Loading summary
Transcript17 lines
- [00:00]
Phil Agnew
Well, that is 2024 over, and it has been quite a year, hasn't it? Nudge has clocked up 16:54 minutes of episodes. I've waffled on for over 50 hours with some of the brightest minds in psychology. More than a quarter of a million of you have tuned in, and collectively you've racked up 26 million minutes of listening. Very impressive, considering I can't stand my own voice for more than five minutes. Well, as the year wraps up, I thought I'd take a moment to share some of the top lessons I've picked up along the year. One lesson has changed the holidays I decided to take a Rory Sutherland lesson has changed my views on behaviours and attitudes. A rather simple lesson has made me a much, much better writer, and one final lesson taught me to swear more. So grab a coffee as we look back on a cracking year of Nudge and be sure to stick around until the end because I'll be sharing some pretty big news about what's coming up for the show in 2025. All of that coming up after this quick break. So you want to be a marketer? It's easy. You just have to score a ton of leads and figure out a way to turn them all into customers. Plus manage a dozen channels, write a million blogs, and launch 100 campaigns all at once. When that's done, simply make your socials go viral and bring in record profits. No sweat. Okay, fine, it's a lot of Sweat. But with HubSpot's AI powered marketing tools, launching benchmark breaking campaigns is easier than ever. Get started@HubSpot.com marketers Tali Sherritt, the renowned neuroscientist and author of the Optimism Bias, has spent her career exploring the interplay between neuroscience and decision making. Her research offers profound insights into human happiness and and motivation, and her book the Influential Mind is easily one of the best books I've read this year. Back in spring, Talley explained to me how most of us don't understand happiness. The things we expect to improve our happiness often aren't as important as we think. Here's why.
- [02:16]
Tali Sherritt
People often have like great things in their life, and I'm sure you do. So it could be a loving relationship or a great home or a good job, but those things often have limited impact on their daily happiness. And that's a bit surprising. But at the same time, also terrible things are around us and it's sexism, racism, cracks in our personal relationships, inefficiencies in the workplace, and we get used to Those as well. And so we don't notice those things and because of that we don't try to change them. And it's both cases, it's not because humans are lazy or stupid, it's because of a basic feature of the brain that really governs every neuron that is in our brain and that's habituation. And that's our tendency to respond less and less and less to things that are constant, that don't change. So for example, you can enter a room filled of cigarette smoke and after about 20 minutes you can't even smell the smoke any longer. And so just as you get smoke, you get used to the smell of tobacco. You can also get used to new love and to a breakup, to winning the lottery and to going bankrupt, to smelling the ocean into pollution. And it turns out that this phenomena of habituation, it affects almost every aspect of our life. So from social media to climate change, to creativity, mental health, dishonesty. And so we ask, how do we dishabituate, right? How can we start noticing both the good and the bad to kind of make what's thrilling on Monday also thrilling on Friday and what's shocking on Tuesday also shocking on Sunday. And there's also interesting question of would you want to do that?
- [03:49]
Phil Agnew
Habituation is something we can't escape. We enjoy our favourite song less if we hear it on repeat. We bore of our favourite movie if we watch it time after time. Here's an My London flat sat directly under the Heathrow flight path. At first, I remember when I first viewed it, I was very worried that the roaring planes would disrupt my sleep. And they did. Blaring at 6am the first morning I slept there I really struggled to sleep. But within one week I'd wholly habituated. Only new visitors to the flat ever noticed the noise. Habituation shapes much of how we perceive the world, often without us even realizing it. And to explain how, Tatley shared a fascinating study about Mac and cheese.
