tell you what to do. Do something. This is not a Right or Left movement. It is a general movement.

The world is far too complex for any great leader or group of experts to possibly understand, let alone lead. It is through collective wisdom, group learning, and the active engagement of every single one of us, that we will make the world a better place.

2019 Edelman Trust Barometer

The Web is a pattern of human behavior

I’m currently reading a history of India and came across the ancient term “sitting dharna”, which involves fasting at the door of one who usually who owes you a debt. The exact same custom was enshrined in ancient Irish law.

I am an avid history reader and am struck by how common the world is. How royalty and religion have existed in so many cultures. How the sun has been revered in so many places (except in Ireland, that is, where we see it very little).

If there’s one thing I’ve learned in 25 years of working in almost 40 countries, it’s that humans are essentially the same. Of course, culture matters. We make small things matter because what humans love to do is create bonds and create barriers. We desperately want to belong and to exclude.

Humans have far more in common than we have that separates us. One of the things that we have most in common is that we desperately want to identify those that do not belong. We desperately want to show and create separation, no matter how trivial or absurd that separation may be. Because if we cannot show that ‘they’ are not like us, then what is ‘us’, how do we define us, how do we show that ‘us’ are special, unique, wonderful?

Think of how ridiculous the concept of ‘white’ people is. White people aren’t even white. They’re pink or cream. It’s like saying a banana is white, or that oranges are green or that grass is red. And isn’t it a bit pathetic to see white people going to sun-drenched places so that they can get a tan so that they can look less pink and more brown? But then there’s nothing more pathetic than humans trying to prove how different they are from other humans.

Essentially, humans think the same. For example, nobody has ever come up to me anywhere and said: “Help us become more organization centric. We’re too focused on our customers. Nada. Never. Nietzsche.

There is much that is fake on the Web. There is much that is real too. About common human patters. About the very basics of how humans think and behave.

For those that want to look, the Web is like a cloudless night sky. All the stars of human behavior and emotion are there. All laid out in intricate and consistent patterns to be divined and understood. The beauty (and the horror) of the Web is that human life is mapped there ready and waiting for those with the skills to read it.

If you’re working in customer or user experience, you’re a map reader. The Web is a map of human behavior and your job is to understand and design for the patterns that emerge on that map. Because if your design and content maps to human behavior then it is by definition intuitive, easy to use, simple. The great designer builds on the patterns that already exist.

What culture hasn’t thought deeply about death, and embraced religion as a way to overcome it? What culture isn’t searching for cheap flights or cheap hotels? And what culture doesn’t want a special offer—a 5-star hotel at a 2-star price? Life on the Web is a mix of the fake and the real, just like life has always been. And there are common patters everywhere.

Top tasks are the invisible gorilla

The top tasks of organizations are often very different to the top tasks of customers because organizations think and see differently than customers. The top tasks of a digital team, for example, will usually be strongly associated with the particular project they are currently working on. For management, it’s the latest policy or program that they want to push. That is why it’s so vital that the voice of the customer is a constant presence at every meeting, discussion and initiative

Experts are expert in what they are expert in, and often blind to what they are not expert in. The greater the expertise, the greater the blindness. The more people specialize, the greater the general blindness. Today, specialism is essential whether from an educational or career standpoint, and with specialism comes a growing and general blindness often to the most essential things that need to get done.

There is a famous experiment about people being asked to watch a game of basketball and to try and count how many times the ball is passed. During the game, someone in a gorilla outfit walks across the court. 50% of people do not see the gorilla because they are so concentrated on counting the passes.

Radiologists can see things that normal people can’t. Yet, from time to time they miss unusual but important things. Trafton Drew, an attention researcher at Harvard Medical School, superimposed an image of a man in gorilla suit angrily shaking his fist, which was the size of a matchbox, on a series of slides that radiologists typically look at when they’re searching for cancer. He then asks a bunch of radiologists to review the slides for cancer nodules. 83% did not see the angry gorilla.

Time and time again, I meet talented digital teams that are blind to the customer experience. They work on the website or app every day and they don’t see the confusing menus and links glaring out at them. They don’t see the totally frustrating search results, the excruciatingly long forms full of wholly unnecessary, confusing questions. They ignore top customers tasks that have massive failure rates. Or maybe they do ‘see’ these things but they don’t experience them. They don’t truly feel the pain and frustration, and they certainly rarely feel the need for urgent action to fix the broken experience.

Digital is a black and white world. Digital is a limited world. Digital is the world at dusk on a country road. When it comes to truly seeing and understanding the customer experience, so little is really seen, understood and felt. So much data, so little empathy and true insight. Because the customer isn’t there.

Every digital team should ideally to share the same floor and space as the support team. Then, they would have daily insights into what is actually happening in the real world of the customer. Digital teams require customer champions, people whose specific responsibility is to speak for the customer. (And you can only speak for the customer if you speak with the customer.) Yes, everyone should be a customer champion but when everybody is, nobody is.

The invisible gorilla effect is called “inattentional blindness”. The invisible customer effect should be called digital blindness.

Why Even Radiologists Can Miss A Gorilla Hiding In Plain Sight