← The Jordan Harbinger Show
The Jordan Harbinger Show
1273: Richard Shotton & MichaelAaron Flicker | Marketing to Human Minds
01:22:16
Loading summary
Transcript530 lines
- [00:00]
A
This episode is sponsored in part by the Defender. Most of us like to think we're adventurous, but real life is usually school runs, errands, maybe a weekend hike if we're lucky. That's why I like the Defender. It fits both versions of you. Defender is engineered for exploration. It's got that tough, purposeful look because it's built with robust materials and a rigid body design that's made to handle real world challenges. Inside, it's comfortable and functional and the kind of cabin you actually want to spend time in. There's a whole defender family, the two door Defender 90, the Defender 110 and the Defender 130. If you're ready to bring a little more adventure into your day to day, the Defender is ready too. Your defender@land roverusa.com. Welcome to the show. I'm Jordan Harbinger. On the Jordan Harbinger show, we decode the stories, secrets and skills of the world's most fascinating people and turn their wisdom into practical advice that you can use to impact your own life and those around you. Our mission is to help you become a better informed, more critical thinker through long form conversations with a variety of amazing folks from spies to CEOs, athletes, authors, thinkers, performers, even the occasional mafia enforcer, rocket scientist, or legendary Hollywood filmmaker. If you're new to the show or you want to tell your friends about the show, I suggest our Episode Starter Packs. These are collections of our favorite episodes on topics like persuasion and negotiation, psychology, geopolitics, disinformation, China, North Korea, crime and cults, and more that'll help new listeners get a taste of everything we do here on the show. Just visit jordanharbinger.com start or search for us in your Spotify app to get started. I'll be honest, I've read a lot.
- [01:29]
B
Of business books and case studies and.
- [01:31]
A
Most of them, they just kind of.
- [01:32]
B
Blur together after a while.
- [01:33]
A
But this book that I read for the show today, there's stuff in here I genuinely never heard before. Such as why five guys the burger joint refuses to do more than one thing and somehow makes more money doing less. Why calling something healthy food, namely, can make it taste worse in your brain. Why Kraft sells a million boxes of Mac and cheese per day. And yes, that number is as upsetting as it sounds. Today we're talking about the hidden psychology behind why we buy what we buy, why our brains take shortcuts, and how brands quietly manipulate those shortcuts every single day, sometimes brilliantly, sometimes hilariously. Joining me today are Richard Shotton And Michael Aaron Flicker. He has two guests at the same time today. I know that's a rare one. And by the end of this episode, you're never going to look at grocery stores menus or Starbucks seasonal drinks the same way ever again. Here we go with Richard Shotten and Michael Aaron Flicker. I have to admit, I read a.
- [02:26]
B
Lot of business case studies in my life. Right. Because I used to love doing podcasts about business. Less so these days.
- [02:31]
A
But there's a lot of stuff in.
- [02:33]
B
The book that I just never heard.
- [02:35]
A
Before, and some of it's quite fascinating.
- [02:37]
B
You know, looking at new products or the nostalgia of what it does to marketing is pretty incredible.
- [02:44]
A
So I want to start with five guys burgers.
- [02:46]
B
One, because I've eaten there one time in my entire life, and it was so good.
- [02:50]
A
It's so good that I haven't gone back, because I know if I go.
- [02:53]
B
Back, I'm going to keep going back and it's going to be a problem.
- [02:56]
A
So they do one thing beautifully, and.
- [02:59]
B
That'S kind of their motto, and I'd love to discuss that, because if you.
- [03:02]
A
Go to McDonald's, they have everything now.
- [03:05]
B
It's actually kind of overwhelming in some locations.
- [03:07]
C
Yeah. And you know, the story that backs up how they got to this insight, Jordan really helps paint the picture of the bias that they ended up exposing. So I'll paint the picture for you. And then maybe, Richard, you want to knock down some of the science behind it. But 1986, we have the founder, Jerry Morrell is at the Maryland boardwalk with four of his sons. And they're walking down the boardwalk and they're deciding if the oldest son is going to go to college or start his first company. And as they're talking, they look across the boardwalk and they see that only one of the stalls has a line, triple, quadruple the length of all the other lines. And the name of the stall is called Thrasher Fries. And they're talking about how could this one place that only does fries be so much more popular than all the other places that serve all different types of food. And it's Jerry that gets the credit for having the insight. Maybe it's because they only do one thing really well. They must be experts. They must be so good at it that it's worth queuing up and waiting for that line. And so today, many years later, Jerry and his four sons become the original Five Guys. They're a global franchise. They have $1.6 billion in sales, 1800 stores. And they don't only do Burgers and fries. They don't do chicken, they don't do salads, they don't do ice cream. They only do burgers and fries. And what's so fascinating is that people tend to believe a product is less effective when it claims to do lots of things. And so when you compare it to only doing one thing well, it's more believable. And that's not just a story. There's a bunch of science to back it up.
- [04:50]
B
Tell me about the tomato study.
- [04:52]
D
Yeah, so this is from the University of Chicago, and it's run by two psychologists, Zhang and Fishback. And what they do is they recruit a group of people and they give one group a bit of text which explains tomatoes are brilliant for reducing the probability of cancer. And then that group are asked to say, how good do you think tomatoes are as part of your diet for reducing cancer? They get their answer, and then they get a new group of people. They show them exactly the same text about cancer as the first group, but alongside that, they also give that second group a bit of information about why tomatoes are really good for your eye health. Now, when that second group are asked to rate how good tomatoes are for preventing cancer, they score tomatoes at 12% less than the original group. So exactly the same information, the same facts, the same logic is rated worse if there's that second idea added on. So the psychologists call this the goal dilution effect.
- [05:49]
A
Yeah. You know, it's funny because right before.
- [05:51]
B
I hit record, I said, hey, I read the book, I've got more notes than usual. So I need you to be medium.
- [05:57]
A
Winded, not too short. Because then it's like, well, wait a.
- [05:59]
B
Minute, what's going on?
- [06:00]
A
Not too long.
- [06:01]
B
Because then we do one example in 12 minutes and I end up 1 10th the way through my notes.
- [06:06]
A
This is almost the same thing, right? It's like, okay, what did tomatoes do?
- [06:09]
B
They prevent cancer.
- [06:10]
A
I like it. It's simple. Good. All right. Medium winded, right? Don't tell me about the eye benefits. Don't tell me it's gonna get rid of my.
- [06:17]
B
The warts I have on the bottom, like my plantar fasciitis. Whatever.
- [06:21]
A
I don't want to hear about it. I just want to know about the big one.
- [06:24]
B
Tell me the big one and then I'll eat the tomato.
- [06:26]
D
And it's very, very different from how most people and how most brands behave. Most brands try and cramming lots of reasons about why they're amazing. Most people going to an interview will try and persuade the interviewer that they've got a million different skills. Zang and Fishback say, look, be really careful before you do that. Each additional reason you add on will undermine belief in the core reason to believe.
- [06:50]
B
That's quite interesting.
- [06:51]
A
I think this goes down to the.
- [06:53]
B
Principle, and you note this in the book, that humans are cognitive misers. We don't want to expend too many resources to come to a decision. And so the brain takes shortcuts and that's where we end up with cognitive biases. Like this is the most recent thing you heard, so you believe it more. And it's like, yeah, I don't have to try hard to remember it, for example, right. These shortcuts that our brain takes. And so brands that harness these shortcuts can bring a lot of success.
- [07:15]
D
That's exactly it. The argument from psychologists is that from an evolutionary perspective, energy is a very scarce resource and thinking is energy intensive and it's effortful. So for most decisions people make, especially commercial ones, most people don't make them in a fully deliberative, thought through way. Most of decisions are made in a very quick, snap, reflexive way. And the way that we make these quick decisions is to use what psychologists call heuristics or biases. We have this series of rules of thumb in our head for making really fast decisions. And what's interesting for anyone who is trying to persuade others to change their behavior is these rules of thumb are prone to biases. Essentially, if you know about these biases, and that's what behavioral science catalogs, you end up working with human nature rather than against it. And that's always more effective.
- [08:05]
B
So this episode is essentially going to be some of these biases. How brands have leveraged them and how we're falling for them every single day.
- [08:12]
A
Which is kind of. I like this because it's going to.
- [08:14]
B
Have us look at things differently. And one of the examples that you gave early in the book was Kraft. I think they call it Kraft Dinner, which is ambitious, but it's Kraft Mac and Cheese. Sometimes you eat it for lunch. I don't know why they're so hell bent on dinner, but this sells a.
- [08:28]
A
Million boxes a day. Gross. Sorry. Obviously this episode is not sponsored by Kraft. I'll eat it. But a million boxes a day, Someone's.
- [08:37]
B
Buying a lot of this stuff, man.
- [08:39]
A
Why not? Just why are they buying it?
- [08:40]
B
But how did this become so popular? How are they leveraging our psychology to trick us into eating this stuff?
- [08:46]
C
Kraft has a fascinating history. Starts in America, but globally it is seen as one of these nostalgic foods. And it starts when a salesman packets together dried cheese, rubber bandit to boxes of macaroni. And that's the origins of Kraft Mac and Cheese. It was during the Depression. It was a low cost food staple. And so it comes out of the Depression with a lot of positive associations where you could get two boxes of Kraft Macaroni and Cheese for one of the food stamps during the war days. And so there's already a natural association within America that there's something emotionally tied to it.
- [09:29]
A
But here's the thing, though. It's like the wrong emotions. And maybe that doesn't matter. Maybe that's a big takeaway. Because if you're like, hey, remember the poorest you ever were and you thought.
- [09:36]
B
You were going to get annihilated by the Nazis or by the economy or.
- [09:39]
A
By the Soviets, don't you want to experience that again? Here it is. It's like, not really my buddy, he's.
- [09:46]
B
A contributor to the show.
- [09:48]
A
He can't eat turkey burgers.
- [09:50]
B
It's been like decades.
- [09:51]
A
And he can't eat turkey burgers because.
- [09:53]
B
His dad was an iron worker. And when his dad hadn't worked, they always had to buy turkey burger because they couldn't afford beef or something like that. And he's like, I can't even smell turkey burger.
- [10:01]
A
But part of that is they had it so much.
- [10:03]
B
But he's also like, but I also got yelled at during that time. My dad was like, drinking during that time. People got in fights a lot around me during that time.