- [04:33]
Tali Sherritt
In this study they had two groups and one group, they gave them Mac and cheese to eat every day for lunch for a few weeks. The other group got Mac and cheese only once a week. So the first group who got it every day, they really liked their Mac and cheese on the first day. And the second day they also liked the Mac and cheese, but not as much as the first day. And the third day, less, a four day less, you know, a week has gone by and they really can't stand Mac and cheese anymore. And every day that goes by they eat less and less of it. Because it's less appealing, right? And then the group that only ate it once a week, they continue to love it and they ate quite a lot of it. So, you know, this specific study is about Mac and cheese, but we could generalize it first of all to any kind of food, right? Think about your favorite food. You're going to love it if I give it to you today, but less if I give you again tomorrow, and even less if I give it to get the day after and so on. And it's not only food, it's really every aspect of our life, which is really great. At the beginning you get, you know, you move into your new home, it's wonderful and lovely and comfortable and you really kind of notice it and it brings you joy, but less so as time passes and relationships are the same and jobs are the same. There's a quote from Behavioral. Actually he was an economist and not behavioral economist called Tybur Skitowski and he says that pleasure results from incomplete and intermittent satisfaction of desires. And I think that really explains the Mac and cheese example and also all these other examples that we can really see in our own life.
- [06:10]
Phil Agnew
This Mac and cheese study is titled Long Term Habituation to Food in Obese and Non Obese women. Published in 2011, it's been cited 81 times. The researchers tested habituation with 16 obese and 16 non obese women serving them macaroni and cheese either on every day for a week, so seven times over the course of a week or once a week for five weeks. They found that those who ate daily habituated fast, consuming 226 fewer calories per meal. Eating Mac and cheese every day repeatedly decreased the enjoyment for both obese and non obese women, lowering the amount they ate. In comparison, those who only ate once a week actually increased their calorie intake by 9 calories over the course of the sessions. This paper was the first evidence that daily repetition of meals promotes long term habituation and reduces appetite. While the study only had a small sample size, the findings showed statistically significant results. It's evidence for Talley's poor point. We habituate even to good stuff like Mac and cheese. I was lucky enough to spend 2024 working and travelling across Asia. Much like the Mac and cheese eaters. My trip started to feel less and less thrilling with each new destination I went to. The novelty slowly faded into routine. Now let's move on to lesson number two. When we are writing, we often feel like we need to add more words. A study by Gabrielle Adams at the University of Virginia showc this. The researchers asked 1585 people to edit a short summary text about King Richard III's bones being discovered under a Leicester parking lot. They were just told to edit the text. And 83% of the participants added words to the text instead of removing them. So for 83% of the people, the text got longer after editing. When we are writing, we prefer to add add content rather than remove it. Yet Todd Rogers, a Harvard professor and behavioral scientist, told me about a study showing how fewer words can improve email performance.
- [08:29]
Todd Rogers
Sure. So we scraped 7,000 email addresses of elected school board members in the United States, and we were going to email them, asking them to fill out a survey about important decisions they were making during the pandemic. And the actual first draft that we wrote was, I'm a professor. I'd like to ask you some questions. I know what you do is important. I know you're very busy. I know that you're serving lots of others. Thank you for everything you're doing. It's a very hard job you have. You're balancing competing interests and like, maybe six or seven sentences of just gratitude and appreciation and recognition. And then it ends by, Please click this link to fill out our survey. The other condition, which was just a suggestion someone had during our development of this message, they're like, well, what if we just said, I'm a professor, I'd like to ask you some questions. You're doing important work. Will you please fill out the survey? So just reduce the words by 2/3 before running the experiment. We actually have people predict which of these two do they think will be more effective? And people read both, and Almost everybody, literally 93% of people reading both are like, oh. Obviously, the longer one that is more deferential and expresses more gratitude will be more effective. So we run the experiment. More than twice as effective is the one that is much shorter. Deleting all the extra content made people more than twice as likely to respond and complete our survey, despite almost everybody thinking the opposite. I think there are a few mechanisms that contribute to this one. People are just more likely to be deterred when they open the message. They're like, ah, I'll read this later, or I'll read this never and hit delete. Other times, they'll start it and they'll give up midway through. So it's just. It's cognitively taxing. They're figuring out quickly that it's not something that's very important to them. But there's a third one that was Interesting that we didn't expect on this that someone suggested, which is when someone is asked to complete a survey, they're clicking on something and going off into the void, being directed to someplace they don't know about. And in the version that's short, we later found out in other follow up studies, in the short message people think the survey is going to be short and in a long message they think the survey is going to take a long time. In a way, we are signaling whether we value their time by how we wrote the appeal.
