I happened upon this video of a social psychology experiment, and I think it’s fascinating. Unfortunately, there is no sound but it’s not really that important. Here’s the setup: The experimenters placed signs on two entrances to the same building. As you can see the doors are next to each other and either one will get you to the same place, so essentially it doesn’t matter which you go through. However, one door received a “Women Only” sign and the other received a “Men Only” sign – each with the corresponding icon so familiar to anyone who has ever entered a public restroom. Then, they simply filmed people entering and exiting the building.

You can see the results for yourself. Most of the unwitting subjects of the experiment conformed to the gender-specific doors even though there were no clear reasons or advantages for the doors to be men only and women only. It’s pretty striking.

Here’s my take about what’s going on and what it means to our work:

We have strong emotional associations connected to these common male and female icons. These associations tap deeply into our  own identification with male and female standards and expectations. As a result of socialization, we know that there are often very negative consequences for defying these standards – either external (e.g., disapproval and contempt) or internal (e.g., anxiety, shame, embarrassment). The desire to avoid these negative emotional consequences makes these symbols (and the male or female only instruction) powerful influences on behavior.

It would have been interesting for the experimenters to interview a few of their subjects after they were filmed. I’d be willing to bet that most of them would not be able to express why they went out of their way to go through the “appropriate” door. I imagine they would have received a lot of responses that went like this: “I don’t know. It said men only so I went through it.” This is so ingrained, and the decision-making process happens so quickly, that it occurs outside of our conscious awareness. I also wonder what would have happened if the symbols were not paired with the phrases “men only” and “women only”. My guess is that it would have been easier for the subjects to dismiss the signs as random occurrences, mistakes, or pranks. But the combination of both icons and instruction made the signs seem more “official”.

As it relates to our work in shopper marketing, it critically important that we understand the power of associations and emotional responses and their impact on behavior. We ask people to make split second choices all the time (e.g., to purchase brand A or brand B), and in this process shoppers must take cognitive shortcuts. In doing so, cognitive and emotional associations play a strong role in determining what attracts attention, what is deselected, and which products end up in shoppers’ carts. It’s also critical to understand the the positive and negative emotions that will motivate shopper behavior at any given time or in any given category. These are associations and emotions that are often very difficult to articulate, so our exploration must include indirect methdods for uncovering them. These include projectives, mindmapping, laddering, and other psychologically-based approaches.

In our work, it is not enough to simply observe or track shopper behavior (e.g., basket data, traffic patterns). We must go much deeper to understand why these behaviors are happening if we want to be effective in influencing them. These associations and emotional motivations are very real and very powerful when it comes to driving shopping behavior and purchase decisions.

A 2005 study found that those drinking caffeine are more likely to be influenced by persuasive messages. Suddenly, providing free coffee to shoppers seems like a very smart strategy.

Before the attempt to change their minds, half the participants were given moderate doses of caffeine, while the other half took a placebo. Both groups were double-blinded so that neither the researchers nor the participants knew who had taken what. Then they were given six stories to read which argued against euthanasia.

When asked afterwards for their attitude to voluntary euthanasia, those who had drunk caffeine were more influenced by the persuasive message than those who’d had the placebo.

It appears that caffeine’s ability to increase arousal makes us more attentive to our environment and more likely to process incoming messages. In shopper marketing, getting the shopper’s attention is half the battle. Keeping shoppers aroused, interested and energized, makes it more likely that they will be attentive to their environments and gives shopper communications a better chance to engage and influence them. While providing them with a coffee buzz may be one way to keep shoppers from sleepwalking through their trip, environmental elements, sensory cues, staff, and other retail elements can also play an important role.

Being asked to postpone gratification of our needs or desires is difficult, even when we know it will pay off with additional benefits. The classic experiment, The Marshmallow Test, is one of my favorites. Basically, the researcher gives a child a single marshmallow and tells them that they may eat it immediately or they can wait until the researcher returns at which time they will receive another marshmallow – but only if they did not eat the first. Watching these kids struggle with delayed gratification is adorable but also instructive. In the original experiment from the 60′s, researchers from Stanford followed the children into adolescence. They concluded that those who had been able to successfully delay gratification as children were better adjusted adolescents, more dependable, and scored higher on the SAT. Here is a recreation of the classic study:

How does this all relate to shopping?