- [10:11]
A
It's all negative association. Kraft has somehow went, hey, remember when you were poor and war was looming? Here's that slice of happy.
- [10:19]
B
And that they've associated themselves with that. So it's kind of brilliant somehow.
- [10:22]
D
Yeah.
- [10:23]
C
I would say that humans make decisions, they think they make a lot of logical decisions. I'm gonna buy this dinner because KRAFT tells me it has 17 essential vitamins and minerals.
- [10:33]
B
It does not probably have any of.
- [10:35]
A
Those, by the way.
- [10:36]
C
But we're more emotional than that. The story that your friend tells just proves the fact, actually, there's a lot of things that have nothing to do with the brand that drives that emotion, that makes you make the decisions you make ingeniously. The box design of Kraft takes that elbow macaroni and turns it upside down so that when you look down the aisle, you're walking down the aisle of all the different macaroni dinners that you could have, you are much more likely to stop and look at Kraft macaroni And cheese because it looks like a smile looking back at you. And that's a science, a behavioral science insight called pareidolia. But it gives them an edge that all their competitors don't have. So to the point that there is things going on besides just I want a nutritious meal, I want a delicious tasting meal. There's more driving your purchase decision than just the rational, just the logical.
- [11:32]
B
The pareidolia thing is interesting because it since it looks like a face, it grabs your attention, which you need if you're walking through a grocery aisle and there's 400 things in your field of vision at any given time. And they're all brightly colored. Right. So you look at this blue and yellow box and it's got a smiley face on it and it's like, oh, there's this familiar thing. You might even just grab it based on impulse.
- [11:52]
D
Absolutely. And with all these points from behavioral science, it's not Michael, Aaron and I speculating, there's always experiments that back it up. And there's a lovely experiment by Guido that proves this. So he did a super simple thing. He shows people pairs of ads and he uses eye tracking to see which of the two ads they look at. What always happens is one of the pairs has a pareidolian image. There's something that looks a little bit like a face. It could be the tree stump or a cloud, but it looks a little bit like a face. And what he finds is that 80% of the time people pay more attention to the ad that has this pareidolian image. And his argument is it's about evolution. We are the descendants of people who are very quick at recognizing faces because faces often meant danger. And if you just snap decision, spotted that a few seconds before other people, you had an advantage. So we are hardwired to spot these facelike patterns very, very quickly.
- [12:50]
A
That makes a lot of sense.
- [12:51]
B
The evolutionary argument, actually, I love these kinds of things. I don't know, there's something about this where it's like you're decoding what's these programs deep in our brain. Right. You're programmed to look at faces. We're programmed to see patterns where there aren't any because it might have kept you alive a million years ago as a pre human. It's just really fascinating.
- [13:10]
A
Another thing that doesn't make sense for.
- [13:11]
B
The pre humans, I suppose, but we.
- [13:13]
A
Perceive things we think are healthy to taste bad.
- [13:17]
B
So why do you think that is? And second of all, I mean brands using this, there's a Million examples. I just think it's kind of funny that we have to trick ourselves like this.
- [13:25]
D
And this is one of those experiments that varies by culture. So. Absolutely. In America, there is an association that healthy foods are poor tasting. So there's a lovely study by a guy called Raghunathan who's at McCombs School of Business, and he gets a group of Americans together, serves them an Indian buffet, loads of different foods, and gets the diners to rate how much they like each of the items. So they rate the naans, the balti, the lassi, the Indian yogurt drink. Raghunathan doesn't care about any of the results apart from what people say about the lassi. He's just asking lots of questions as a bit of a smokescreen. But when it comes to the yogurt drink, the lassi, sometimes he tells diners it's an Indian health drink. Other times he tells them it's an unhealthy Indian drink. And what Raghunathan finds is that the people who think it's unhealthy, they rate that drink 55% better than the people who think it's a health drink. Because what's happening here is people through experience have generally discovered, you know, matcha tea, I don't know, or some other health craze. It tastes horrible.
- [14:34]
B
Ooh, don't tell my wife. She loves matcha. I think it tastes like maybe the poor example, you know, it tastes like vegetables puree.
- [14:41]
D
It tastes like the underside of a lawnmower.
- [14:43]
A
I've heard people say the underside of a lot of things. Let's leave that one there.
- [14:47]
D
It's essentially people have learned that generally unhealthy things don't taste very nice, and then they apply that rule even when it's irrelevant. Even in, like, Raghoonathon's study, people are trying the same products, but it's that label that changes their perceptions.
- [15:02]
A
Now, I guess I should ask you.
- [15:03]
B
Is the opposite true?
- [15:04]
A
So if I make broccoli and I press it into hot dogs, sounds so gross. But, like, if I take this is a terrible example, Brussels sprouts and broccoli, and I make it look like a.
- [15:15]
B
Slice of pepperoni pizza, is that going.
- [15:18]
A
To make it look more appetizing, despite the fact that it's a green slice of pizza?
- [15:21]
C
I think if you can prioritize the indulgent aspect of that. Broccoli and Brussels sprouts. Sweet, sizzling Brussels sprouts. Hot, tangy. If you can get to the indulgent side, what the science Shows as compared to focusing on it being healthy or just plainly describing it, it's always going to do better. The science shows it will do better.
- [15:43]
B
Ok, and then if I want to sell health food, do I focus on the opposite? Do I say, like, look, we got broccoli. It's fresh, it's, I don't know, loaded with antioxidants. It was grown in the back of the restaurant on the farm. I suppose I'm answering my own question here because that's how all that stuff is marketed.
- [16:02]
D
Yeah. The issue with how healthy stuff is marketed is that people focus on the health bar. Just because something happens to be healthy, it doesn't mean that's the aspect that is best at persuading consumers to buy it. There's a lovely study from Stanford running a real cafeteria where a guy called Bradley Turnwald alternates the labels on the broccoli. So sometimes he'll say, as Michael Aaron said, light and low broccoli. Sometimes he'll say, sweet, sizzling broccoli. So sometimes he's talking about the health benefits, sometimes he's talking about the taste. And they sell 41% more of exactly the same food when it's the tasting that's emphasized, not the healthiness. So a simple thing advocates could do is stop focusing on health and start thinking about emphasizing the enjoyment.
- [16:48]
C
And Jordan, here's a real mind bender. When they focus on low fat, low carbs, zero sugar, that's actually going against what could be better for them. Right. When you focus on the negative of something, it actually inserts the wrong thing in people's minds.
- [17:07]
D
Yeah. You're just setting up like zero alcohol or calorie free. You're emphasizing the deprivation that comes with this purchase. You should be emphasizing the indulgence.
- [17:18]
B
Yeah. So instead of my green juice, maybe I'll have a chicharron smoothie in the morning.
- [17:23]
A
Yeah, yeah. Indulgent indeed. Let's talk about preferences, because you mentioned.
- [17:30]
B
Future preferences are different from what we perceive that we want now.
- [17:34]
A
And there's an experiment about this. I love this one because I actually.
- [17:37]
B
Ended up doing this to myself by accident over the last few years. So on airplanes, they'll email you and.
- [17:43]
A
They'Ll go, hey, do you want the grilled chicken with asparagus or do you.
- [17:48]
B
Want the, I don't know, pepperoni abomination that the chef has made that, you know, sounds way better but is definitely 1,000 calories?
- [17:56]
A
I'm like, all right, grilled chicken with asparagus, I guess. And then you're on the plane and.
- [18:02]
B
You'Re like, ooh, that pizza thing smells good. I already picked the chicken.
- [18:05]
A
But I want to hear the science behind this.
- [18:07]
D
You're not the only one that, that does this. This is a widespread finding. So it's a British experiment from a guy called Daniel Reid, 1998 study, when he was at Leeds, and he goes out to an office and he gives people an offer. He says, look, do you want a candy bar or an apple? They're both free. You just get to pick one. And to some people he says, you choose now and I'll come back in a week's time and give you your snack. And when he sets it up like that, the apple and the candy bar are equally preferred. 50, 50 split. Other people, same offer, candy bar or apple. But he says, pick your one snack and you have it now. And when he does that, there is a massive swing towards the candy bar. You've got 81% of people picking candy bar, 19% picking apple. If people pick for their future selves, they pick in the way they think they should behave. If people pick for now, they pick in a way that just satisfies their base desires. So you've got to think as a marketer or as anyone trying to persuade someone else, which of those two reasons is going to work best in my favor. If I'm selling a health food, try and reach people when they're doing their online shop and it'll be delivered in two months time. If you're trying to sell crisps, get it at that immediate point of purchase.
- [19:23]
C
What I would add to this, Jordan, is if you're trying to ask yourself how to live a healthier life, thinking about when you make snap decisions in the moment when you're hungry versus planning your meals, even just for the next day, you are likely to make better choices for yourself. Even if you require yourself to pick the meal, even just the day in advance, because your future self, you're more likely to make a healthier choice. So as Richard says, if you're a candy bar company, we know that we might want to use the opposite of that and get to immediate gratification. But if we're trying to live a healthier life or eat lower calorie food foods, planning that a little further in advance, you're much more likely to make the decision that you want to make when it's not immediate.
- [20:08]
B
Okay. The book also makes an attempt to justify the abomination known as the Starbucks pumpkin spice latte.
- [20:14]
A
I would love to know what's going on here.
- [20:17]
B
I think a lot of people would like to know why these are so popular.
- [20:19]
A
Because for me, they don't do what.
- [20:21]
B
They'Re obviously doing for other people. And this is obviously multi, multi, multi.
- [20:26]
A
Million dollar flavor sub brand for them. Because you can find candy flavored with this. There's the home version, there's the tea version, there's the whatever version, there's the sweetened, unsweetened.
- [20:38]
B
I mean, this is a whole thing.
- [20:40]
A
And yes, it's seasonal.
- [20:42]
B
Okay, fine. But there's obviously, there's gotta be more to it than that.
- [20:45]
D
Yeah.
- [20:45]
C
And the numbers are actually quite staggering. 200 million pumpkin spice lattes were sold in the first 10 years. And it was an immediate hit the first year they did it, but now it's almost like a mini holiday. Jordan, when they launch pumpkin spice latte, they can project the sales in regions and in individual markets within a few percent of what it's going to do. The financial analysts that were just looking through the most recent quarterly earnings report from Starbucks said, this may be a beverage, but it's actually like a financial instrument. When Starbucks puts it out, it will deliver the financial results they want. And so there's absolutely an element of scarcity that it's going to be out of market, then into market. But Richard, we found, talking about the nostalgia, that it wells up in people as something they really hit on in a big way.
