Tag Archives: behavioural economics

Behavioural Economics, Superbowl Ads, and the Entertainment Industry #MRIA15 #MRX

MRIA15,MRIA2015Live blogged from the 2015 MRIA National Conference in Toronto. Any errors or bad jokes are my own.

Behavioural Economics in the Real World
Kelly Peters, BEWorks

  • We have to divide our attention – bounded attention
  • People say they will do specific things but they often don’t end up doing it
  • In one study, 100% of people said they would increase their retirement savings but only 14% of people had done something with one  year. And a financial incentive doesn’t necessarily help regardless of the amount. Fear incentives can often backfire.
  • Social proof DOES help (your friends are doing it) but story telling worked the best.
  • We don’t have unlimited time to pay full attention to every excel sheet to make decisions. We have to use heuristics. We use shortcuts as a guide to help us act predicable irrational. Shortcuts are sub-optimal.
  • Awareness is bounded, errors in perceptions, evaluation errors, failures to act.
  • Organ donation participation rates increased more than five times when agreement changed from opt-in to opt-out.  Picking up a pen is a tiny gesture. An employer used this tiny gesture to get people to enroll in a retirement program. Enrollment changed from about 4% to 80%.
  • “Tomorrow self” – the person who will exercise tomorrow and eat apples tomorrow.
  • Wifi donation clock – if you hit the snooze button, a donation is automatically made to a charity [THAT IS AWESOME!!!!]

Launching into New Entertainment Territory
Tara Murphy, Cineplex and Carla Flamer, Ipsos Reid

  • Cineplex needed to respond to the dying movie theatre problem
  • Ran surveys with imagery and word descriptions
  • Tested many concepts – great food and drinks, get your game on, etc
  • Needed to measure intent to seek information, likelihood to visit, liking, unique, believability; market success potential; diagnostics like like/dislike, reason to visit, heat maps, buzz power (build through word of mouth)
  • What were the emotions from the people most likely to visit
  • Conducted discrete choice scenario testing – Clients can rarely offer all the top choices at the prices consumers want. Tested more realistic combinations. Examined percentage of people who would actually like each option. Found 3 or 4 more realistic scenarios.
  • The rec room” will now be built in Canada, starting in Edmonton, and then Toronto.

Superbowl Ads: Are they worth it?
Steve Mossop, President of Insights West

  • Asking the right question is critical. New coke was the biggest disaster in the history of research. He worked on this project as a newbie. But they were asking the wrong questions. They were asking about taste and they didn’t measure branding or what “coke” does for you as a brand. He had a full closet of pop after this project was done. 🙂
  • 115 ads take up 1.15 hours of game time. 521 million dollars of ad spend. Most people only bought 1 single spot. 61 brands across 31 categories.
  • Measured canada vs usa.  7 minute survey, online, 650 US, 1200 Western Canada.
  • Top rated spot was the dog following the horse onto the truck, and then gets lost. Budweiser commercial.

  • 68% of people said they saw the ad after two airings. Awareness numbers were often in 50% even though some ads were only seen once.
  • Why did the top ad do so well? Enjoyable, keeping attention, like the music, clear branding, different ad, understand the ad
  • Still frame assessment evaluates pieces of ads driving success or failure of the ads
  • Sad puppies in the rain, horse rescuers, man/dog kiss drive emotional responses
  • Top ads to drive ROI, awareness and diagnostics are through the roof with only one or two showings. Perhaps not effective for all ads but it is for the top ads.
  • Growing trend on social sharability.
  • Top ads are enjoyable, relevant, convincing, believable, and understandable. But they make people interested, curious, happy, excited, and surprised.