- [10:57]
Phil Agnew
Todd's study with 7,002 recipients found that shorter emails increased response rates by up to 80%. A larger meta study on 40 million emails backed this up. Boomerang in 2016 found that messages between 50 to 125 words received higher response rates, with response rates declining for longer messages with more words. There is obviously some nuance here. Not all messages should be short, but if you need someone to take action, getting to the point will help. Now lesson number three. We often believe that our attitudes drive our actions. We believe that what we think and feel shapes what we do and who we are. This idea makes intuitive sense. If you're passionate about fitness, you're more likely to subscribe for a gym membership. If you love Italian food, you'll probably choose pizza over burgers for dinner. It's a comforting belief because it frames our decisions as deliberate, rational and consistent with who we are. But that's not what Rory Sutherland believes. Rory is the vice chairman of Ogilvy and one of the most influential voices in behavioural science. And he argues that more often than we realise in it's not our attitudes that lead to behaviours, but rather our behaviours that shape our attitudes.
- [12:20]
Rory Sutherland
Well, very frequently. Okay, it works in reverse that you change people's behaviour and their attitudes. Then to avoid kind of cognitive dissonance, their attitudes then come to align with their behavior. In other words, we often post rationalize our attitudes in many ways. Okay. And that would be particularly applicable, I think, with things like environmental behavior, which is that I don't think think many people buying a Tesla principally bought it because it was environmentally friendly. I think they bought it because they were geeks and they really liked the car. Okay. Having bought an electric car myself for largely selfish reasons, I don't think I could go back to a petrol car. In fact, the extent of the aversion to petrol once you've driven electric was manifested by the fact that I actually had seven days in Italy earlier this year and I actually went to some Lengths to rent an electric car, which was an act of slightly slight bravado, actually, because I wasn't sure what the charging infrastructure was like in the event. It was pretty good. But effectively, I think an awful lot of things work that way. We had an advertising campaign which was ad campaign, but it was under the line of one bin is rubbish. And we realized that if people have two bins, they will tend to separate out recyclables from non recyclables much more reliably than people who have one bin who, you know, with the best will in the world, you know, it's late, it's 11 o'clock at night. Ah, it, you know, okay, you know, and you know, my argument would be that in that case, you know, a Jeremy Clarkson with two bins will be better at recycling than a Greta Thunberg with one bin. That actually in many cases our behavior is a product of our environment, not our intention or our attitude. And that is a known bias in the behavioral science, which is kind of intentionality bias that it's apparently particularly acute in the West. I didn't realize realize this, but in Eastern cultures they are more likely to explain people's behavior in terms of the context in which they found themselves. Whereas in Western cultures, could it be a legacy of Christianity perhaps, or. Or just Western religions, we're more likely to say they did that because they're a bad person, not because they found themselves in circumstances where, you know, you know, they are weak willed, they are evil, they're selfish, whatever it may be. And so understanding the context, and understanding essentially the context in which decisions are made and therefore in which behaviors originate, strikes me as an essential part of the jigsaw to solve, regardless of the role that attitude plays. You have to look at this because it's a nonsense. Just to assume that an attitudinal change leads directly to behavioral change. It's simply not reliable.