- [21:42]
D
Yeah, there's probably two elements to Starbucks. I think the crucial thing is its limited supply. There's a British writer called G.K. chesterton who famously said, the way to make anyone love anything is to make them realize it can be lost. Now, I wouldn't underestimate the power of running the pumpkin spice latte just for a month or two. I cannot believe that if they'd run it all year round, this thing would still be generating billions in revenue. There's definitely experiments that back this up. There's a lovely study from Stephen Wurcher at the University of Virginia and gives people this glass jar of cookies. And some people, he comes into the room with a glass jar and the cookies are spilling out of the top. It's completely full. There's 10 of them. And they rate how much they're prepared to pay for the cookies. He then gets a completely new group of people, goes in with the same batch of cookies, the same glass jar, but there's only two cookies in the bottom. And when that group rate how much they were prepared to pay for the cookies, they come back with, I don't know, I think it's 20 or 30% higher rating. It is a fundamental of human nature that we want what we can't have. So I would say the core reason for pumpkin spice latte success is the fact that they limit supply. And that is something that far more brands could replicate. Most people, they have a successful product, they are just trying to maximize the immediate sales. Yeah, but if you want long term value creation, you want to be taking this product away before people have say.
- [23:16]
B
To themselves, by the way, guys, you said it's available for a couple of months. When do you think, without looking, when do you think they release the pumpkin spice latte?
- [23:23]
A
Which by the way is known as the psl.
- [23:25]
B
In every document I've looked at, looked.
- [23:27]
A
At so far, it's got its own abbreve.
- [23:29]
C
Middle of August.
- [23:30]
A
Yeah. The end of August. Okay, that's pretty good. That thing has been out since the summertime.
- [23:34]
D
Well, you could argue they are falling for the mistake that for 20 years they've been avoiding.
- [23:41]
B
Yeah.
- [23:41]
D
If they get greedy and if they keep on increasing the length it's on sale, there will be problems. They will undermine their cash cow.
- [23:50]
A
This is like how Black Friday now.
- [23:53]
B
Starts on Wednesday but then goes through Cyber Monday and then the following week. And then it's like some businesses are.
- [23:59]
A
Like Black Friday in July. And you're like, so it's just whenever then.
- [24:02]
B
Right. I don't have to actually rush. It's just like a whenever. And you're like, yeah, okay, fine.
- [24:06]
C
Well, I think when consumers start acting that way, brands will stop performing that way. But so long as Black Friday in July yields results, I think you're gonna see brands continue to flock to it. I mean, Amazon prime days are made up holidays.
- [24:21]
A
Yes.
- [24:22]
C
On random days actually, notably on low sales days, they created Amazon prime days. And people will shop if they think there's a scarcity, an opportunity to get a better deal than they otherwise could get.
- [24:35]
A
Yes.
- [24:36]
B
And what you're doing is you're getting Amazon branded batteries at 14% off and everything else is the same price.
- [24:42]
A
But somehow I've got like outdoor furniture.
- [24:44]
B
Now because it was on sale.
- [24:46]
A
The other lever that Starbucks is pulling.
- [24:48]
B
With the PSL is nostalgia.
- [24:51]
A
Tell me about that. Because although it didn't exist when I was a kid, it feels like it.
- [24:56]
B
Existed when I was a kid, even though it.
- [24:58]
A
Of course it didn't.
- [24:58]
B
Starbucks didn't exist when I was a kid.
- [25:01]
A
So I don't know exactly how they're doing this.
- [25:04]
B
Explain.
- [25:05]
D
So nostalgia is something that far more businesses could apply. There's less research on nostalgia than there is around principles like scarcity or the gold dilution effect. But one of the academics that worked in this area is someone called Janine La Salita. So she's at the Grenoble School of management, and in 2004 she gets people and she shows them this booklet with various different products in and for one of the ads, she varies the copy. So sometimes it says to people it's a Kodak ad, you know, remember a special moment in your past. Other people see the same booklet, but it says, you know, think about a special moment that's about to come. And what Lassolita finds is that if you get people to think about the past, you get people to think about special moment long ago. They are far less price sensitive than if they're just thinking about any old special moment. And Lasalita's argument is that there are two broad ways for people to think. They can think about money or they can think about social connection. And she says when you start getting people to think about their past, especially their childhood, it gets them thinking more and more about social connection. And the impact and importance of money doesn't quite disappear, but it's attenuated, decreases and therefore they become less price sensitive. Creating this kind of mix of nostalgic childhood holiday linked food flavors is a very sensible tactic from Starbucks perspective.
- [26:37]
A
It's amazing that expensive things magically seem better even when they're not. Which makes this a perfect time to pay the bills. We'll be right back. This episode is sponsored in part by Simplisafe. True story. Jen's cousin and their family left the house around 7pm for a school event on a normal weeknight. And then they get a phone notification break in at the house. They had sensors, but they had no professional monitoring. So it was basically, hey, something bad is happening. And they're struck trying to react from a parking lot. And in the time it took to call the police and process the alert, the burglars had already smashed in through the backyard glass door, ripped out their safe in the bedroom closet.
- [27:09]
B
Most obvious place to put a safe, by the way.
- [27:11]
A
And we're gone with over 30 grand in under 10 minutes. So don't keep 30 grand in your house, by the way. But that's why I like Simplisafe. It's not just a camera that records the crime for later. It's designed to help stop it while it's happening. Their AI powered outdoor cameras can spot real threats and immediately alert live monitoring agents. And those agents can intervene while the intruder is still outside. Talk to them through the camera, let them know they're being watched and the police are on the way and if needed, hit them with a siren and a spotlight. It's proactive, not passive. And after hearing that story, proactive is a good idea.
- [27:39]
E
And right now you can get 50% off any new system this month only. It's a great time to upgrade to security that actually helps stop crime before it starts. Go to SimpliSafe.com Jordan right now to claim your discount. That's SimpliSafe.com Jordan this episode is also.
- [27:55]
A
Sponsored by Rag and Bone. If you're in the market for really solid denim and jackets too, you should check out Rag and Bone, especially their infused denim. I'm big on comfort these days. These jeans were the rare pair that felt broken in immediately. They've got stretch where you want it, structure where you need it, and they're insanely comfortable without feeling flimsy. You can tell they're high quality the second you put them on. Another thing I like is the fit lineup infuse comes in a bunch of options. Slim, straight, athletic, relaxed. So whatever your style is, they got a cut that works. And they're the kind of jeans you can throw on with basically anything in your closet and still look put together. And the washes are legit. I went with a darker wash. The color has this rich dimensional look to it. Rag and Bone does this proprietary multi step over dye process so they actually.
- [28:34]
B
Get better the more you wear them. I've even gotten compliments like wow, where'd you get those?
- [28:37]
A
Which basically never happens with, well, anything that I wear these days because I'm old. Because normally you're choosing jeans that look great or jeans that last. With Rag and Bone you get both. They've spent 20 years obsessing over denim that improves over time and you can feel that attention to detail right away.
- [28:53]
E
It's time to upgrade your denim with Rag and Bone. For a limited time, our listeners get 20% off their entire order with code jordan@rag-bone.com that's 20% off at rag-bone.com with promo code Jordan. When they ask where you heard about them, please support our show and let them know we sent you.
- [29:09]
A
Don't forget about our newsletter. We bit Wiser. It is a two minute read every Wednesday. It is very practical, applicable. You can use it right away. It's a nugget of wisdom from one of our thousand plus episodes and it's a great companion to the show. Jordanharbinger.com News is where you can find it. Now back to Richard Shotton and Michael Aaron Flicker.
- [29:29]
B
It's tough to do this with every brand. Like, how would I do this? You got to release the podcast on vinyl. You can only share it if you have a dual tape deck so you can give a copy to your friend.
- [29:36]
A
Like, the last time I used something.
- [29:38]
B
Like that was I was copying Michael Jackson's Bad album, I think, which is still fire, even with tape hiss in the background.
- [29:44]
A
But, like, not every brand can do this.
- [29:46]
B
Right.
- [29:46]
D
It's tricky and they don't need to. So if you're a podcaster and you are free to air, well, a bias and experiment about price sensitivity is irrelevant.
- [29:55]
B
Right?
- [29:56]
D
But if you are one of the 90% of FMCG or CPG products that has to sell well, then you do want to be interested in price sensitivity. And it doesn't have to be as direct as in the Lasulita study. In the book we talk about Oreos, you know, they do a promotion where they tied up with Pac Man. Now that's a brilliant approach. That's cool, because Pac man is probably a hell of a lot cheaper than buying a modern computer game. And it gets people to think about their childhood.
- [30:23]
A
Imagine how much it costs to license.
- [30:25]
B
Pac man from Atari.
- [30:26]
A
They're like, somebody wants to license Pac Man. And they're like, yeah, it was that or Sonic the Hedgehog. And it's like, one was a million dollars and the other was like, go ahead, whatever, bro. You know, we just. We're just stoked you want to use it.
- [30:38]
D
Just send us a photo of you doing it.
- [30:39]
A
Hey, yeah, give us some free Oreos.
- [30:41]
B
Was probably the cost of licensing PAC man 45 years or whatever after the inception of the brand.
- [30:47]
A
Yeah, Disney's really good at this kind of stuff too. Not just with the nostalgia.
- [30:52]
B
I mean, they're the masters of this.
- [30:54]
A
But they used to do this thing.
- [30:55]
B
Where I grew up adjacent to a bunch of rich kids who would get everything, you know, that they wanted, kind of.
- [31:01]
A
And I remember when videos would come out of new movies.
- [31:05]
B
Like the Lion King was first available on vhs. You couldn't rent it because it was. Even though Blockbuster had like a hundred copies, they were all gone for the first, like six months that they were there. Unless you got super lucky or your friend worked there.
- [31:18]
A
But people could buy them. But if you wanted to buy that VHS tape, It was like $100 in 90s money.
- [31:25]
B
Okay? So I don't know what that is now. $200 $300. Like, it's insane.
- [31:30]
A
And my friends moms would go and buy these things. And I'm like, how are you getting this? Where are you getting it?
- [31:34]
B
And it's like, oh, if you're willing.
