Loading summary
Transcript21 lines
- [00:00]
A
Hello, folks. You are listening to Nudge with me, Phil Agnew. But today's episode of Nudge is a bit of a special one. Firstly, it is the second episode of the week. It's a Wednesday episode rather than the Monday one. And for a special Wednesday episode, I've given you something a little bit different rather than a normal episode of Nudge. I'm going to play a recording of a podcast I was on a few weeks back. It's called the Hustle Daily Show. It's a fantastic show. And on that show, I I chatted about the New York City mayor candidate Zoran Mamdini's amazing campaign. I spoke about the marketing tactics that he used to essentially crack the code of modern political psychology by doing things like embracing vulnerability, thinking about stuff like reactants, masterfully triggering these psychological biases to basically get people to vote for him. It was a very interesting discussion, a little bit different from what we usually speak about on Net Nudge. And it was lovely to be invited on the Hustle Daily Show, a show I really love. The host, John, is brilliant. We talked about attention, economy, authenticity, and psychological factors that made this campaign win. So keep listening to hear my appearance on the Hustle Daily Show. HubSpot makes impossible growth seem easy for some of their customers. And there is a perfect example. It is Morehouse College. This is a college in Atlanta in America. And like most organizations that have been around for, you know, decades, they had a huge amount of content on their website. 900 different pages and even the tiniest of updates took 30 minutes for them to publish. And yet they needed to reach new students with fresh, engaging content. So they used Breeze, HubSpot's collection of AI tools. This helped them write new content, optimize their content in a fraction of time, and essentially create results that really worked. They got 30% more page views and their visitors now spend 27% more time on their site because they are creating content that people really care about. So if you feel like growth is impossible, it might be worth reaching out to HubSpot. Go to HubSpot.com.
- [02:07]
B
Good morning everybody. Welcome to a new week. It's Monday, July 21st. I'm John Weigel here with Phil Agnew from Nudge Podcast and this is the Hustle Daily show. Zoran Mamdani, a 33 year old democratic socialist, stunned the New York City political establishment by defeating Andrew Cuomo in the Democratic mayoral primary through an aggressive social media campaign. His success challenges traditional political marketing and approaches and offers some insights into modern voter psychology. So in order to discuss that psychology, we chatted with one of the best marketing minds I know, Phil Agnew from Nudge Podcast. And we'll get to all that in a bit. But first, let's give you the news in business and tech. Starting us off here, AI vibe coding startup Lovable raised a $200 million round at $1.8 billion valuation. And they did it all in only eight months. Other than being extremely new to the scene, Lovable helps non devs join the fun of building websites and apps, and it claims 2.3 million active users. Next, another company, Infocal, a Dutch laser beam tech startup, raised $5.8 million to expand its specialized food and beverage. Okay, so what is that? Infocal's lasers accelerate the process of putting barcodes, QR codes and expiration dates on cans and bottles. But what here could impact most of us down the road. It'll also, at super fast speed, print directly onto avocados, apples, bananas, and all these kinds of fruits, negating the need for sticker labels in the future, which is a future that I'm excited to live in. Over to some celebrity news, Snoop Dogg added another business to his growing empire. He's now a co owner of WEL soccer club Swansea City. Seems like a win win Here. The team gains further capital and eyeballs of Snoop's over 100 million social media followers. And Snoop adds yet another piece to his $160 million net worth. And finally, as you can imagine from all your friends talking about it, Superman crushed the box office over the weekend yet again. The James Gunn helmed reboot grossed $122 million in its opening weekend. And according to comScore, it has now grossed $235 million domestically and 406,8 million worldwide. I'm sure those numbers will fly even higher pretty soon. Okay. And for more updates on business and tech news, you can come back tomorrow. We'll have more for you every day of the week, Monday through Friday. But now we're going to have a conversation with Phil Agnew about Zoran Mamdani, the winner of the New York City mayoral primary. How did he do it? Lots of social media, a lot of psychology. We're going to dissect it right now. Hey, Phil, great to have you on the show. It's been a while since we've seen each other.
- [05:05]
A
Yeah, it's nice to catch up again.
- [05:06]
B
I felt like you'd be a really good authority on this because of your research and psychology and marketing. So we, of course, in New York City have kind of experienced the latest New York City mayoral primary. And we have a winner of Zoran Mamdani, a relatively new face in the New York sphere, beating Andrew Cuomo, who, for context, has been in the political sphere here in New York for a long, long time. So it was a pretty surprising defeat. So I wanted to kind of analyze with you the Zoron campaign. And first thing, I wanted to ask you that what maybe he did differently that you perhaps haven't seen in a political campaign before, in terms of persuasion.