The power of cognitive interviewing and what qualitative research can learn from Behavioral Economics by Gina Henderson #Qual360 #QRCA

Live blogging from the Qual360 conference in Toronto, Canada. Any errors or bad jokes are my own.qual360

The power of cognitive interviewing and what qualitative research can learn from Behavioral Economics 
Gina Henderson, Director, Qualitative Research, TNS
  • People don’t always do what they way they are going to do
  • motivations and needs are only half the picture, we need to understand behaviour more holistically
  • BE has made popular th eideas  that people do not believe rationally, intuition and emotion play a significant role in our behaviors, choices are affected by context
  • our choices are endless, consumers don’t give the effort to consider every possible choice, they consider what is available as opposed to what they really want
  • how do qual and BE relate? people don’t say what they mean or mean what they say, behaviour is driven by unconscious, words are poor tools, intuition and emotion are important – that why we use projective techniques
  • this is still only part of the story
  • BE says behaviour is automatic and unthinking, satisfying vs maximizing, real choices of what people actually do, contemporary, adaptive unconscious, capable of learning complex information better and faster, use behaviour as an entry point
  • Qual says choices are outcome of enduring needs preferences and beliefs, ideal solutions, feelings, perceptions, attitudes, psychoanalytical view, raw, untamed, use meaning as an entry point
  • Consumers are ok with good enough because they don’t have time to make the extra effort for the ideal solution
  • diaries and ethnographies help us learn about current behaviours
  • Cognitive interviewing – from 1970’s, police used it a lot to get as close to the actual experience as possible, this is what qual researchers want also
  • Some people believe memory failure is a failure of retrieval, we just have to know the right codes to find it, triggers could be a memory, image, smell, taste, sound, emotion, location – like smelling cookies and remembering gramma
  • Don’t ask why – consumers will give you an answer but they can’t recall in a meaningful way, it’s not conscious
  • experiment – students rated jams the exact same way as jam experts ranked them, until the students were asked WHY, then the ratings were all different
  • Goal of cognitive interviewing is to recreate the context – anchor them in time, find out what else was going on at that time, what time of the year was it, ask them about the building, the atmosphere, then ask who was there, who did you talk to, what did you talk about. Can let responder meander, they don’t need to stay on topic, don’t interrupt them, allow a freeflowing conversation, a lot of silence is okay
  • Horlicks case study – a milk additive – why did people stop using the product – learned about user habits, the environments they were in, context of using product, where the product was available, learned about whether the product could be soy or dairy
  • BE is not the answer to everything, it’s another tool

Other Posts

Behavioural Economics by Deanna Manfredi #QRCA #MRX

qrca logo
Welcome to this series of live blogs from the QRCA conference in Montreal. Any errors, omissions, or silly side comments are my own.

Applying Behavioral Economics Theory to Uncover the Truth: Why You Can’t Simply Ask “Why”
Presenter: Deanna Manfredi

  • Any average mind can spot a bad answer but only the swift minds can spot a bad question
  • What is BE? The irrational consumer, you can’t expect to ask a rational question and get a rational answer. How do consumers make decisions under situations of uncertainty.
    • System 1 is effortless and automatic, can be irrational and emotional. When this runs into trouble, it looks to system 2 for help. Subject to systematic errors.

  • System 2 requires mental effort, you can see physical changes in people when they move to this system, energy is easily depleted, has evolved to be lazy and you need to wake it up. This is what we feel is running the show.
  • You can see these working – e.g., the Muller Lyer illusion.
  • Why do more intelligent people marry less intelligent people? System 1 jumps to tell a good story about love and needs and self-esteem and jump to conclusions. System 2 considers the data and performs calculations such as a simple regression to the mean – there aren’t as many higher intelligent people available.
  • System 1 is the Lady Macbeth Effect – People who had lied verbally chose a bottle of mouthwash whereas people who had lied in an written letter chose handsoap. We find a way to convince ourselves that we ran out of soap or mouthwash, not that we needed to clean the area that did something bad.
  • Familiarity breeds content…. not contempt.
  • Preferences need no inferences. Affect preceeds and dictates cognition.
  • “I decided to choose X” often really just mean “I like X.” We often decide without extensive cognitive processing.
  • It’s problematic to dive deep and get at the underlying reasoning.  We assume the information is recoverable even if is repressed or suppressed. Unfortunately, much information is inaccessible.