- [31:35]
A
To pay out the nose, you can have it. But then what was really interesting was I was like, oh, do you have this?
- [31:40]
B
And they're like, no, you can't buy that.
- [31:42]
A
And I'm like, what do you mean.
- [31:43]
B
You can't buy that? It came out five years ago. And they're like, yeah, if you want, I don't know, Fantasia or something, the.
- [31:48]
A
Little Mermaid, you have to wait like 10 months or possibly even two, three years for them to make another batch of these VHS tapes. Or you're buying it on.
- [31:59]
B
I don't even know where you would buy a used video back in the day, like some thrift store.
- [32:03]
A
You'd get a lucky find because it wasn't available. They stopped making. It was like taking a book out.
- [32:08]
B
Of print and then being like, you.
- [32:09]
A
Can'T have it, but it'll be back in three years.
- [32:11]
C
And to increase the sexiness of this, Jordan, they called it the Disney Vault. So not to make you feel that they were stealing from you, they manufactured, fractured their own scarcity.
- [32:22]
A
I see.
- [32:23]
C
They created the Disney Vault. The video was out of the vault, and then it had to go back in. The point of your story, which I think all listeners can understand, is that sometimes scarcity is truly real. Oh, and sometimes that's the point. Sometimes it's to the brand's benefit to limit the availability, to drive up cost or to drive up interest. And supreme as a clothing brand was based on the only the concept that they were going to have limited quantities. Disney, your example, they're limited, limiting the time that you can buy those videos.
- [32:54]
A
I assume this doesn't really work in.
- [32:56]
B
The age of the Internet with Disney's Vault, because it's like, oh, it's in the vault. Fine, I'm gonna go steal it.
- [33:01]
A
You know, maybe they limit it from streaming services too.
- [33:04]
B
I assume Disney has the power to do that, but you can't take it.
- [33:07]
A
Off the Pirate Bay.
- [33:08]
B
But then again, 0.1% of Internet users probably know how to do that stuff, right?
- [33:12]
A
So maybe it still works.
- [33:13]
B
I don't know.
- [33:13]
C
You know, in America, K Pop Demon Hunters was the hottest summertime blockbuster. It was made by Netflix. Yes, but Netflix did not anticipate its success and did not have the Halloween costumes that they normally would have. And that was true scarcity. They did not think it was going to be such a blockbuster. They did not make them. I don't know if this is factually true, but walking down the streets in New Jersey, the number one homemade costume was K Pop Demon Hunters. You know, there is something to that ability to manufacture it, and sometimes it does occur in the world.
- [33:49]
A
Don't worry, every Chinese manufacturer was on it. They were like, hey, K Pop Demon Hunter. All right, we need like white hair.
- [33:56]
B
And some glitter and then we need.
- [33:57]
A
Like a blue hair one and then booty shorts and then put them all in a plastic bag and then call it K Pop Demon Hunter, sir. Isn't that illegal?
- [34:05]
B
Do we care? Not really.
- [34:06]
A
Boom.
- [34:07]
B
Amazon.
- [34:07]
A
And then that thing you could see, you know, when it's like purchased 89,000 times this week.
- [34:12]
B
And I'm like, it's Monday night.
- [34:14]
D
What?
- [34:15]
C
Yeah, it's incredible.
- [34:16]
A
There is just the entire Chinese inventory.
- [34:19]
B
Of wigs and like pink booty shorts and whatever else was.
- [34:23]
A
They were running the presses overnight for.
- [34:25]
B
Those things is unbelievable. The demand for that.
- [34:27]
A
You frequently mentioned the attention to action.
- [34:31]
B
Gaps such as, like, wanting to work out, but you don't. Your motivation isn't sufficient.
- [34:35]
A
How do brands work around this?
- [34:36]
D
Yeah, so it's a very common problem. The people intend to change their behavior like they intend to eat healthier or exercise more, but they never quite get round to doing it. And the argument from psychologists is motivation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for behavior change. What you also need to do is associate whatever behavior you're trying to encourage people to do with a very clear time, place or mood. So essentially, you want to create a cue or a trigger moment. So thinking in the kind of personal example that you mentioned, let's say you want someone to take vitamin D every day. You wouldn't say, just take vitamin D once a day. You'd say, once you've had your first coffee, take vitamin D. There might be no pharmacological reason for taking it after coffee, but by attaching that behavior to a very clear trigger moment, it is much more likely to occur because you're.
- [35:31]
B
Not going to forget the coffee, but you're probably going to forget the vitamin.
- [35:34]
D
D. It's exactly that. The coffee drinking happens, and that moment acts as a catalyst that converts the vague intention to take vitamin D into actual behavior change. So, yeah, you need to create this cure trigger.
- [35:46]
B
When we were kids, there was a give me a break, break me off a piece of your Kit Kat or something like that. Break me off a piece of the Kit Kat bar.
- [35:52]
A
And that was like, oh, you're done with dealing with a holes at your retail job, sit down and snap open.
- [35:58]
B
This thing and then share it with your friend. It's pretty brilliant campaign, I assume worked well for them.
- [36:03]
D
Interestingly, and I didn't realize this till Michael and I and I were chatting during the book. That American campaign is completely different from Britain. In Britain, the line for about 70 years is have a break, have a KitKat. And they've run that line consistently.
- [36:17]
B
That's even more directly associated with the break.
- [36:20]
D
Exactly. So I prefer that simplicity and directness of the British one. It's not that they're talking about how beautiful the KitKat tastes, but there is this very clear association. You have a tea break, you have a coffee break, you're there with your KitKat.
- [36:32]
B
There's no sharing involved in the British one. I'll point out it's selfish.
- [36:36]
A
Have a break, have a Kit Kat. And if your friend wants some, well, too bad, he should go get his own. Selfish Brits. What else is new? What, what about Diet Coke?
- [36:45]
B
You mentioned Diet Coke in the book.
- [36:47]
A
That I just remember all of the.
- [36:49]
B
Women leaning out the window looking at some guy digging a hole or whatever and slamming a Diet Coke in the parking lot.
- [36:55]
A
Is that. I probably shouldn't have admitted that. But that's the one. That's the one I remember.
- [37:00]
C
Your memory is spot on. Decades later. And what they were trying to show everyone was when it was time to take a break from work, it was time to have a Diet Coke break. Crack open a can of Diet Coke, treat your to something indulgent, but not necessarily unhealthy. Cause it was Diet Coke. That was the pitch 30 years ago. But what's fascinating is you remember those women leaning out the window looking at the workmen. I don't know that that would fly in today's advertising culture.
- [37:27]
B
Maybe not now.
- [37:28]
A
It was probably where the phrase thirsty comes from, actually. And then they had Cindy Crawford, I think later. Cause guys started drinking Diet Coke, which I don't think Coca Cola really expected.
- [37:38]
B
I think that might have been an afterthought that guys actually were gonna start to drink Diet Coke as well. And yeah, Cindy Crawford made sure that we were.
- [37:46]
A
Snickers also does this really well. This whole like, hey, are you hungry? Don't, don't bother with food or anything. Just have a Snickers bar.
- [37:54]
D
It's exactly the same principle.
- [37:56]
C
Yeah. And what they do really creatively is the other two. We talked about KitKat on a break. Diet Coke at a timed break. We're very Literal Snickers is a little bit more creative. And they say not just when you're hungry, but you're not you when you're hangry.
- [38:11]
B
Oh, yeah.
- [38:12]
C
So if you're beyond just being hungry, you actually are not the you you want to be. When you're so hungry, you're angry. And they make this campaign, you're not you. They've got amazing creative. You know, they have Betty White turning into a football player when she's hungry. You know, I mean, really great creative. But they're interestingly using this anger from being hungry as the trigger moment. And that can be pretty compelling because it's a feeling you have inside you. So the next time you're so hungry you're starting to get angry, that's when you should pull a Snickers bar. So they're using a trigger in a similar way, but slightly different.
- [38:51]
A
Are they doing anything other than being funny and memorable?
- [38:53]
B
Is there anything else going on?
- [38:55]
A
Or.
- [38:55]
B
You mean also the break association? But it's instead of a time, it's a feeling that's actually.
- [39:00]
A
You're right.
- [39:01]
D
That's it. Wow.
- [39:01]
A
Speaking of humor, though, it cuts through the noise. What else does it do? You mention in the book it actually.
- [39:07]
B
Can reduce price sensitivity, which I'd never heard of.
- [39:09]
D
It's a fascinating one in the. You would think all advertisers knew this, but actually, across the world, there has been a reduction in the proportion of ads that try and amuse. So you go back to the 1990s, and about 60% of them tried to amuse. 20, 23, it's about 35%.
- [39:27]
A
Yeah.
- [39:28]
B
Ads were really funny in the 90s.
- [39:30]
D
They used to be a lot funnier. Yeah, and it's a massive mistake. People notice ads. If you put them in a good mood, they're more likely to believe what you tell them. And then. Yeah. Work that I've done with Ben Davies suggests that it also reduces price sensitivity. So we got 821 people. We showed them a series of promotional ads. So maybe like a bottle of Bailey's for $10 or some pizzas and Budweisers for $15. And every ad, people had to rate whether they thought it was good value or bad value. We averaged those scores, and then we asked what mood people were in. And what we found is if people were in a good mood, 76% of them thought the products were good value. If they're in a bad mood, it was 60%. So exactly the same product is rated 26% better value. If people are In a good mood. And I think what's happening here is what people should do is just judge an offer on its inherent qualities, the price and the benefits. But what they actually do is they confuse their initial feelings, their internal feelings with what's in front of them. And some of that positivity they're feeling generally imbues the product in front of them. So putting people in a good mood is a great commercial tactic.
- [40:45]
B
This works on me so well. If I'm at the airport and I have to overpay for a salad, I'm like, yeah, well, I'm at the airport. That's how it is.
- [40:54]
A
If I'm at Disneyland and I have.
- [40:55]
B
To overpay for a salad, I'm like, what? It's a Disney salad. Look, it's got a Mickey shaped crouton in here. That's fun.
- [41:00]
A
And it's like, because I'm in a good mood. But also there's more to it.
- [41:05]
B
Right. Disney's wowing you with at every step. Right. So you feel like, okay, price of it in being in this magical place is everything is five times more expensive. The airport doesn't quite have that same sheen.
- [41:15]
A
But yeah, when you're in a. When I'm in a good mood, I mean, I literally, I don't want to.