- [05:47]
A
Well, John, and to the listeners, fair warning that you probably couldn't have had someone on the show who knows less about politics in general, especially New York. I mean, you just listen to my accent, guys. What am I going to know? What I do know, however, is the, the psychology, the behavioral science about persuasion, about how people are able to persuade others to their point of view. And John, maybe for the listeners, you can share a bit about it as well. But, like, the way he conducted his campaign, he used a lot of interesting social media tactics, created a lot of videos that people feel that they could relate to. He seemed like you weren't really voting for a politician, you were voting almost for a friend, someone who gets you. That was sort of how he went about it, right?
- [06:28]
B
He was doing a lot of social media campaigns. I think he's just been very, very active in the New York community. And I like something you said there, that he kind of approached more as a friend than as a politician. And I feel like that kind of swayed a lot of people. I'd love to hear more from your perspective about kind of changing tone of voice in order to persuade and what that psychologically means.
- [06:51]
A
Well, if you try and persuade someone by telling them what to do, it will almost always backfire. People feel their autonomy is limited. They're far less likely to act. This is known in psychology as reactants. And the famous, famous, famous study behind this was from a Californian nursery. It's this weird nursery. You would call it kindergarten, wouldn't it? Weird kindergarten in California. It's a really, like, wealthy place and all these rich kids go there. And they've let some psychologists in over the years to run these hilarious experiments. You know, it's like no kids were harmed in the making of these experiments. I'll just clarify that for the listeners. But they've run all these experiments. They've discovered all these amazing things about human psychology. And one of the things that they discovered, one of the experiments they ran was they had two different classes of children One where the kids can sort of pick any toy they want to play with, which toy is the most popular, and they find that a certain toy is the most popular. I can't remember what it was. Let's pretend it's a little mini piano that becomes the most popular. The teddy bear is basically always forgotten. These rich kids have got loads of teddy bears back home. They don't need one of them. So in a study, you always need a variant to compare the two. And then the variant, the teddy bear, which was sort of entirely forgotten by the kids in the first version of the scenario, the variant, the teddy bear is put behind perplex glass in the middle of the room. They can't access it, but they can see it. And it's driving these kids mad. It's like, yes, I can play with every other toy, but I really want to play with that teddy because you're not letting me play with it. My autonomy is limited and I really have an urge. And so we have this as a child. And. And the finding basically is that in the scenario where the kids can't play with the teddy bear, they always want to play with it. In the scenario where they can play with every toy, they basically forget about the teddy bear. And this is the idea of reactants. We don't like our autonomy being limited. So if a politician, if a teacher, if a police officer is literally telling me, you should do this, you shouldn't do that, it's going to cause us that reactance. And great examples of somebody who's applied this when politicians don't sort of tell you exactly what you need to do, you need to eat less red meat, we need to stop doing this, we need to start doing more of this and actually just appeal to us and seem like people that we understand and get and we trust, they can be far more persuasive.
- [09:00]
B
It's a very interesting concept. I mean, it kind of harkens back to what I think is like reverse psychology of somebody telling you something that you can't do and you immediately want to do the exact opposite. And especially in politics, where I feel like you probably in the uk, you see a lot of this, like political ads, like local ones especially always like, oh, vote this person, vote that person. Very direct messaging. What you're getting at with, it's less reactance. And when you're talking about that middle ground between like, vote for me and a mixed messaging that doesn't actually tell you to do anything or any call to action, what do you think is a good balance out of those things.
- [09:35]
A
I think the balance is a question. So people are far more likely to be persuaded when they feel they have come to their own conclusion. Like what we were saying earlier, my autonomy is not being limited. So another set of studies done in the 80s, this is a very interesting study because they presented arguments to students in the study. They were seniors. Some of the arguments were just presented, say, for example, climate change is causing devastating effects in Arizona deserts. Here's a list of facts. Another way they presented the argument is they started with a question. They said, do you agree that climate change is devastating Arizona deserts? Yada, yada, yada. What they found was when they started it with the do you agree they were far more persuasive than when they simply gave the command. Politicians use this all the time. The famous Kennedy ad which some of the listeners might remember is, well, would you buy a used car from this man? I can't remember which one it was. And there was a picture of Nixon. And this advert is so incredibly powerful because it doesn't tell people, don't vote for Nixon. Which we know would backfire, gets people to think about the question in their own mind, would I buy a used car from this person? And if you're doing that mental arithmetic in your head and you feel like you come to your own conclusion, it feels like your autonomy isn't being limited. You come to a conclusion that maybe you wouldn't buy the used car from that person, or maybe you would, but by coming to your own conclusion, you are far more likely to be persuaded by that message than if you were simply told, don't vote for this person or do vote for this person. As I said at the start, I don't know much about US politics. A lot of the anti Trump rhetoric was don't vote for this man, don't do it, you can't do it, you shouldn't do it. Same was Brexit, was the one in the uk. Do not vote for Brexit. You know, it'll ruin our economy. And in many ways it has. They weren't wrong. But the point is, like we were told not to do something, do not do something. And for many, many people, I think for actually the majority of people, we don't like that messaging. And I think the Brexiteers sort of hit on something. Well, which was that they didn't tell people not to do something. They gave people the, the hint of freedom. Trump probably does the same thing. I think other politicians do the same thing. And yeah, I think asking a Question is a very persuasive way of framing it.