- [15:08]
Phil Agnew
There's a study called it's no Our Biases for Intentional Explanation. It's by Evelyn Rousse and it was published in 2008. It explored intentionality bias, the bias that Rory mentioned. The study provided proof that humans irrationally interpret actions as intentional, even when they're obviously unintentional or accidental. For the study, participants read a series of sentences describing actions that can be done either on purpose, like he deleted the email, or by accident, like he lost his keys. Losing keys is unambiguously accidental. Nobody loses their keys on purpose. Yet between 60 to 70% of the participants deemed that action to be intentional. Despite the evidence showing it wasn't. These findings raise questions from market researchers. If a customer assures you they bought your pasta because they've always preferred organic, can you really trust them? Rousse's study suggests you can't. People will reimagine their actions as intentional. The real reason your customer likes organic pasta could be because her boss buys the same brand. Or perhaps it's something else she's not consciously aware of. Rory suggests an example. If you asked McDonald's customers what would make them order two burgers for themselves instead of one, they'd probably tell you that they never would. Who would gorge on two burgers? Burgers. Yet attitudes don't always drive behaviours. And McDonald's stumbled upon an ingenious way to get customers to buy more. How? Well, it was by letting customers order via touchscreens. Here's why it worked.
- [16:53]
Rory Sutherland
The McDonald's screens are. I mean, the speed with which they rolled them out I think is evidence of their efficacy. If you want to sell as much as possible, give people a choice of interfaces. One thing I will make a point of Here is what McDonald's has, has not done is replaced human order takers with screens completely. They have given the consumer a choice. Okay, obviously the hourly cost of a screen is lower than the hourly cost of an employee. But McDonald's has not done what a lot of companies will do, I think, which is a terrible mistake, which is to replace a human interface with an exclusively automated interface. What they've done is actually they've gone effectively multi channel. In other words, in fact, very, very, very multi channel because you can, as well as using a screen, you can actually pre order on your mobile phone, you can order on a tablet, etc, and general, you know, it's, I wouldn't say it's an absolutely unfailing rule, but most of the time, the more ways you give people a mode of buying something, the more people buy. Okay, now there's also a really interesting finding with the screens, which I hear anecdotally, which is since the screens came in, far more people order unusual meals. In particular, more order meals which contain two burgers, even though it's just them eating. What's quite interesting about that is there was probably an element of social embarrassment or not wanting to look weird or not wanting to create a double take, which caused people to order more conventionally face to face because they didn't want to go, going. So you want two burgers but only one fries. You know, I don't get that. You Know, don't you want a meal with both of them? And then you'd have to go, well, it's just for me. And they go, God, you l ass. So fundamentally changing the interface changes behavior. That's why Amazon is one of the most valuable companies in the world. Because, you know, they are a kind of default interface for people who want to buy shit who aren't in a shop currently. And let's face it, there's no point in attitudinal change unless it leads to behavioral change somewhere. Not necessarily in the person whose attitude changes necessarily. But you know, obviously the purpose of sub activity is to change the decisions, how people act in some way. What this does is it, at the very least, it stops people going. The attitude is what needs to be changed in order to change the behavior and forces it to you to look at the question both holistically, I what part is attitude playing in this behavior and what part is the wider environment? It also forces you to factor in time, okay, because the general approach of advertising was we change people's attitude and then their behavior changes and we just do a big ad campaign. But there are moments at which you can intervene which are probably 10 times more potent than other moments. And so it also forces you to think about the customer journey, or in the case of public sector work, the decision maker journey, and to look at the various points along that, that line. Not that it's ever that linear, by the way, but you can look at the points of maximum leverage there. And that means you target by time, not by audience. In other words, you have a target moment, not a target audience, which is also enriching in terms of the possibility of finding breakthrough and creative solutions.
