When presenting prospective customers with a list of testimonials, common sense says to provide as much detail as possible. In other words, prospects will view a testimonial as more credible when they see the name of the person providing the endorsement and actual data on the benefits they realized from using the product. This makes perfect sense for consumer products, since any one customer is likely to be just as good as the next. And if prospects are already familiar with the person providing the testimonial, that’s even better.

But what about business products? Wouldn’t a company tend to distrust an endorsement if it came from a known competitor, and even take steps to avoid using the product as a result? Personally, I’m a little skeptical when I see testimonials for things like trade shows, where a competitor’s overly eager sales guy provides a testimonial talking about all the great leads they got there. It’s just hard to trust an endorsement that comes from your natural enemy, even if the testimonial was provided in good faith.

Since most business products tend to be sold into a relatively small group of industries, some amount of testimonials are going to run into this problem. What’s the solution? I recommend starting with the biggest name customers. Get testimonials from these household names and attach the company name to them. Big companies compete in lots of markets, so I think they’re less likely to be viewed as an arch enemy by smaller firms.

Next, take all the remaining testimonials and present them as a customer survey of sorts. For instance, calculate what percentage of customers are happy with your product and would recommend it to others, how much money they save on the average each year, and other key stats. You could even provide the list of participating customers via a hyperlink. By delivering testimonails in an aggregate form, you remove the risk that prospects will react negatively to seeing a competitor’s name front and center. And between the big name corporate endorsements and the essentially nameless smaller company testimonials, you maximize the chance that prospects will react positively to what they see and ultimately make a purchase.

I’ve noticed that more and more sites are adding an option to save or “remember” your login information. However, this feature behaves very differently depending on how the website implemented it. For instance, some sites save only your username, but they keep it stored until you turn the feature off. In contrast, other sites save both your username and password, but only keep this info stored for a week or so. With so many different behaviors, it’s hard for users to know what to expect.

A little bit of instructional text can fix the problem. On the screen where you present the “Remember me” option, start by telling the user what’s being saved: their username, their password, or both. Then, tell them how long the info will be kept. A few ideal examples include “Remember my username for 30 days” or “Keep me signed in for the next two weeks”. For added clarity, tell people what they still need to enter along with the saved info, and what happens after that period. For instance, you might add some smaller text that says “We’ll store your username and password during that time, but you’ll have to enter them again after the two weeks are up.”

On the positive side, many sites are doing a great job explaining why you might not want to store your password. Specifically, if you’re on a computer that several people share, or you’re using a public kiosk terminal, saving your account information would be just as bad as giving it out to strangers. As the “Remember me” feature continues to evolve, I hope that we see more standardization among different sites, along with sufficient instructional text to help users understand what they’re getting.

There is nothing more frustrating than a program that generates an error, asks you to try again, and continues to show that same error message, trapping you in an endless and frustrating loop. Even for experienced users, it can be hard to figure out when to try again and when to just give up. But these decisions don’t have to be so difficult.

Here’s a case in point. When I tried to e-file my state tax return, it failed with an error message that listed a bunch of possible causes for the error. I took a shot at correcting the issue, waited a few hours for the e-file response, and got the same error. Third time’s the charm, right? Nope — failed again. As I learned later, I needed to mail in the return due to obscure and stupid issues with the state’s e-file system.

While I was looking into the error message, I noticed that many other people had reported nearly identical problems. And virtually every single one of those people ended up having to mail in the return. Then it hit me: if the software provider has that data, why not use it? In other words, if you have data on every customer that received that error, how many times they retried, and whether they were eventually successful, then use it!

Instead of blindly asking the user to try again, you could use peer data to show a message like this: “78% of customers who received this error were able to resolve the problem by trying again. Would you like to review your information and try again?” In my case, it would have showed that something like 95% of customers never got past the cryptic error message, indicating that I shouldn’t have wasted my own time. By making information on peer success rates available to other users, you can save people time and frustration — and give them a great reason to tell others how valuable and insightful your product is.

While finishing up my taxes, the tax software showed a few “errors” that I needed to correct. Actually, these weren’t errors at all, but instead consisted of a few either-or questions on a form that was otherwise blank and not even part of the tax return. Since I couldn’t continue without fixing the “errors”, I chose the best options and moved on.

A few minutes later, I wondered if I should have chosen a different set of answers to these questions. I returned to the “Error check” page, but there was no way to see which errors had been displayed earlier. Eventually, I tracked down the form itself and saw that the answers didn’t matter either way, since that part of the form wasn’t even being filled out. But it sure took a lot of effort for me to achieve peace of mind.