- [11:38]
B
Yeah, very true. I really like the framing you use there. Because especially in the American political system for like the democratic side, a lot of the messaging of the past campaign was, do not vote for this man. Do not do this. And what do we see the exact opposite happen? I want to know, in your perspective, what role does kind of likability play, not only in politics, but just in marketing in general? For example, if you're a brand and you a spokesperson and that spokesperson is well liked, what can that do for your brand? That maybe other tactics cannot? Just that general likability concept.
- [12:10]
A
Well, this is like the catch 22 for politicians, right? They typically are the least likable people on the planet. I mean, they literally created. Their whole career is like, I want to be in Chile, just like, who? Come on, get a life. So they typically not very likable. And yet they have to persuade people that they're likable. And this is where you see all this cringe. I mean, in the UK we've got like politicians doing TikTok videos who definitely shouldn't be on TikTok because, oh my God, this is. This is melting my brain.
- [12:36]
B
Oh, my God.
- [12:37]
A
But there is a way to become more likable and it actually is. It's a slightly different bias from what we've talked about so far. It's very interesting one. It's one all of us can remember and should use in our lives. It was a study done by Elliot Aronson, legendary researcher. This again would have been back in the 60s, very interesting study. He recorded a quiz participant answering quiz questions. And this quiz participant was insanely talented. They were answering all these questions correctly. You know, what's the capital of Turkmenistan? They get it right. They get all these questions right. And then at the end, for one set of participants who are watching the video of this very smart quizzer, the video cuts. All you see is the quizzer answering these questions correctly. For another set of participants watching the video, they keep the camera rolling and the quizzer walks off stage. Now, the quizzer is actually an actor paid by Ellie Aronson, but none of the participants know this. Quizzer walks off stage, is handed a coffee, takes a sip of coffee. Oh, clumsily spills it all down himself. So he's got this big coffee stain. What a doofus. Oh, dear. Anyway, Fernson hypothesized was that perhaps an intelligent person who showcases a small weakness, clumsiness, perhaps that intelligence combined with a weakness might make that person more likable. And he shows this video to two groups of people and asks him how likable is the quizzer. And what he finds is that the quizzer, who is highly intelligent but spills coffee down themselves, is seen as insanely more likable. That I shouldn't be attracted to someone who might cause me third degree burns. And yet it's not the case. When someone is just purely showcasing their strengths, it's eternal. We actually feel like we like someone when we can see their weaknesses. Brand use this really well. Marmite in the uk say you either love it or you hate it. Avis's famous campaign, we're second, so we try harder. Buckley's cough medicine talks about how horrible the taste is. Red Bull doesn't hide the fact that their drink isn't particularly nice. It works for all these brands because by highlighting weakness alongside a strength, you become more popular. And I think political campaigns now, some, maybe more populist politicians would steer away from this, but I think you could still argue that they have weaknesses in some ways and their fans still embrace those weaknesses. But I think the campaign we've seen in New York is a great example of someone who's not afraid to hide their weaknesses. Definitely an intelligent person, definitely well spoken, definitely articulate, definitely great in debates, and yet at the same time seems a bit goofy. Doesn't really mind making a fool of themselves doing these silly little videos. Sort of seems pretty genuine down to earth. And I think it's that combination of that strength and that weakness that actually makes someone far more likable. If you're just showcasing your strengths, you'll. You won't be seen as very like.
- [15:16]
B
No, very true. I think it's having that relatability factor, right? And having people say, like, oh, he's like me, or they're like me. It makes a big difference. And last thing I wanted to hit on here is just general messaging because, of course, I'm sure you hear this all the time, right? There's a lot of messages out there. Brands are trying to get in your ear, creators are trying to get in your face, and everybody wants to tell you something, right? How would you say a message can break through the infinite scrolling death scape that we're currently in? How would you say that somebody's message could actually break out of that and find an audience nowadays?