- [20:19]
Phil Agnew
No McDonald's customer would ever tell a market researcher that the touchscreen made them order more. But that's because attitudes don't form behaviors. If they did, ordering via a screen or in person shouldn't make a difference. And yet it does. The Starbucks app, for example, is now used for 50% of all coffee sales in the US. It has boosted customer loyalty with the 25 million app users who use it visiting once per week. And while it's always hard to point to one factor behind business growth, the mobile app has coincided with an 11% growth in year on year sales. Giving customers multiple ways to buy can make them buy more, even if the customer tells you otherwise. So far we've heard how we habituate to good food, how shorter emails are more effective, and that more often than not, attitudes don't drive behaviour. In a bit. You'll hear why swearing is persuasive and an FBI hostage negotiator's tactics for winning an argument. And stay tuned to the end because I'm going to share some exciting news on the future of Nudge. All of that coming up. Create like the Greats, hosted by Ross Simmons, is brought to you by the HubSpot Podcast Network, the go to audio destination for business professionals. In each episode, Ross dives into the stories behind some of history's greatest creations and creators. He unpacks the strategies, processes, and lessons that shaped them. His episodes are engaging, his insights are practical, and he's been living these principles that he shares for over a decade. If you enjoy exploring creativity, the history of creators, and actionable advice, this podcast is for you. Listen to Create like the Greats wherever you get your podcasts. Hello and welcome back. Now let's talk about swear words. What happens when you swear in an online review? Does it make the review less persuasive? Does it put people off? Well, no, not according to this professor of marketing at the University of Alberta, it's Professor Sarah Moore.
- [22:21]
Sarah Moore
This is a paper with Katie lafrenier, who is one of my colleagues at the U of A, and Robert Fisher, who's also at the U of A. I love this paper for many reasons. So when we started doing this work, we did have a little bit of pushback from a couple of reviewers about how we shouldn't be swearing, studying swear words because they're offensive and they're just rude. And why would we even do research on this? We were like, well, research is important to do whether you think it's going to offend people or not sometimes. And it turns out, even if you are offended, first of all, most people aren't offended when there's a swear word in a review. This is partly because, and this is a big important caveat, the swear words that we focus on, especially in the experiments, are not directed at people. So you're not swearing at somebody at your server, etc. You're applying a swear word to a description of a product, and I think that makes a big difference. We do have some Yelp data and Amazon data where we didn't code for what how the swear word is used. So there may be some swear words in there that are directed to people, but overall we found that they're more helpful. So reviews that contain swear words get more helpful votes than reviews that don't contain swear words, but only up until a certain point.
- [23:50]
Phil Agnew
All in all, Sarah and her colleagues looked at 300,000 reviews across Amazon and Yelp. She looked at reviews which contained a swear word. Either a strong swear word like this movie is fucking great, or a soft swear word like this movie is damn great. The findings are rather surprising. Reviews with swear words received more upvotes and more likes than a equivalent reviews without a swear word. This is the case for both mild swear words and much stronger language. Swearing makes a review more persuasive. Here's why.
- [24:23]
Sarah Moore
We looked at one particular swear words used in a very particular way. And this was partly so in the experiments, we could compare them to other words. So we looked at what happens when you use a swear word as an intensifier. So an intensifier is a word that you put that you attach to a description that makes it stronger. So if you say that comedy was really funny, the really is an intensifier. Super is another one we use a lot now. So super funny, super quiet. And you can use a swear word there too, so you could say damn quiet instead. So we were able to compare swear words to these different types of intensifiers. You can even use negative intensifiers. Torturously Beautiful is an example of a negative word that then makes the next positive word even more strong because it's a negative word. So there's. Intensifiers can kind of vary in the degree to which they make that second word funny, ugly, beautiful, the degree to which they intensify that word. Turns out that swear words are the most intense intensifiers for two reasons. First of all, because we know that people tend to swear when they feel really strongly about something, like when you stub your toe or when you're really mad. When you use a swear word in an online review, people reading it are like, wow, they must feel really strongly that this dishwasher is actually really quiet or that this comedy is really funny. So that's the first inference that people make. Wow, you're using a swear word. And we know you use swear words when you feel strongly about something. And so you must feel really strongly about the quietness of this dishwasher. And if that's a positive attribute, that's a good thing. This dishwasher is probably pretty good. And you gave me some helpful information about it. The other thing that swear words do, and this is why they really work in a way that that other words don't, is that they're taboo. We know we're not supposed to use them. We know they might be offensive. Even if most people aren't offended by them. Everybody recognizes that a swear word is a swear word and that you're not supposed to use it. And so especially I think in an online review context when you are kind of in this cognitive of review writing mode, you're creating a text, you're telling a story, you chose to type a swear word over all the other words that you could have used. You purposely broke that taboo. And because you did that, that tells me that, wow, you really mean it. And so those two pieces together make the attributes. So the quietness of the dishwasher, the funniness of the comedy, those really stand out. And I really believe that you feel strongly about it and that it's true because you swore in order to tell me that thing. And that's what makes, that's what drives the helpfulness. And it also changes how the reader evaluates the product. So because the dishwasher is damn quiet and the comedy is damn funny, that makes me think it's going to be a better dishwasher or a better comedy show.
