Market failure? Blame it on the dog food

I'm continuing to try and make sense of why it is that most professionally-produced e-learning content is so strong on production values, especially in terms of graphic design, yet so superficial when it comes to learning design (see Over-engineered for information transfer, under-engineered for learning and Striking the right balance with learning).

But hold on, because I think I've figured it out.

Let's make a comparison. A great deal of work goes into the production values of video games, particularly the big, 3D action games, and yet the ultimate success of games is actually determined by game play. Production values may attract initial purchasers, but if a game fails to engage as a game, then the word will soon get round and the product will bomb. As a result, the upmost care is taken to fine tune the gameplay to ensure as individualised and authentic an experience as possible for every player. In fact, much to the regret of some of the big game studios, production values can be comparatively low - as with most so-called 'casual games' - and yet succeed fantastically as long as the game is fun to play.

Another example. Hollywood spends tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars, on the production of major feature films. With the most expensive films, production values are at an extreme high. Yet, as we have seen time and time again, what actually determines a film's success is its plot, characters and dialogue.

So, how is it that, with games and films, success is ultimately determined by the intellectual effort put into the design of products that provide a satisfying user experience, whereas with e-learning this doesn't hold true? The reason, I believe, is that games and films operate in a market with an effective feedback loop between producer and consumer. Selling e-learning, on the other hand, as I've remarked several times on this blog, is like selling dog food - you sell to the owner, i.e. the employer, rather than the dog, a.k.a. the learner. With e-learning we have a market failure, because there is an inadequate feedback loop from learner to producer. When employers purchase an e-learning product or engage with a developer, they choose on the basis of production values rather than learning design, because they have neither the time nor the inclination to test out materials with real learners.

Where do you see real effort placed on the design of intelligent, individualised learning experiences? Well, it's much more likely to come when the provider is engaging directly with the learner, as with the Kahn Academy or the open courses provided by Stanford University (see my post on Massively Scalable Training).

Assuming I've correctly diagnosed the problem, I've still no idea what the solution should be.