- [15:56]
A
Yeah. Million dollar, billion dollar question. What behavioral science and psychology can tell us is the laws, the principles that tend to work that can give you a leg up? It won't make me into a US political candidate. There tends to be an idea that distinctiveness is very effective at getting your message to be recalled. Now, there'll be eye rolls for listeners here thinking, God, I've heard this before. Yeah, stand out and you'll be more likely to be remembered. This isn't just, you know, go to a conference for real estate agents with a Mohawk while everyone else is in suit and tie. This is a little bit more nuanced than that, which is that in order to stand out, you shouldn't just think, I need to be different from everyone. I need to paint my brand pink or grow a Mohawk. What it actually means is you should look at the messages of those around you and make sure you're not falling into that sea of sameness. Great example of this is a 1990s study that was done with Heineken. Heineken were looking for a new slogan that would make them more memorable. This was in the US Just entering the market. How can we make people remember our ads? And so they tested. It was a great AB test or A, B, C, D, F test. They tested, I think, 12 different slogans. And they measured the recall a month after people heard them and they saw them in the world. It's a great experiment. And the slogans like Heineken, the great taste of beer, instantly forgotten. I think only 8% of people remembered it. Heineken, open your world. Like 4% remembered it. Heineken, the freshest beer you've ever heard. You know? And the reason that doesn't work is because we've heard it all before. We've heard beer brands talk that way. They came up with one slogan. Us beer fans will understand this. It's a little more nuanced for us in the uk, but I drink enough beer to even understand it myself. Hello. And their slogan was Heineken, the beer that made Milwaukee jealous. Genius slogan. Very distinct. I think they brew a lot of beer in Milwaukee.
- [17:44]
B
They do. Their baseball team is called the brewers. So they do be brewing out in Milwaukee. Yes, that is something.
- [17:50]
A
This slogan they do be brewing is another slogan they maybe should have gone for, because I love that as well.
- [17:55]
B
That's coming next.
- [17:57]
A
The slogan, the beer that made Milwaukee jealous was recalled 81% of people a month later. So incredibly high recall. And that is not because they went for something totally wacky. They didn't do a ridiculous slogan like beer that tastes like Coca Cola or beer that tastes like a pink unicorn or something absolutely crazy. They looked at their competitive market and they thought, how can we say something which is slightly different from what has typically been heard? And if you can do that, you're far more likely to stand out. I think this campaign in New York is a great example of someone who was trying to say something slightly different, wasn't lecturing people, trying to talk in their language, trying to make them feel positive about the current state of the world in a liberal way, which is not typically done in politics at the moment. I think liberals tend to lean on more fear mongering, and I think, you know, trying to frame these things in a positive way is a slightly different angle. And being distinct in that way will make you far more likely to be remembered. But it's not always used because Heineken. What slogan did they go for? Heineken? Open your world. I don't know. They don't even follow their own advice. They don't even follow their own. It's like, come on, guys, it's not that hard.
- [19:00]
B
Phil, it's been great talking to you. Thank you for your insight on this. Thanks for being here. I'd love to have you back. And obviously everybody should check out Nudge podcast. All right, and that'll do it for us today. Thanks for tuning into the Hustle Daily Show. We're a proud part of HubSpot Media. Our editor is Robert Hartwig and our executive producer is Darren Clark. We've got a lot more tech and business coverage in our newsletter. If you're not subscribed, go get yourself signed up. The Hustle co Email and follow us on Instagram at the Hustle Daily. We'll see you tomorrow.
- [19:43]
A
The podcast I'd like to recommend today is Creators are Brands. It is hosted by Tom Boyd and is brought to you by the HubSpot Podcast Network, the audio destination for business professionals. Creators Our Brands explores how storytellers are building brands online, from the mindsets to the tactics to the business side. They break down what's working so you can apply that to your own work. One of the recent episodes I listened to tackled how some creators are being paid hundreds of thousands of pounds to promote brands, which I think is a kind of incredible thing that happens in this day and age. So if you want to listen to that episode or any of the brilliant Creators Are Brands episodes, go and listen to Creators Are Brands wherever you get your podcasts. All right, folks, that is all for this special episode of Nudge where we heard the Hustle Daily Show. Nudge will be back next Monday with a normal episode. Thank you so much for tuning in to this special episode. As always. I'm your host, Phil, and I will be back next Monday for another episode of Nudge. Cheers.