Rather than shroud the error checking process in mystery, the right approach is to provide a history of what took place. Namely, when you prompt the user to correct an error, make sure they can return to the same screen later to view what they changed, and then change those same values again if they want to. And if it’s not technically possible to let them revisit their selections, at least make that limitation very clear during the original process. That way, there won’t be any surprises later.

If you have any type of stocks, mutual funds, or money market accounts, you probably receive a few tax forms each year. Not too long ago, these forms were always sent by US mail. But with the advent of online statements and other “paperless” technologies, even tax documents are now being delivered online. In most cases, the company tells you when the tax forms are ready, and you can download the forms at your convenience.

Well, that’s what usually happens. I had an experience with a money market account that proved otherwise. I knew I needed a copy of the tax form, but I never received any instructions about where to get it. I signed in to the online banking site, and looked all over for it. No mention of tax forms. So I looked in the list of statements — still nothing. Finally, I did a web search and found someone else with the same problem. It turns out they include the form with your January statement, without telling you about it.

The bank could fix this situation quite easily. First, send customers an email when the regular statement contains special enclosures like tax forms. Second, provide a prominent message within the online banking site that tells people where to find the tax forms. And finally, change the description of those special statements so people can pick up the scent. For example, instead of saying “January 2009” in the drop-down menu, change it to something like “January 2009 (includes 2008 tax forms — download the PDF to view them)”.

Sure, customers might eventually figure this stuff out on their own. But when you take the lazy approach and leave them to fend for themselves, you pay for that laziness many times over in customer service calls. And in the long run, these seemingly small annoyances will lead to higher customer attrition as well.

The past couple of years, I’ve had to mail in my state tax return. (Don’t even ask why I couldn’t e-file — that’s a whole different fiasco.) And each time, I’m annoyed at having to copy and paste the address into a separate text document, enlarge it, print it, and finally cut it out to attach to the envelope. Why, I wonder, can’t they just give you a makeshift mailing label at the bottom of the tax filing instructions?

In my case, “they” refers to the tax filing software I use. But I’ve seen the same problem with online retailers, investment firms, and anyone else that asks you to mail them something. Except for the case of prepaid return labels, it’s always a pain to get the address into a usable form.

Here’s what I’d like to see: whenever you ask customers to mail you something, write out the address in big, bold text. Then, put that text at the bottom of the instruction sheet (so cutting it out doesn’t trash the whole page), or on a separate sheet altogether. This approach is easy and won’t cost you anything, since the customer is still paying postage.

Why bother? Well, when people don’t have to manually write out the address or enlarge it on their own, they’ll make fewer errors. This means you’ll get a higher percentage of the documents or items you need, while making customers happier in the process.

Last weekend, I passed through an event taking place in a public park. Aside from the presence of a Starbucks van, there was nothing to indicate what the event was or why they were holding it. I assumed it was some sort of Starbucks product sampling, and nothing more. Well, after I walked by a couple of tents and tables, I saw a banner that proved otherwise. In fact, it was some sort of “Wonders of Winter” thing, complete with those guys who carve ice sculptures with a chainsaw.

Why didn’t I see this banner in the first place? It turns out there was only a single banner, and it was facing what they considered to be the “front” or “entrance” to the event. Somehow they failed to realize that people could enter the event space from all four sides, rather than just the front of it. I’m not familiar with the traffic numbers, but I would guess at least half of the visitors never saw the identifying signage.

The conclusion here is obvious: if people can enter your space from more than one side, make sure you have banners or signs that are visible on each of those sides. This holds for temporary venues like fairgrounds and parks, as well as permanent locations like stores, schools, and offices. The cost of additional signage is usually quite nominal when you order it all at once. And while you’re at it, order up a few extra banners. You never know what sort of creative entrances people might find, like venturing into a space from the parking garage below.

I remember reading some articles last year about how restaurants can increase their dessert sales. The ideas were simple but seemed quite smart: offer lower-cost desserts with a meal purchase, provide smaller portions at a lower price, etc. Well, I’m happy to report that at least one restaurant chain in Chicago is finally giving this a try.

According to our waitress, the restaurant has cut the portion sizes — and the prices — in half. Reportedly, this was because customers wanted smaller portions after eating a large meal, and I’m sure the current economy influenced the pricing side of things. A step in the right direction, for sure. But they left out one other critical element: offering desserts that aren’t so rich and filling. Aside from portion sizes and price, I often avoid dessert because it just feels like overkill. Adding some less decadent options would help a lot.

In fact, the restaurant that I’m describing does offer a sorbet dessert that’s relatively light. But in an ironic twist, it’s not on the menu — you have to ask for it separately. By simply adding the sorbet to the printed menu and identifying it as a lighter option, they should be able to address all of the reasons that people avoid dessert: cost, portion size, and feeling too “full” when you’re done.