I think there is another way of looking at your Phase 2 though. Your goal is to make your product so good that you can't imagine using anything else. If your product is really that good, I'm not sure that consistent reinforcement is actually necessary. Rather, your product should be so good that users stop using it consciously.
I think one of the best examples of this is Google's search engine. The product itself is so good, and has proved itself so consistently over the years, that most people don't think of using anything else for search. In fact, most people don't think of "searching" at all. I can't count the number of times that I end up on a Google search results page, not realizing that I had gone through the mental thought process of "I need to search for something. I'm going to go to Google, execute a search query, and find what I'm looking for in the results."
Going from thought to results without any significant reinforcements from the product (other than it simply being a great product) is in my opinion, the true sign of a user experience done right.
PS: You can actually learn a lot from how Banks operate as people move more often than they change banks. Keep the costs hidden, and the barriers to change obvious.
Please, don't.
I want you to solve my problem, not create another one. I want to visit your website once, or perhaps twice, and never have to visit it again, because you've solved a real-life problem that led me to your site in the first place.
I am excited to see how this new interest in Growth Hacking is allowing a lot of in-depth thinking around combining marketing and coding to create dramatically better results.
Great post.
Is anyone else building a product that converts people when you tell them about it, solves a real problem, but they aren't actively searching for because they don't know a solution is technologically possible?
To wit, none of the commenters here touched on this analogy.
F-, would not use this analogy evar.