- [41:20]
B
Be in a good mood if I'm shopping for something expensive because I will often just be like, you know what?
- [41:25]
A
I like these guys, they have a.
- [41:26]
B
Cool logo and I'm like, what am I doing? No.
- [41:28]
A
Yeah, I need to be in a either mediocre mood or even a bad.
- [41:32]
B
Mood when I'm shopping for something expensive. And then I'll have, I'll pull the trigger later when I don't. It doesn't feel so painful.
- [41:37]
C
Yeah. We talked earlier about how nostalgia decrease your price sensitivity. Now we're talking about humor decreasing your price sensitivity.
- [41:46]
B
Yeah.
- [41:46]
C
The point is, your emotions have an oversized impact on the decision you're going to make to buy in that moment. And most people do not give that the credit they think they should. You know, most people would say, I'm making a rational choice in this moment when really what came right before it will have a big impact.
- [42:07]
D
It's essentially this idea that what comes first is the intuitive reaction. You know, I feel warm or cold towards a salesperson. That happens. And then once I've made that decision, then I use all the powers of logic at my disposal to justify that decision to myself. It's the emotional, quick, intuitive reaction that comes first. Then logic goes afterwards. So what businesses want to be doing is trying to create that snap, quick, intuitive positivity. And a lot of these behavioral science experiments that we discuss in the book, they're all about creating that immediate emotional reaction.
- [42:42]
A
Apple does this.
- [42:43]
B
Well, not this particular thing, but a lot of these particular points. It does it well.
- [42:47]
A
Remember the Mac guy? His name is Justin.
- [42:50]
B
I forget his name. He's an actor, quite popular now. And then they had the PC guy.
- [42:54]
A
And it was like a dork versus like a cool kid who's just relaxed and gets it.
- [42:57]
B
And the other guy had a suit on. It was kind of like a dweeb. And they come out with the ipod, which was not the first MP3 player.
- [43:04]
A
By any stretch, But I remember before it was like the Diamond Reed 128 megabytes. And you're like, okay, what does that mean again? I don't really know what that means.
- [43:13]
B
I gotta do some math. I gotta read some online reviews.
- [43:16]
A
And then Steve jobs is like 1000.
- [43:19]
B
Songs in your pocket, and you're like, I need that. I have to get that right now because I want all of the songs. I want to imagine a thousand songs in my pocket and look cool doing it.
- [43:28]
A
And they're just really good at making.
- [43:30]
B
Things concrete and understandable and also cool at the same time. I mean, Apple, of course, they.
- [43:37]
A
You pay for that, and then they.
- [43:38]
B
Pay for that to whoever they're hiring for this creative stuff. But it works really well.
- [43:41]
A
Yeah.
- [43:41]
C
You know, at a very 30,000 foot level. You can imagine that if someone can get you to imagine it in your brain, you can imagine what a thousand songs in your pocket may be like. That's a lot more visual than saying having you trying to understand what 512 kilobytes really means.
- [44:01]
A
Sure.
- [44:02]
C
And the study that proves this is really quite interesting. It's Ian Begg at the University of Western Ontario, and he gives study participants A list of 22 word phrases. Things like impossible amount, rusty engine, white horse, subtle fault. And the game is, how many of the 22 word phrases can you remember by the time he finishes reading them? And everybody writes down what they can remember, and the average that they can remember is 23%. Pretty good. But what's really the striking observation is that they remember just 9% of the abstract words, things like impossible amount or subtle fault, but they remember 36% of the concrete terms, things like white horse or rusty engine. So they're four times more effective at remembering those things that they can draw and imagine in their minds. And we see lots of Brands do this. Eminem says it melts in your mouth, not in your hand. Maxwell House coffee says good to the last drop. These are lines that help you remember the thing they want to insert in your brain. And that's what Steve Jobs did so well in that moment. He helped you remember the ipod much more meaningfully, much more concretely than the competitors.
- [45:17]
A
Yeah.
- [45:17]
B
Red Bull gives you wings is another one that you guys mentioned in the book.
- [45:21]
A
What Apple also does is they have.
- [45:22]
B
This and you touch on this as well. Optimal newness. Right. It's something that is exciting but not terrifying.
- [45:28]
A
I thought this was quite interesting because.
- [45:29]
B
On the iPhone, for example, the icon.
- [45:32]
A
Is the old phone.
- [45:33]
B
And like, the touchscreen exists, but it also was made to look like buttons.
- [45:37]
A
And the buttons that you would normally.
- [45:39]
B
Dial are still there.
- [45:40]
A
The keyboard is still there. And I remember when the keyboard popped up, I was like, okay, this is cool, but you mean to tell me that they redesigned the whole phone and they couldn't figure out an easier way to create input?
- [45:50]
B
And very likely they do and did have that. And they were like, wait, we're giving people a touchscreen email mp3 mobile device?
- [45:59]
A
Like, we need to ramp down the.
- [46:01]
B
Amount of new stuff we're giving people before it turns into Star Trek and they don't want it.
- [46:05]
D
Yeah. There's an amazing book by Derek Thompson called the Hitmakers, and in it he has this wonderful phrase which if you wanted to sell something surprising, make it familiar. And if you want to sell something familiar, make it surprising. Now, to your point. When iPhone launched, it was a massive change. This was a really novel technology to most people. So what they tried to do was give it this aura of familiarity by using very real world, everyday symbols. So the delete function was an actual trash can. The notes pages was a legal yellow lined pad.
- [46:41]
B
It still kind of is.
- [46:42]
D
Well now, although it's much less realistic than it once was. It was 3D, you're right.
- [46:47]
A
It used to have the blue lines.
- [46:48]
D
Which looked like handwriting.
- [46:49]
A
That's right.
- [46:49]
B
I forgot about that.
- [46:50]
D
When you deleted a page, it looked like there was a. A tear at the top. You know, looked like a bit of paper that had been pulled off. So that was really useful when it was a shockingly new technology. But what Jony I've and Steve Jobs did, as that iPhone got more familiar, they started making those icons that we still have on our phone now far less realistic. They became much more abstract. So it's not just that Apple applied this principle of optimal newness very well. It's that they kept on applying it in the right way throughout their product life cycle.
- [47:22]
A
What is that called when you make.
- [47:23]
B
Something that's digital look. Analog.
- [47:25]
D
Yes. Skeuomorphism. Yeah.
- [47:27]
B
I knew that there had to be a term for that because it's so widely used in design. You mentioned in the book that Edison invented the light bulb and they made them with wind shades, which they obviously did not need to emulate gas lamps, which were everywhere because they wanted to make this thing look familiar enough where people weren't like. Like, I don't want this UFO on the road.
- [47:46]
A
Right.
- [47:46]
B
I want something that looks normal.
- [47:48]
C
Yeah. I mean, the concern was, when you get people to bring electricity into their house and they're replacing these gas lamps, why did they need those wind shades which became lampshades of the future? And it was to make people more comfortable with them. So it's not just digital tech. Moving from Blackberries with buttons to iPhones with screens. Even 150 years ago, moving from gas lamps to electricity, we are always asking, how can we get a most advanced version, but yet it's still acceptable to everybody that they're gonna want it in their house. And that's a balancing act. I'd say that's probably more art than science. You have to feel that you could get that amount bought by the consumers. And Edison does it with the lamp, and so does Steve Jobs and Jony Ives.
- [48:34]
A
One thing I'm shocked still works is the whole 5.99, not $6. I just refuse to believe most people.
- [48:40]
B
Would care if something is $0.01 more or a dollar more. And like you said, it's an.
- [48:45]
A
But it's funny because I've seen things. Where was I? Costco, I think. And something was literally 17,984.
- [48:52]
B
99. As if it would matter at that price.
- [48:55]
A
But apparently it does.
- [48:56]
D
Yeah. Of all the studies, this is one that's probably been around the longest. And you are right to degree. If I was to show you two products, one for $10, and then the same thing for 9.99, and I ask you directly, you know, which of these prices would you prefer which would really change your behavior? You'd probably say, oh, you know, they're almost the same. It wouldn't affect me. But that's not how we experience prices in a shop. We just see one of those prices. And because people are cognitive misers, because they are trying to make quick decisions, what happens is when they see $10, they just remember that price is 10 something. When they see $9.99. They think of it as 9 something. So rather than demand going up by a tiny, what would it be? 0.1%, it actually goes up by something like 10 or 15%. It's far more of this kind of stepped effect on demand than pure logic would suggest. So it's often known as the left hand digit bias.
- [49:56]
A
You know that thing where you intend to keep listening and then you get distracted?
- [49:59]
B
Yeah.
- [50:00]
A
Let's exploit that for a minute. We'll be right back. This episode is sponsored in part by Progressive. You chose to hit play on this podcast today. Smart Choice. Progressive loves to help people make smart choices. That's why they offer a tool called Auto Quote Explorer that allows you to compare your Progressive car insurance with rates from other companies. So you save time on the research and you can enjoy savings when you choose the best rate for you. Give it a try after this episode@progressive.com Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates not available in all states or situations. Prices vary based on how you buy. I've got homes.com as a sponsor for this episode. Homes.com knows when it comes to home.
- [50:38]
B
Shopping, it's never just about the house or the condo.
- [50:40]
A
It's about the homes. And what makes a home is more than just the house or property. It's the location.
- [50:45]
B
It's the neighborhood.
- [50:46]
A
If you got kids, it's also schools, nearby, parks, transportation options. That's why homes.com goes above and beyond to bring home shoppers the in depth.
- [50:54]
B
Information they need to find the right home. It's so hard not to say home every single time.
- [50:59]
A
And when I say in depth information, I'm talking deep.
- [51:02]
B
Each listing features comprehensive information about the.
- [51:05]
A
Neighborhood, complete with a video guide. They also have details about local schools.
- [51:08]
B
With test scores, state rankings, student teacher ratio. They even have an agent directory with the sales history of each agent.
- [51:14]
A
So when it comes to finding a home, not just a house, this is everything you need to know all in1place.homes.com We've done your homework. If you like this episode of the show, I invite you to do what other smart and considerate listeners do, which is take a moment and support the amazing sponsors who make this show possible. All of the deals and discounts are searchable and clickable on the website@jordanharbinger.com deals if you can't remember the name of a sponsor, you can't find the code, email me jordanordanharbinger.com Happy to surface codes for you. It is that important that you support those who support the show. Now for the Rest of my conversation with Richard Shotton and Michael Aaron Flicker.