  • People construct a new attitude at least temporarily which conforms for the situation. It can prompt a confabulated response so we must avoid soliciting fictitious responses.
  • We don’t TRULY know why we don’t like things so stop asking. Stop asking why why why because why doesn’t really matter. If people don’t like it, they don’t like it.
  • Maslow’s hierarchy is only a theory and does not apply in real life. People are different and have passion for different things at different times in their life. Maslow wasn’t concerned with data and validity but just theory.
  • Are we storytellers or scientists? Be able to distinguish theories from facts.
  • People are less confident about something when they hear many arguments about it. Asking for 1 to 3 examples is easy and will support the argument. 4 to 6 is harder and will start to raise doubts. 7 to 10 is hard and makes people shake their faith in a decision. You can create a negative opinion by probing on the negatives.
  • Entrepreneurs feel the chance of success in their industry is about 60% when in fact it is about 35%. We have much more positive predictions for ourselves, we are overconfident in our beliefs.
  • 90% of drivers belief they are better than average. [do the math people 🙂 ]  This is the same within professional occupations. Overconfidence is a sin of system 1.
  • Premortem – How to overcome group think. Ask people to think about all the ways something will fail a year from now.
  • Brainstorming doesn’t work for this reason. People are more productive when they work in groups focused on being critical. Give people permission to disagree.
  • We are risk averse to losses and risk seeking to gains.
  • bad information is processed more thoroughly has has more effect than good. People hate negative campaigns but they keep getting used because they work
  • [I still really think that Behavioural Economics is just a fancy way of saying psychology. Nothing is new here. It’s just a new fad and a new word and new interest.]

Behavioural Economics by Ken Parker, #SoMeMR #Li #fb

Cover of "Predictably Irrational: The Hid...

Cover via Amazon

11.45 Behavioural Economics & Online Qual – Made for each other?

  • Moving behavioural economics from the theoretical to the practical
  • Illustrating how the pillars of BE can be addressed by different qual research data collection techniques
  • Highlighting the benefits of online qual research techniques to evaluate many of the BE heuristics
  • Recognising the benefits of traditional qual techniques to address many of the BE biases

Ken Parker, Chairman, Discovery

  • 50% of US qual as an online component
  • Tor Norretranders – we process 16 of 11 millions bits of information our senses pass to our brain. The conscious part receives much less info than the unconscious part.
  • John Wanamaker – half the money i spend on advertising is wasted but i don’t know which half
  • AIDA – awareness, interest, desire, action
  • Now – behavioural economics, Read “Predictably Irrational
  • We do not consciously consider all the the possible options. We only consider from those perceived to be available. But people think they have the full choice.
  • Antonio Damasio – “I have emotions, therefore I am rational”
  • Rory Sutherland – MR asks the wrong questions and money is spend investigating hair splitting distinctions that have little relation to context in which people actually make choices
  • Behavioural economics – Behaviour is King. Forget intentions, attitudes and focus on what people actually do. [The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour]
  • Pillars of BE are Heuristics and Biases. Heuristics are shortcuts you use, rules of thumb, educated guesses, common sense, it’s rare that we buy the best product. We buy something that’s good enough, that does the job, but this one is pretty good. Biases are usually based on unfair negatives. (All turnips are gross.)
  • We can answer who, how, where, what when, but we can’t really answer why. We can make up answers but they may not be the right answer. We are poor witnesses of our own behaviour. We are excellent witness of our emotions though.
    Qual gives us the here and now. Don’t like how it relies on recall though.  [what is chivvying?]
  • Heuristics good for online qual. Biases good for traditional qual.
  • Watch for authority bias, effort bias, fairness bias, anchoring, social proof, badwagon, herding, framing, brand heuristic (Campbell’s means quality as opposed to beans). [These heuristics and biases aren’t limited to HE. These are generic human behaviour.]
%d bloggers like this: