From Petrified Wood to Pints Social Proof Gone Wrong

Summary

Embracing Marketing Mistakes

Episode: From Petrified Wood to Pints – Social Proof Gone Wrong

Host: Prohibition PR (Chris Norton & Will Ockenden)
Date: July 2, 2026

---

Overview

This episode dives into the perils and paradoxes of social proof in marketing, exploring how a well-intentioned behavioral tactic can disastrously backfire. The hosts speak with Phil, a marketer known for his evidence-driven approach and hands-on testing, who brings real-world examples and research insights about when "proof" does more harm than good. The central theme is simple: marketers often misuse social proof by accidentally encouraging the very behaviors they're hoping to curb.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

The Double-Edged Sword of Social Proof

• Definition: Social proof is an influential behavioral science principle—people are impacted by the observed actions of others.
• Classic Mistake: Marketers frequently use social proof incorrectly, unintentionally promoting the undesired behavior by highlighting its prevalence.

Case Study 1: University Binge Drinking (00:27–01:40)

• The Setup: A university campaign to curb binge drinking framed the message as “The average student drinks eight pints a week... You need to reduce the amount you’re drinking.”
• The Blunder:
  • By presenting high averages, the campaign made moderate drinkers feel like outliers, and those exceeding the average feel validated.
  • Phil: “If you understand social proof, you realise by saying the average student drinks eight pints a week will make everybody who drinks less thinking, oh, my God, I need to drink more. I’m such a loser. And maybe those who drink more think, oh yeah, cool, I’m above average here.” (00:53)
• Outcome: Drinking didn't decrease but increased after this messaging.

Case Study 2: Petrified Wood Theft in Arizona (01:41–02:15)

• The Problem: Park signs read: "People who enter this park steal 100 tons of this wood every year. Please don't."
• The Flaw:
  • By publicizing theft numbers, the park signaled that stealing was common, thus normalizing it.
  • Phil: “So my piece doesn’t matter. If I just take a little one for my daughter that weighs about 2 grams, it won’t even make a difference.” (02:08)
• The Fix: When the sign simply asked visitors not to steal, theft dropped.

Case Study 3: Wikipedia Donation Messaging (02:19–03:10)

• Current Approach: A message like, “Only 1% of people reading this message will donate. Please donate.”
• Mistake Highlighted:
  • This inadvertently signals that donating is very rare and perhaps unnecessary.
  • Phil: “What people will think when they read that is, oh, nobody really gives anyway. And Wikipedia is quite successful, it’s not going to go anywhere soon. They probably don’t need my help.” (02:35)
• Suggested Remedy:
  • Make the giving community visible and local—for example, “4,000 Wikipedia lovers in Bristol donate on a monthly basis. Could you join them?”
  • This approach leans on the positive side of social proof by personalizing and localizing participation.

---

Memorable Quotes

• Phil on binge drinking campaigns:
  “You’re encouraging behavior...Drinking increased when they showed that.” (01:17)
• Phil on petrified wood theft:
  “When he changed the signs that said just please don’t steal the petrified wood, the amount of people who stole actually decreased.” (02:15)
• Phil on Wikipedia’s messaging:
  “The studies suggest that shouldn’t work because what people will think when they read that is, oh, nobody really gives anyway.” (02:32)

---

Actionable Takeaways

• Don’t just highlight how widespread a negative behavior is—this often normalizes and increases it.
• To shift behaviors, position positive examples as the social norm (what’s desirable and common, not just what’s common).
• Test your messaging! Even campaigns with the best intentions can backfire if not supported by behavioral evidence.

---

Key Segment Timestamps

• Understanding Social Proof & Common Mistakes: 00:00–00:26
• Binge Drinking Social Proof Gone Wrong: 00:27–01:40
• Petrified Wood & The Park Sign Mistake: 01:41–02:15
• Wikipedia and the Pitfalls of Negative Social Proof: 02:19–03:10

---

Conclusion

This episode is a sharp, irreverent, and practical primer on why intent without insight is risky in behavioral marketing. Marketers are urged to respect the nuances of social influence, avoid easy pitfalls with “average” statistics, and focus on the right kind of social proof. As always, the podcast uses practical failures to chart a better way forward.

---

Note: For more brutally honest stories from the world’s leading senior marketers, and to learn tactical blueprints for avoiding (and recovering from) marketing disasters, tune in weekly to Embracing Marketing Mistakes.

Transcript

[A]

What I like about your content that you share, Phil, is like you share. You do all your own tests as well, don't you? So you'll say, like, I tested this against this and this was the. This was the difference. It's usually just one picture of one ad one way and one picture of an ad another way. What. What are the biggest. Obviously, Marshall is called embracing marketing mistakes. What are the biggest mistakes you see marketers making with beh in your area? You know, do you spot them a lot?

[B]

The classic one, the really funny one, is because we've spoken about social proof already. There's this concept of negative social proof. So social proof is very powerful. We do follow the actions of other people. But sometimes marketers get confused and they share that. Lots of people are doing an action which the marketer would consider undesirable and they put that in their campaign and that actually influences the wrong behavior. So let me give an example. This was a study in universities. I think it was a European university that wanted to reduce the amount. Amount of binge drinking on campus. In fact, if it was binge drinking, it must have been a British university. So let's assume it was a British one. They wanted to reduce the amount of binge drinking. And so they said the average student drinks eight pints a week. This is way above the suggested amount. You need to reduce the amount you're drinking. Actually, if you understand social proof, you realise by saying the average student drinks eight pints a week will make everybody who drinks less thinking, oh, my God, I need to drink more. I'm such a loser. And maybe those who drink more think, oh, yeah, cool, I'm above average here. God, that's quite cool, isn't it? So you're encouraging behavior. And then that study, they actually found that drinking increased when they showed that. This is another example as well. Yeah, I know, I know, it's hilarious. And there's another example from an Arizona park where people were stealing this petrified wood, which is crystallized wood, really, really precious, and people were stealing it. And Robert Cialdini, who's the author behind the book Influence, he went into this park and he looked at signs and the signs say, people who enter this park steal one point or something like 100 tons of this wood every year on average. Please don't. This is a really bad thing to say. And so my piece doesn't matter. Yeah. Oh, exactly. So if I just take a little one for my daughter that weighs about 2 grams, it won't even make a difference.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

When and Then when he changed the signs that said just please don't steal the petrified wood, the amount of people who stole actually decrease. And I see this all the time. If you go on Wikipedia today, probably you will see a message that says something along the lines of only 1% of people reading this message will donate. Please donate. Keep Wikipedia running as we the studies suggest. That shouldn't work because what people will think when they read that is, oh, nobody really gives anyway. And Wikipedia is quite successful, it's not going to go anywhere soon. They probably don't need my help. Whereas if they said something like, if they wanted to use social proof, I'm in Bristol, if they said something like 4,000 Wikipedia lovers in Bristol donate on a monthly basis, could you join them? That should, according to the science, be much more effective and I'd love to see Wikipedia testing that. So negative social proof is definitely a mistake I see a lot of companies make.

[A]

Thanks for listening to Embracing Marketing Mistakes. You've reached the end of the podcast. Hooray. What can you possibly do to help Chris and will the providers of this show? Well, what you can help us by doing is just please give us some feedback. Positive, negative, constructive. Well, hopefully not negative, but if you could give us a review somewhere, five star review, preferably wherever you get your podcast, it will really help for people to find the show because there's loads of other people out there that we'd love to hear about it and the guests that come on here, we want to give them as much visibility as possible. So yeah, I want to just thank you personally for listening to the show. I really appreciate it because it's a bit weird. We record it in Leeds and wherever you are around the world, from Peru to Estonia to Russia to Africa, I want to thank all of you for listening. Really appreciate it. So yeah, if you, if you like the show, please, please give us a review because it means a lot. So thanks a lot and enjoy the rest of your week. See you next week.