- [51:51]
B
Yeah, a lot of these little subtle things tend to make a big difference. One example I thought was really fascinating from the book was when you're shopping online, if something says unavailable versus out.
- [52:02]
A
Of stock, because if it says it's unavailable, it's like, oh, we don't have.
- [52:07]
B
Our shit together with our logistics, and we couldn't keep enough of these. And you're like, ah, that's annoying of this company not to have this.
- [52:13]
A
But if it says out of stock, it's like, sorry, this is just really popular.
- [52:16]
B
And then you're like, well, then in.
- [52:17]
A
That case, I want you to notify.
- [52:19]
B
Me when this is available again so I can come back really quickly and buy it before it's out of stock again.
- [52:24]
A
But, yeah, like, I was trying to.
- [52:25]
B
Buy a dry bag from a company and it was like, out of stock.
- [52:28]
A
And I emailed them. I was like, when is this back in? And I looked. It's so funny because it was. This is last week.
- [52:33]
B
I had another dry bag from another place and it was unavailable. And I was like, idiots.
- [52:37]
A
You know, like, it was like, come.
- [52:39]
B
On, man, these can't be that popular. It's a dry bag.
- [52:42]
A
And the other one, I was like, well, if this is so popular, I.
- [52:44]
B
Obviously want this one. So I emailed the company and they're like, actually, they're gonna be back in stock tomorrow. Here's the link. You can buy it right now.
- [52:50]
A
So I did, and it was just.
- [52:52]
B
The language that made the difference.
- [52:53]
C
And I think that's the underscore of what we wanted to communicate to people. Even a single word choice can imply it was the brand's fault, or it's so popular that you should want it too. It taps into one of the most powerful biases in behavioral science called social proof. The idea that lots of other people are doing it. And so you would be, you know, you should follow that to. One word can make a big difference. And so, Jordan, your example really shows that every word that you choose as a brand makes a big difference, even.
- [53:25]
A
If the words are not real at all.
- [53:27]
B
Tell me about Haagen Dazs, which I thought the whole time was a European, I don't know, Hungarian ice cream or something.
- [53:32]
A
And it turns out it's from the Bronx.
- [53:34]
C
I feel tricked they had wanted you to feel that way.
- [53:37]
B
Okay.
- [53:37]
C
They really want it to launch the brand as if it was a Danish brand. They have a map of Denmark on the original packaging. The fact that there is no, umlauts, over A's in Danish didn't even matter. It was foreign to the American audience, and that was enough to increase its perceived value. I think that fact that they wanted to create something that felt more foreign and more premium, they were able to do through language and through packaging.
- [54:09]
B
There's a lot of brands that still do this.
- [54:10]
A
It's not because it seems very 80s.
- [54:12]
B
To be like, ooh, this is French, so it's fancy, like Evian.
- [54:15]
A
Right. But I mean, Atari, that's clearly a Japanese name.
- [54:19]
B
It's a California company from right here.
- [54:20]
D
But the argument, I think, with the Haagen Dazs is what we expect affects our actual experience for products. You know, we talked about it right at the beginning with the healthy food label. You have an assumption that something is healthy. You assume it's going to be worse tasting, and that expectation affects your actual experience. And it's just the same by wrapping your product in this sophisticated Danish imagery, it sets up expectations about quality and sophistication. It will change how they actually experience that product. Now, I think when this was done back in the 1950s by a tiny little company, it probably was, you know, acceptable. I don't think we'd recommend any massive brand did this today because it's at heart, deceitful. But the underlying point that the expectations you set up will affect the experience of the products, that's something that I think lots of people can learn from.
- [55:16]
A
I hear you on the brands, but doesn't Starbucks make me say grande instead.
- [55:19]
B
Of large or medium or whatever? So I don't know. They're getting away with it kind of. I still say medium, and they know what I mean. They don't give me any guff anymore.
- [55:26]
C
They're threading the needle there. They're implying Italian heritage, they're implying the greatness of where great coffee comes from without telling you they're an Italian coffee brand. So it's an interesting example you raised because they're really right on the line by using Italian words but not saying they're Italian. They didn't put a map of Italy on the cup.
- [55:48]
D
So I think Michael Aaron's right. Starbucks, I think, are in the kind of right side of that ethical gray zone. The original Haagen Dazs, Bit more dubious.
- [55:56]
B
Yeah, interesting. They do this with products, though, not even just brands.
- [55:59]
A
Isn't Chilean sea bass called toothfish, which.
- [56:03]
B
Is gross and not something I want to eat?
- [56:05]
A
Chilean sea bass, though? Yes. I'll pay $40 for a small pie. Why not?
- [56:09]
C
I'm calling In Today from Argentina last night on the dinner menu was Patagonian toothfish. Patagonian toothfish was not the appealing choice on the whole menu. But we were in Patagonia, right? The story comes from the late 1970s. An American fish importer's named Lee Lance and he has discovered Patagonian tooth fish and he wants to bring it into the US restaurant scene, but nobody is ordering it. And he believes the taste profile's right. It's a white fish, it's flaky, but yet firm. It's got all the right things to make it a winner. And he comes up with the same type of insight that we've talked about before. In the episode, he says, I wonder if the name is really hurting the overall sales. And so he invents a new name, Chilean sea bass. And like that, they lead in the 1990s to a 30 fold increase in consumption of Chilean sea bass alone.
- [57:07]
D
Wow.
- [57:08]
C
It's really incredible that one word can really make that difference. And in the book we talk about all these other fishy tales. Jordan Dolphin fish was historically called dolphin fish. Reminds American buyers of Flipper. They rebranded it Mahi Mahi and it does great. So there's a bunch of examples like that.
- [57:28]
B
That's interesting.
- [57:29]
A
Are there limits to that? Has this ever blown up in a.
- [57:32]
B
Brand'S face where they're, let's name it this and then it's not that, and people get upset?
- [57:37]
D
I mean, I think generally with a brand there are the occasional dubious ones like Haagen Dazs, but most of the time there is no absolute term that you need to have for a brand. So you've got amazing scope to pick things with positive connotations and still stay reasonably honest.
- [57:54]
C
In American politics, there was a big debate over an inheritance tax. And, you know, one party, the left, had established it as an estate tax. And when it's called the estate tax, 68% of people oppose it. When the Republicans rebranded the death tax, 10% increase, 78% of people oppose it. So it may not be a brand that's naming it, but just the thing that it gets named and it gets hooked as it gets remembered as can have a big difference and big impact on how people feel about it.
- [58:30]
B
That kind of branding or unbranding works really well. You hear about that a lot. Death panels, not insurance or whatever it was. It was like death panel, they're going to decide if you die. And it's like, that's what insurance companies do now, by the way.
- [58:43]
A
Yeah, it's always so Fascinating. I want to move on to some specific brands.
- [58:47]
B
I know we have very little time left, but I want to keep going here.
- [58:49]
A
Red Bull, the world leader in energy.
- [58:51]
B
Drinks, they have this very specific can size that used to not be used for anything else. Now other energy drinks I see use it, even coffee uses it.
- [58:59]
A
Coincidentally, the best can for dick pic comparison, or so I've been told. But. But yeah, this whole idea, we already.
- [59:08]
B
Talked about them before, they give you wings.
- [59:10]
D
So the big thing with Red Bull is they're applying this principle of price relativity. When we are trying to work out what a fair price to pay for a product is, we don't think about the benefits we'll get and then think about what's a fair price to pay per single benefit. What we do instead is construct this mental comparison set and we think, well, if this new product is more than something similar, it's bad value. If it's less than something similar, it's good value. This idea that pricing is relative rather than absolute was harnessed brilliantly by Red bull because what 99.9% of marketers would have done is launch Red Bull in a can that is the same size as Coca Cola or Fanta or any other drink.
- [59:55]
B
Yes.
- [59:55]
D
And if they'd done that, that would have been the comparison set and people would have been unhappy paying much of a premium. But what Red Bull did, and Rory Sutherland talks about this brilliantly, is they shrunk the can, they put it in a much taller, thinner can, and because it just looks completely different from other SOPs drinks, it made Red Bull into this completely new category. And there was no comparison with soft drinks any longer. The value people were prepared to pay became much more free floating. So change the comparison set and you change the willingness to pay.
- [60:29]
A
Also, I think people almost like things.
- [60:31]
B
That are more expensive because you expect it to be better. Is there any truth to that?
- [60:35]
D
Absolutely. So there's a Stanford psychology called Baba Shiv and he's shown the we assume high priced items are high quality. It's a very simple study. Get some Americans serves them five different bottles of wine, and I'm stressing the word bottles, but the twist in the experiment is there's only four different liquids. So people begin the experiment and they have a little sip from the first bottle that is prominently labeled $5 and they say it's quite a nice Merlot. Couple of minutes later they are having a sample from a supposed $45 bottle. But what they're actually doing is drinking exactly the same liquid. And when they Drink it, thinking it's super expensive. They rate it at 70, 70% better than when they think it comes out of a $5 bottle. So people assume that high price equals high quality. And as we've discussed again and again and again, those expectations affect the actual experience.
- [61:31]
B
That's interesting. Yeah. The wine thing is always. They've done so many of those where.
- [61:35]
A
It'S like, oh, these seven wine experts.
- [61:37]
B
All think this is amazing. And then they're like, you know, two buck Chuck from Trader Joe'. Basically, the whole thing is kind of a farce. But price can signal or will signal quality. Although, again, I find it's often an illusion. Not just with wine. I don't know anything about wine. But you ever buy anything off Instagram, like clothing or products, and you're like.
- [61:56]
A
Wait, this is marketed so well. And then you're like, but this is expensive. It's a hundred dollar, like, Special forces Sweater or whatever, $200. And then you realize, I talked to.
- [62:07]
B
My buddy who's a clothing manufacturer.
- [62:09]
A
He goes, yeah, what they're doing is.
- [62:10]
B
They'Re spending $150,000 on ads.
- [62:13]
A
So this sweater, you could probably get.
- [62:15]
B
Off Temu or something for, like, $28. It's not that special, really.
- [62:19]
A
The wool involved, like, it's like, slightly.
- [62:21]
B
Above an Amazon, you know, generic brand. But it's not a $200 sweater. It's just that they spent so much money to sell you that that they have to make it back. And so you're not actually getting the quality. You're getting the Instagram markup.