My thoughts are that, even as adults, delayed gratification is a challenge. In shopping scenarios, we have little tolerance for not getting what we need/want immediately, be it actual products (out of stocks) or information to help us make choices. Especially in this age of Google, a lack of immediate information and guidance is unacceptable and creates negative emotional reactions such as frustration and anxiety, which in turn, impact shopper behavior. Shopper frustration and anxiety can lead to avoidant behaviors such as refusing to shop particular retailers (I’m looking at you, Macy’s), grab-and-go shopping, a decrease in browsing, or selections made by price. Not to mention that every second a shopper is forced to search for a particular brand is an opportunity for competitors to reach out, get their attention, and convince them that their product is the better choice. This is why shopper marketing must be deftly attuned to the needs and desires of our shoppers and work to address them instantly.

Recent research suggests that an out-of-stock item can actually motivate shoppers to purchase similar type items in the store. When shoppers see an item has been “sold out”, they often feel that they are missing out on something and experience a sense of urgency to make a similar purchase in the category. Far from suggesting that stores purposely create out-of-stocks, lest they frustrate their shoppers or create a perception that they are unreliable, this research is instructive as to how to handle out-of-stock situations. Making credible alternative suggestions in these situations can actually inspire shoppers to make unplanned purchases.

From the article, “Why We Buy What We Don’t Need“:

Messinger points out that although stores run limited time offers and door crasher specials and publicize scarce supplies to generate a sense of buyer urgency, deliberately leaving a shelf empty would be going too far.

The big lesson learned from his study, he says, is the importance of capitalizing on the shopper who is in the mood to buy.

Store representatives say they train staff to quickly offer acceptable alternatives to disappointed shoppers.In fact, they say, they would never willingly leave a shelf empty because they want shoppers to feel the store is amply stocked with lots of items that they would like.

Just out of curiosity, I’d like to know where you like to shop online and why. I have two:

Amazon.com: Ultra-convenient, great prices, and there is almost nothing you cannot buy here. I have a Prime membership, so two day shipping (which usually arrives next day) is free and overnight is just $3.99. Since there is no brick-and-mortar store anywhere, there is no sales tax. I’ve purchased everything from books and movies to a flat screen TV from Amazon over the years, and I’ve always had a good experience.

Zappos.com: This is a category I would usually prefer to shop live, since fit is so important. However, Zappos amazing customer service has won me over. They refer to themselves as a service provider that just happens to sell shoes, and this mindset is evident when you engage with their website or their customer service line. Last year, a buckle on a pair of boots I purchase snapped. When I called their customer service line, I braced myself for a fight since I had not only thrown out the box but the receipt and packaging as well. Without hesitation the customer rep arranged to have a new pair shipped to me immediately, at no charge, so that I could use that box to send the broken boots back. They arrived the next day. I couldn’t believe it. I felt so respected and valued as a customer, which unfortunately is a rare experience these days, and as a result, I always check Zappos first when buying shoes. I’ll even try shoes on at a store to the right fit and then order online from Zappos.

What are your favorite places to shop online and what makes them your favorites?

As a psychologist working in the world of marketing, it is very important to me to stay close to the standards, perspectives, and expectations of my training and profession. In fact, professional development was significant part of my training in which these standards were drilled into our heads. Among these was the idea that psychologists must always focus their efforts on the best interests of their patients. This means being careful not to push your own issues or agendas when working to change or influence their thinking and behavior, as doing so could be detrimental.

Having observed and engaged shopper marketing efforts over several years, I believe that this standard applies to shopper psychology as well, but for slightly different reasons. Though I do have ethical objections to using psychology to manipulate others, my reasons for opposing it specifically in shopper marketing is that it doesn’t work in the long term. While it may be tempting to employ “shopping psychology” as a way to manipulate shoppers, essentially using mental trickery to bend their behavior to the aims of retailers, brands, or marketers, it has been my experience that these efforts are rarely successful. That is to say that employing “shopping psychology” strictly to manipulate shoppers, without concern for their best interests, ultimately fails.

