Growth-Driven Design: Is It Really Better or Just a Different Kind a Pain?
Last week, I devoted close to two days of my life revising, refining, and reworking the copy for a new piece of pillar content that will be launching later this week.
It was all about growth-driven design.
As a content and inbound marketer nerd, I've always understood the high-level value proposition of growth-driven design.
"The traditional website process is costly, painful, and out-of-date. Growth-driven design is agile, better, leaner, meaner, etc. It's the future of website redesign, because it's built on a framework of continuous improvement."
This all sounds amazing. In theory.
But as I continued to work through the content, I couldn't help but feel a little overwhelmed by the demands of growth-driven design, especially given that sometimes it's put forward as a less painful website redesign approach.
You need to create your strategy. You need to research your users. You need to create what are called fundamental assumptions. You need to create a wishlist. You need to prioritize that wishlist. You need to prioritize that wishlist again. You need to create hypothesis statements. Lots of 'em.
Then, after all that, you need to go through a miniature version of that broken traditional website build process -- messaging and content, UX, wireframing, design, QA, etc. -- to get your launch pad site live.
And all of those steps are to occur within approximately 30 days or so, and then you can get your hands dirty with the growth-driven design iteration cycles.
So, this week, I decided to challenge my two favorite designer and developers with a question I'm sure other marketers are wondering:
Is growth-driven design really better? Or is it just a different kind of pain? Because it sounds like a lot of work.