- [62:35]
A
And I've fallen for this so many times, right, because they're. They're just bombarding me with this stuff. But the illusion is that they've invested.
- [62:43]
B
In the quality, right? It's been trained by the special air service. You know, they've run it through the ringer, and it's like, nah, it's just a special air service guy in the photo. That's really all it is.
- [62:52]
C
And it's interesting because brands have been doing this for decades, maybe many decades. You know, when you see a sports team sponsored by a brand, all of a sudden you think, this brand of socks, it must be of higher quality. We started with Red Bull. When Red Bull has Felix Baumgartner jump off a helium balloon 24 miles in the stratosphere and free fall back to earth.
- [63:15]
A
How much Red Bull did this man drink? That's amazing.
- [63:17]
C
And how much money does Red Bull must make in order to support stunts like this?
- [63:21]
B
Right?
- [63:22]
C
And so it builds this aura of just how successful the brand is. Even if, as you say, they spent the vast majority of their money to make that happen.
- [63:31]
A
Yeah.
- [63:31]
B
Guinness does something that's almost like the inverse of this.
- [63:35]
A
This is a great example.
- [63:36]
B
It's been around for a long time. And I see a lot of brands doing this well, and I think it's kind of genius.
- [63:41]
C
Yeah. So Guinness, the lived experience. If anybody has ordered a Guinness at the bar, you were at the table, you're with a bunch of friends. Everybody orders and all the drinks come except for yours. Right. The Guinness, because it's still at the tap and it's still. We're waiting for the head to go down so they can give you the final top up, up before it comes to you. And the insight that Guinness geniusly decided to exploit in the late 1990s was actually, this isn't a bad thing. Good things come to those who wait. They wanted to recognize this small little problem of the brand, that it took longer to get served and show the mirror benefit, which is that it's actually a higher quality product. And so they build a big ad campaign around that. But there's so much history behind this behavioral science bias called the pratfall effect. The pratfall effect is the insight that when you show a little blunder, when you show a little imperfection, you become much more endeared to the audience that you are talking to. And we see lots of brands do this. Avis, famously, in the 1950s, maybe early 60s, when you're only number two, you have to try harder. Or classic VW B ads. America's Slowest fastback, Ugly's only Skin Deep. There's these examples of when you talk about your blemish, when you talk about your little bit of something that's wrong, you become more endeared to the audience.
- [65:11]
B
This, you said the pratfall effect. I like this.
- [65:14]
A
There's a movie with Dustin Hoffman. I don't even think he's the star, but he's a lawyer. And he gets mustard on his tie.
- [65:21]
B
While he's eating during a break. And his son or one of the other characters is like, you have mustard.
- [65:25]
A
You know what I'm talking about. These guys, you got mustard on your tie.
- [65:27]
B
And he's like, like, yeah, I know.
- [65:28]
A
And he leaves it there because he's doing some sort of defense thing.
- [65:32]
B
And he's like, the jury is just.
- [65:33]
A
Going to relate to me so much.
- [65:35]
B
Better if I'm not this slick lawyer.
- [65:36]
A
But I'm some average Joe Schmo defending.
- [65:40]
B
Another Joe Schmo here with mustard on my tie in court.
- [65:43]
C
I think it is Runaway Jury. Runaway Jury.
- [65:46]
A
Is that what it was? I knew it was. It was one of those John Grisham.
- [65:49]
B
Made into a movie kind of things. Yeah. Yes, exactly.
- [65:52]
D
There is something in that. But if you think about the brand examples, they go a step further. It's one thing to just admit any old flaw, but what you really want to do is think, what is my core strength? And then identify a flaw that emphasizes that strength. So Guinness, they say, good things come to those who wait. They admit the flaw of slowness. And that's a brilliant flaw to admit because people assume, well, if it takes a long time, it's going to be high quality. So I would say if you're an entrepreneur or a small business person, don't just admit a flaw randomly. Think about what's your core strength? And then is there a mirror weakness? So you might want to say that your core strength is high quality. Well, then you should go out and probably draw attention to your high price. Or you might say that your core strength is that you've got a really powerful mouthwash. Well, then go out and say it tastes awful because people assume if it tastes foul, it's probably pretty potent. There's a real skill in picking the right floor.
- [66:53]
B
This kind of reminds me of how Eminem and 8 Mile goes up and he does the rap where he's like, yeah, you banged my mom last night and I can't get it up. And I've, you know, I never get any girls. And the other guy's like, what am.
- [67:03]
A
I gonna say now?
- [67:04]
B
Right?
- [67:05]
A
Like when you're, if you're a defense.
- [67:07]
B
Attorney, you might go up and say.
- [67:09]
A
The prosecution is gonna tell you that this man has no alibi. The prosecution is gonna tell you that he's an able bodied guy with a violent criminal history.
- [67:15]
B
And like, like, then the prosecutor goes.
- [67:17]
A
Up and goes, yeah, so like what he said.
- [67:20]
B
But it's bad, right? It's bad. It's not something that you can recover from. He's guilty.
- [67:25]
A
So it's kind of. It reminds me a little bit of that.
- [67:29]
B
Turning the weaknesses into a strength as much as you can.
- [67:31]
A
But I wonder, you kind of mentioned this before.
- [67:33]
B
It has to be related, right? It can't just be a random flaw.
- [67:35]
A
Like, this restaurant is really cozy. You can't have a lot of people in it. It has to be something like that. Not like, oh, this restaurant's really cozy. Also, there's no parking.
- [67:44]
D
So the ultimate effect, it should be Related.
- [67:47]
A
Okay.
- [67:48]
D
But your example of the defence attorney, you know, that's a kind of sub area of the pratful effect called the stolen thunder technique. And what you do there is you work out what you think the prosecution are going to emphasize. You admit that weakness in your case, and the point of doing so is you gain credibility. Because people think, well, if they've been honest about this element, all their other claims and their argument, they're probably true. So sometimes admitting any flaw gains you the benefit of trust.
- [68:18]
B
I see.
- [68:19]
C
And that's actually the original experiment from Elliot Aronson shows this because it's very similar to Runaway Jury. The whole study is they have an audio recording of someone completing a quiz, and as they're answering the questions, they get 92%. Right. And then in the audio recording, you could hear he spills on himself. They played that recording to one group of participants, and then they play the same recording, but they cut the flub. The spilling of coffee. I think it was on himself. And they found that those that heard the clumsy contestant, they found him 45% more likable than those that didn't. And that has nothing to do with his smartness in Runaway Jury. The mustard has nothing to do with his ability as a lawyer. So any admission, any flaw will make you more appealing.
- [69:08]
A
Back to the quality.
- [69:09]
B
The whole Guinness thing.
- [69:10]
A
Can you use effort as a proxy for quality?
- [69:13]
B
So I was watching a YouTube video the other day with this guy, Mark Rober. He's super famous, huge YouTuber. He does all these fun science experiments. My kid loves them. So we watch these videos and he.
- [69:23]
A
Does this, like, pseudo transparency thing where he'll go, I wanted to dive into a pool full of Jello. So we spent six months figuring out how to. And I'm like, he says this for a reason. Because if he's like, so we filled a pool full of Jello, and it's kind of hard.
- [69:36]
B
It's like, okay, whatever. You dumped a bunch of Jello stuff in a pool. But he's like, no, we ran into.
- [69:41]
A
All of these problems, and, like, here's a problem, and we solved it this way. And we spent months and months and months and months. And it's like, well, I know you.
- [69:47]
B
Didn'T spend six months trying to figure out how to make Jello in a pool. That doesn't make any sense. Maybe you thought about it here and there, and you waited for stuff for.
- [69:54]
A
Two weeks to come in the mail.
- [69:55]
B
And then that didn't work.
- [69:56]
A
Right. It doesn't matter. But he lets your Brain kind of.
- [69:59]
B
Fill in the blanks.
- [70:00]
A
And you're like, this video must be incredible. But because they spend spent six months trying to make jello in a pool. So they're gonna succeed, and it's gonna be insane.
- [70:09]
B
So I better watch this.
- [70:10]
A
Maybe an easier example is I do.
- [70:11]
B
This for the show. Sometimes I'll say, I read the entire book.
- [70:14]
A
I watched a bunch of your interviews. I read the Wired articles that you.
- [70:18]
B
Sent me, all this stuff.
- [70:19]
A
And then people are like, oh, this is gonna be a good episode.
- [70:22]
B
Even though I've already heard these guys on another podcast, because Jordan does.
- [70:26]
A
He goes above and beyond with the preparation, which unfortunately means I actually have to do that.
- [70:32]
B
So it takes me a lot of time.
- [70:33]
A
But I don't hide that I'm doing that, right?
- [70:35]
B
I'm saying, like, hey, I spent 10 hours preparing for this. And then people go, wow, okay, it's gonna be good. Or, dang, that's all you did in 10 hours. What's wrong with you?
- [70:43]
A
But either way, they know that there's effort involved.
- [70:46]
D
Yeah, you're absolutely right. So there's an idea called the Labor Illusion. And we ran an experiment for the book. We showed a group of people an image of a fake new brand, a vodka bottle called Black Sheep Vodka. And we just asked people to rate what they thought of the design. And some people just saw the bottle. Other people were told the Designer went through 143 versions. And what we found was that the group that heard that story of effort, the 143designs, they rated it much better, about 30% better than the group who didn't hear that story of effort. The argument is that judging the quality of a product is a complicated question. And when people are faced with complicated questions, Daniel Kahneman argues that they tend to replace them with simpler ones that give them an almost as good answer. And a simple question is to ask yourself, how much effort did the designer go to? So we use effort as a proxy for quality. And in the book, that's the basis of the Dyson chapter. Now, what they talk about in their advertising again and again and again is that they went through 5,127 prototypes to get to the bagless vacuum. Now, it shouldn't actually matter how many prototypes they went through. But behavioral scientists aren't interested in what should affect people. They're interested in what actually affects people. And these stories of effort will change people's perception. The same product will be rated better if people know about the effort that's gone into it.
- [72:12]
B
I love the Idea of the transparency in product.
- [72:14]
A
It does work on me, man.
- [72:16]
B
I was on a travel website. I won't mention the name because whatever. But basically I was searching for a flight.
- [72:21]
A
And it was like comparing hundreds of websites to get you the best price. And I was like, oh, not, hey, we're really slow, because there's a lot.
