Why did sales of Mars bars go up during coverage of Nasa's Mars rover mission, with no additional promotion? Why could publicising a drop in donations lead to less people giving in the future? Behavioural economics, apparently. Jenna Pudelek reports.
The answers to these questions were revealed at the Science of Response conference earlier this month, organised by instinctiv, the behavioural science specialists of marketeers Brightsource.
Opening the event, Emily Gore, managing partner at instinctiv, predicted the sector has reached a “tipping point” in the way people think about fundraising and awareness-raising, and in a few years things are going to be very different.
Behavioural economics has been around for years and gained traction over the past decade. Psychologist Daniel Kahneman, who seems to have pretty much created the field, won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2002. His 2011 book, Thinking, Fast and Slow, is based on the concept that we have two systems of thought – one and two. One is fast, intuitive and emotional, and two is slower, the rational and effortful processing. We think we're so rational and make thoughtful consumer decisions, but much of what we do is driven by our instincts and emotions.
Behavioural economics has long been hip in public policy. The 2008 book Nudge was famously given to members of the shadow cabinet as a holiday read by David Cameron when in opposition. The Behavioural Insights Team, or nudge unit, was then set up in the Cabinet Office before it moved to the innovation charity Nesta earlier this year.
The Science of Response conference brought together various experts to talk about how behavioural science can be applied to charitable giving.
Small changes influence behaviour
One of the interesting points to emerge was how little we understand of our own behaviour and the decisions we make. Steve Martin, behavioural expert, author and director of the consultancy Influence at Work, demonstrated that the reasons why we say we do things are often the exact opposite of the actual reasons. Martin spoke about the principles of influence – reciprocity, authority, social proof, scarcity, consistency and liking.
One of the most interesting examples to show how small changes can really influence people’s behaviour was NHS no-shows. People not turning up for their appointments costs the health service some £800m a year. But researchers found that getting patients to fill in a blank card with the details of their appointment - getting them to make an “active and effortful” commitment - it achieved an 18 per cent reduction in appointments missed.
What didn’t work for the NHS was prominently displaying posters about the large number of people who miss appointments and the negative effect it was having.
No-shows went up because it normalised such behaviour. Martin said this could have implications for publicising tax avoidance and reductions in charitable giving. Under the influence of ‘social proof’ we’re led by the behaviour of others, so instead of identifying and focusing on problem behaviour, it is better to highlight the desirable.
Social proof
Some of the examples used were truly quite bizarre. A study in America found people were more likely to give to a campaign to support hurricane survivors if they had something in common with the name of the storm.
Martin also looked at the context in which the 'principles of influence' worked most effectively. Social proof was found to have no effect on fundraising emails, but it did on direct mail. Donations from email went up when people were told it would ‘only take a minute’.
He urged the audience of fundraisers to “rapidly test and learn”, saying: “There is a limitation to best practice in that it will only uncover the best practice that is currently known."
Phil Barden, a decision science specialist, author and managing director of Decode Marketing, explained that sales of Mars Bars went up during the Mars rover landings because we are drawn to what’s salient, like orange items during Halloween too, apparently. He used this to sell more cat food during the World Cup in Germany by putting German flags and footballs on the packaging.
We’re also drawn to the point of distraction by other people. Barden said BT found using an image of a man on a direct mailshot was less effective than using contrasting clear shapes and sizes to attract attention to the call to action. This small change drove the response rate up by 31.8 per cent.
Finally, Rihanna and Nivea; Barden said it was important to think about the associations that celebrities supporting your cause bring. The brand had wanted to attract young people and chose the singer who has connotations of adventure and excitement. But a new CEO came in and decided this went completely against Nivea’s historically family-focused, warm and fuzzy, security and reliability, branding. And it is the brand and our associative memories of it that matter when we’re thinking with the quick-fire system-one part of our brain that dominates decision-making.