- [27:53]
Phil Agnew
It's not just reviews that benefit from swear words. Jim Vesterholm showed three types of ads to 54 participants. The first featured a strong swear word. It was for expro insurance and it featured the phrase because shit happens. A second ad for Dan's Coffee House had a mild swear. It read just damn good coffee and one for quench. An energy drink contained no swear words. That was the control ad. The study results backed up Sarah Moore's findings. The ads with mild swear words were well received, perceived as confident and relatable and they outperformed that control ad which had no swear words. The ads with the stronger swear words were a bit divisive. Some viewed them as vulgar and out of place, especially if they were in non humorous contexts. But both the strong and mild swear word ads were rated higher than ads with no swear words. It's an interesting finding and perhaps I should rename nudge's slogan to damn good behavioural science. Alright, time for my last lesson of the year. And for this I'm handing over to Chris Voss. Chris is a former FBI hostage negotiator and author of the best selling book Never Split the Difference. With over two decades of experience in high stakes negotiations, he specializes in applying behavioral insights to business and personal negotiations. To end today's special end of year episode, here's Chris explaining why getting angry in a negotiation won't work.
- [29:22]
Chris Voss
Yeah, well, you know, there are things that don't work short term. Some stuff works really well short term and then it's really bad. Long term term. Like, you know, there's a tactic out there called strategic umbrage. You know, do you, do you demonstrate anger in order to get your way? And there's even a study that says it works. And what it does is it might help you get your way temporarily, momentarily, and then it's just really bad long term, the other side is just hates it. It's toxic. They're going to spend time paying you back. And, you know, I have my doubts as to how well it, it is effective short term anyway, because the study that says it's effective was based on simulated negotiations. When I went through Harvard Law School's negotiation course, we did a lot of simulated negotiations. And people love to practice simulated negotiations, but they're fake in that you're playing a role. You know, you're the CEO of a cosmetics company or you're selling your iPhone. First of all, it's a role that it's not you. So you're not going to react authentically, emotionally. And then, even more important, when students are given a simulated negotiation, in reality, they sit down for one conversation. They talk from 45 minutes to an hour. And the only way that they feel like they failed is if they don't make a deal. And then there's no ongoing relationship. It's a one off, it's a fake one off, and it only lasts for an hour. So students get together and they Talk for about 45 minutes and they haven't gotten to a deal. And one student goes like, this is really bad. They start faking anger and so they'll come to the deal because their only failure was not getting a deal. Well, in real life, no negotiation happens in one setting in 45 minutes. And no negotiation is that you never see the, the other person ever again and never, never crossed paths with them. One of my students at Georgetown thought he was in a one off negotiation when he's buying cabinets at Home Depot and used the bargaining method that's in my book, the Ackerman method, and just got a great price on cabinets. I mean, just pounded the salesperson because I'm going to buy these cabinets. It's a one off. You know, I can afford to cut this guy's throat. Well, two weeks later, he comes back to the Home Depot because he's got an issue with his cabinets. Who does he run into? The guy he slaughtered in the negotiation. Were they willing to help him in any way, shape or form on fixing a problem with the cab cabinets without just killing them over what they were going to charge him. Now they had all this pent up anger over getting pushed around. So that's one of the reasons why this study on strategic umbrage is just so wrong.
- [32:11]
Phil Agnew
Don't Use Anger this notorious study that examined the role of anger in negotiations is called the Interpersonal Effects of Anger and Happiness in Negotiations. It was published in 2004. Participants engaged in an online negotiation simulation where they encountered counterparts who were actually controlled by the experimenters and these counterparts display either anger, happiness or neutrality. The study measured the concessions made by the participants in response to these angry, happy or neutral emotional responses. It found that participants facing an angry counterpart made larger concessions, perceiving the other party as having higher aspirations and a strong stance. In contrast, those negotiating with a happy or neutral counterpart were less likely to make significant concessions. But like Chris Voss mentioned, this isn't a real world study. It's online with a computer and no emotional or non verbal cues are visible. The negotiators can't see each other so they can't respond to these interpersonal dynamics. And while anger worked in this scenario, and while it might work for you in perhaps an email exchange or maybe on social media, Chris suggests that it backfires in person. And he makes the good point that if you use anger to try and win an argument, it'll backfire the next time you try to negotiate. So arguing with your boss about why you should have a pay rise almost certainly won't work. And I think that is good, wholesome advice to end today's episode. But before we end, I want to talk about some of the big exciting changes coming to nudge in 2025. As many of you loyal listeners will know, I took the podcast on as my full time job last year. This has freed me up to put much more time into the show, but I want to take it to the next level. So starting this year, I'll be creating a second weekly episode. This second episode will come out every Friday. It'll be shorter and more conversational than the typical Monday episode, it won't feature any guests, and it will focus on a specific topic. The Monday episodes will remain the same. They'll be broad, they'll cover multiple topics and studies, whereas the Friday episodes will be more focused, delving into a specific study and looking at the implications. I'll also use those episodes to cover specific topics or stories. So for example, I plan to create some Friday episodes on the Francesca Gino court case, the Jaguar rebrand, and some much cited influential papers on concepts like social proof. The two week episodes will start this week, with the additional episode out on Friday, I'm covering the history of the most important experiment in science and why every marketer should know about it. I really hope you like that episode, so let me know what you think once it comes out. There are a few more exciting updates coming too. In March, I plan to host a three week training course. I'll have 20 spaces for marketers and business leaders to learn, apply and test behavioural science principles on their businesses. I'll share more about that soon, but the working name for this training cohort is the Nudge Unit. If you want to be part of the Nudge unit it just make sure you subscribe to the Nudge newsletter as I'll be sharing most of the information about it on there. And it's a good thing to subscribe to that newsletter because I have revamped it this year. I've made it much more actionable and easy to read. In the newsletter I now share a specific lesson, examples of how to apply that lesson, and some extra resources and takeaways. The first newsletter on Overconfidence was one of the most clicked newsletters of the year, so it seems like this new format is doing really well. Please do subscribe and let me know what you think. And finally, I'll be improving the YouTube content I create this year and I'll be updating my website over the next few months, so keep an eye out for that. That is all for today's episode folks. A huge thank you for those of you who have tuned in. Whether you've been with Nudge since the beginning or just joined us last year, your support has been really incredible and it's what keeps this podcast growing and evolving, aren't you? I'm really excited for all the new additions I'm adding in 2025. I think that focused Friday episode will be a real hit. I'm really, really excited about this upcoming training course, the Nudge Unit, and I think the revamped newsletter is a dramatic step up. As always, I'd love to hear your thoughts, feedback and suggestions. The best way to do that is to subscribe to the newsletter. Just head to nudgepodcast.com and click newsletter. Once you do that, you'll be sent an email from Me Me and you can reply and simply leave your feedback there or you can Message me on LinkedIn. I'm Phil Agnew on LinkedIn, so find me there as well. Thanks again folks. Thanks for a wonderful 2,025. I'll be back for the first time on Friday with a new episode of Nudge. See you then.