- [72:28]
B
Going on under the hood. And, yeah, maybe if you'd used Expedia, this would have been faster.
- [72:32]
A
It's like, oh, no, no, no.
- [72:33]
B
This site, they're doing a lot more than just those other websites. They're comparing hundreds of websites to get me the best price.
- [72:38]
A
It even says so on the screen.
- [72:40]
B
And I doubt it. It's probably just got a database that's updating here and there. But fine, I believed it.
- [72:46]
A
And I sat there and waited for something on the Internet, which is very hard to get people to do, you know?
- [72:51]
C
And ChatGPT famously used this in its earlier models when it was thinking it was searching the Internet and it was compiling your sources. And as you wait and wait and you lose track of the tens of seconds, dozens of seconds, you're waiting. They used it in the same way we chose Dyson. They really focus on the number of prototypes. But Dyson also does something fascinating with their bagless vacuum. They put the cylinder that collects all the garbage from your ground in a transparent tube that you take out and see. And it was actually pretty controversial with the design team, between Dyson and his design team, because they said, who wants to see all the stuff being picked up off the ground? But actually, it shows you the effort that happened through your vacuum cleaning. Your vacuum cleaner's actually working. All other vacuum cleaners hide it in a bag and you throw out the bag without seeing the effect.
- [73:46]
D
Effect.
- [73:46]
C
It's satisfying to see it.
- [73:47]
A
It's satisfying. It's like watching Dr. Pimple Popper. You ever watch that show and you're.
- [73:51]
B
Like, oh, they're gonna get that disgusting thing out of her head.
- [73:53]
A
And maybe I'm weird.
- [73:54]
B
Well, I know I'm weird, but I know I'm not alone. Cause that show is a massive hit.
- [73:58]
A
We only have a little bit of time.
- [73:59]
B
I wanna talk about music and how it changes our opinions of flavor and taste.
- [74:05]
A
Because you go to a fancy restaurant, they're often playing some kind of violin music or whatever. I went to Italy in the 90s.
- [74:14]
B
With my friend and his mom. And we met up with this guy. He was like a wealthy. My friend's mom knew him from the jewelry business. This guy was very, like, super wealthy.
- [74:24]
A
So he takes us to this crazy.
- [74:25]
B
Good steakhouse in Milan, and it is Bougie Co. Man.
- [74:29]
A
People are dressed to the nines, and.
- [74:31]
B
I'm like, 13 years old, and we're out of place.
- [74:33]
A
And I'd never seen a restaurant like.
- [74:35]
B
This in my life at that point, you know? And it would be a decade or more before I'd join a law firm and go to another one. Okay, is that that level?
- [74:42]
A
They're playing music, and I go, hey, buddy. To my friend, I go, you hear what they're playing?
- [74:45]
B
And he's like, no way.
- [74:47]
A
I'm like, yep, it's Tupac. All Eyes on Me. The entire double cd, back to front, not edited, completely explicit. And there's all these wealthy Italian people that are just like, yeah, this is the kind of music I listen to.
- [74:58]
B
When I'm paying $385 for a steak.
- [75:01]
A
Just unbelievable. They did not read your book. Obviously, they were above the cut in.
- [75:06]
B
Giving a crap about this principle.
- [75:08]
D
There's an awful lot of evidence that. That what we taste is not just a factor of the kind of senses on our tongue. All our other senses will affect us. So whether it's sound, whether it's weight, whether it's colors, these all affect the taste. Probably the psychologist that's most associated with this area is a Oxford psychologist called Charles Spence. And for one study, he does this at an Edinburgh conference. People sit down for lunch, and some people are given very light cutlery, others get heavy cutlery, and all of them eat the same dish. When Charles Spence surveys them afterwards about how much they enjoyed the meal, how much they're prepared to pay, the people who get the expensive cutlery, they rate the meal as tastier, and they say they're prepared to pay more. I think it's like 10 or 15% more. And his argument is, we have these associations in our mind because generally they're true. Generally heavy equals expensive and high quality. So the weight of something in our hand affects the experience and the taste. And it's not just restaurants that apply this. You get a bang and Olufsen remote control. Weigh it in your hand, it's pretty heavy. That weight does not need to be there. They have artificially added extra weight to make it feel higher quality.
- [76:28]
A
Oh, no way. I was going to ask if they.
- [76:30]
B
Just drop a bunch of extra plastic or metal in there, like, oh, I want this to be like a. This is a statement piece, right? This remote.
- [76:39]
D
We generally assume if they picked it up and it's only a couple of grams, that's the same type of experience we get with something very cheap, right? So we gradually fuse in our mind this heaviness and high quality. And brands will then harness that to increase the experience.
- [76:55]
B
I've noticed that small things like an Apple TV remote, they could make that so much cheaper if they made it plastic, but it's metal, right?
- [77:03]
A
And I think because since it is.
- [77:05]
B
Small and very simple, which is the Apple design aesthetic, they can't also make it really light and they can't make it out of cheap materials because then it would look like kind of crappy.
- [77:15]
A
If it's something really small.
- [77:17]
B
I've noticed that high end brands make it really dense or really nice material. They have to change like the tactile experience in your hand of the item. But if it's big, you can just make it heavy. And it doesn't really matter if it's plastic because you're like, look at this beast, right? It's got. Or it's got a touch screen on it that's totally unnecessary. You can use something like that as well.
- [77:36]
C
And I think the point that that all draws to is that you are judging the quality of something for a lot more than just the experience itself. There's a lot more going into your evaluation, whether it's the weight of the cutlery or the material that the box is made out of. And that all plays into your sense of the premiumness of the product.
- [77:55]
B
If music changes our opinion of flavor and taste, do you have to match cuisine to genre? Do I have to listen to Indian music to eat Indian food? Or can you play Tupac at a steakhouse? And it's fine.
- [78:06]
D
So there are some studies that suggest exactly as you say that the music should relate to the type of cuisine. However, if people don't want to go through the rigmarole of working out what the exact right bit of music is, a shorthand is to use classical music. Now, in many cultures, I think certainly Americans, certainly British, classical music has this aura of high quality. And in wine shops there've been tests where they rotate the music. You know, sometimes jazz, sometimes pop, sometimes silent, sometimes classical. And what you see again and again is if you play classical music, the amount people are prepared to pay just edges up just that little bit. It just gives you a little advantage over your competition.
- [78:46]
B
That must be why my dentist does it. Because it's $2,000 for a filling and.
- [78:50]
C
Actually the tempo of the music. I don't know of a study that talks about the balance of it, whether it's the genre or the tempo. But the tempo matters a lot. Where you hear fast music, you're likely to eat faster and leave faster. Slow music will keep you in the space longer. Plenty of studies show that.
- [79:08]
B
So if you want people to turn over quick, play edm, right? Play Avicii in there or something and get em dancing on the all the way out the door with a sandwich in their hand.
- [79:17]
A
Guys, there's so much in the book.
- [79:18]
B
That we've run out of time and.
- [79:19]
A
I really appreciate you guys coming on.
- [79:20]
B
The show and taking us through all of this. It changes the way we all at marketing, branding, food. I find myself wanting a pumpkin spice latte all of a sudden. Maybe pass on the Red Bull for now. I don't think I should mix those two things. But yeah, I appreciate this.
- [79:33]
A
It's such a cool inside look at.
- [79:35]
B
The way our brains work and how people use those levers to get us to buy and consume things.
- [79:40]
D
Oh, brilliant. Well, I'm very glad you liked it. There's a lot we've discussed and there's a lot more in the book. Thank you.
- [79:47]
A
Want to master the art of communication? Charles Duhigg, author of Super Communicators reveals key strategies for enhancing your connections and.
- [79:54]
B
Conversations in this enlightening podcast episode.
- [79:57]
F
Why do some people manage to connect with everyone else so effortlessly? And then there's times when I talk to my wife and like we cannot connect with each other. And it turns out it's just a.
- [80:07]
A
Set of skills, right?
- [80:07]
F
Like it's just literally a set of skills that super communicators know and that any of us can learn and become super communicators ourselves. Looping for Understanding and has three steps. The first is ask a question, preferably a deep question. Secondly, repeat back what you just heard the person say in your own words. And thirdly, and this is the one everyone always forgets, ask if you got it right. And the reason why this is so powerful is because it proves that I'm listening to you. It's really easy to stop thinking about how we're communicating. It's really easy to stop thinking about what's going on until we get in the habit of it. Communication isn't something that happens just one to one. Sometimes it's one to many. But the same principles still hold up. You're still having practical or emotional or social conversations. Laughter is actually one of the non linguistic ways that we connect with other people. There's been studies that show that in about 80% of the time when we laugh, it is not in response to something funny. It's because we're basically in a conversation and we're saying to someone, I want to connect with you. Nobody is born a super communicator. That's what feels tiring, is when you feel like you want to connect and you can't. Right? This isn't a behavior. This isn't a personality type. This is a tool that once we learn, we can use when we want to use it.
- [81:26]
A
Learn how to categorize conversations, improve active listening, and overcome communication barriers to build stronger relationships. Tune in and transform your interactions into meaningful connections on episode 963 of the Jordan Harbinger Show. I really appreciate these guys coming on and breaking all this down. A lot of fascinating stuff in here from brands that we all use. This conversation completely changes the way we look at branding, decision making and those subtle forces nudging us around every day. All the resources mentioned will be in the show. Notes@jordanharbinger.com, advertisers, deals, discount codes Ways to support the show Searchable and clickable@jordanharbinger.com deals please consider supporting those who support the show. Our newsletter wee bit wiser jordanharbinger.com News as mentioned before, don't forget about six minute networking. You've heard me mention this a bunch over the years. That's 6minutenetworking.com I'm JordanHarbinger on Twitter and Instagram. You can also connect with me on LinkedIn and this show. It's created in association with podcast one. My team is Jen Harbinger, Jace Sanderson, Robert Fogarty, Tata Sidlowskis, Ian Baird and Gabriel Mizrahi. Remember, we rise by lifting others. The fee for the show is you share it with friends when you find something useful or interesting. In fact, the greatest compliment you can give us is to share the show with those you care about. If you know somebody who's interested in branding, marketing, sales, design, psychology, definitely share this episode with them. In the meantime, I hope you apply what you hear on the show so you can live what you learn. We'll see you next time.