As humans (and never forget that consumers and shoppers are actual human beings, not just concepts), we like to think that we are ultimately in control of the decisions we make and the behaviors in which we engage. When we sense that we are being manipulated or controlled, particularly through covert means, our reactions tend to be resentment, resistance, and avoidance of the offending situation. These are not reactions that work well when trying to convince your shopper to choose your store or purchase your product. It’s true that the manipulations of “shopping psychology” – which I contrast with shopper psychology as a matter of focus – can produce a short-term impact on shopping behavior. However, its primary focus on manipulation rather than on what’s best for the shopper is its downfall. Shoppers are becoming more and more sophisticated and aware of these types of mental tricks, and they don’t like what they see. Shoppers today have more choices than ever before. If they feel taken advantage of, disrespected, or manipulated by a retailer or brand, they have other options available and are very willing to exercise them. For example, the days of forcing shoppers to traverse the entire store to buy essentials like milk, diapers, or prescriptions in hopes that they will make impulse purchases are over. Shoppers have caught on to the trick, they are no longer willing to tolerate the inconvenience, and there are increasingly more retailer options available that respect their time. Retailers that realize this quickly will have an opportunity to create positive relationships with shoppers based on respect, trust, and affinity.

Shopper Psychology, on the other hand, strives to understand shoppers and their lives so as to provide ideas, solutions, communications, and experiences that actually work for them. It’s aim is to engage psychology not to trick, but to create positive shopping experiences and communications that are helpful to shoppers and that benefit retailers and brands by producing affinity, trust, respect, and loyalty in the long term. Its basis on understanding and meeting shoppers’ needs sets it apart from the manipulations of “shopping psychology” and leads to a win-win-win situation in which retailers, brands, and shoppers all benefit.

This is why I fully support the Saatchi & Saatchi X mission of  “Improving shoppers’ lives”. It goes right to the heart of this issue and focuses us on the creation of ideas and solutions that work for shoppers, creating benefits to retailers and brands by meeting shoppers needs. This is not always the easiest or quickest route to success, but it is the most satisfying, the most effective, and the most long term. AND I can still feel proud of what I do every day.

The article “Mallified” by Geoff Olsen, explores the faltering of traditional shopping malls and the effect of shoppers catching on to the manipulations of shopping psychology. A very interesting read and a cautionary tail to shopper marketers everywhere.

Now THIS is interesting. A recent study suggests that people who purchase environmentally friendly products are more likely to act dishonestly. It seems it has to do with a psychological phenomenon called “the licensing effect” in which people feel that doing good deeds in one aspect of their life affords them the right to misbehave in other aspects. It’s as though we feel we can stock up on virtue that can be “spent” later to absolve us from feeling bad about doing something dishonest.

The researchers arrived at their conclusions after putting 90 undergraduates through a simulated online shopping trip. Some shoppers bought green products while others bought conventional products. The shoppers were then paid to play an online counting game that gave them an easy opportunity to cheat. The researchers found that undergraduates who had shopped at the green stores were significantly more likely to be dishonest.

Read the rest here.

Hello and thanks for checking in on our blog! We are currently making improvements to the design and functionality of the site. We plan to be back up and running very soon. Please check back again!

Thanks!

Dr. Chris

I received a white paper in my inbox last night from W5 (here’s a link to their website and blog). The white paper discusses a spin on the traditional focus in a casual dinner party setting. Participants, clients and moderators all sit around a dinner table for an in-depth discussion. W5 claims this more relaxed environment helps participants provide more candid responses as they build a natural rapport with moderators through a flexible and free-flowing conversation.

I think this is an interesting mix of  structured/casual environment that would probably fit somewhere between Xploring and a typical Shopper Insights Lab. While this type of methodologymay not be suitable for the majority of research we do, it is interesting to see what other companies are doing to try and differentiate themselves in the field.

NOTE: Contact me at bmiller@saatchix.com if you would like a copy of the white paper.

Cyber-bullying is an increasingly frightening problem for teens and parents alike. 

LG has taken it upon themselves to launch a series of commercials (starring James Lipton) that confronts this issue.  This is smart on many levels.  First, they are encouraging teens to “ponder” before sending out potentially hurtful messages.  Second, they are calming a fear that may actually prevent parents from purchasing mobile phones for their children.  Third, they are doing it with a sense of humor, as James Lipton transfers his beard to teens to help them gain perspective. 

LG is promoting comfort, trust, humor, and responsibility all in one ad.  Excellent.

Check out the “Catfight” ad below:

This week marks my seven year anniversary at Saactchi & Saatchi X, so I’ve been around a while – certainly long enough to have perspective on our agency and its development. In the advertising world, it’s not so common to stay put at one agency, so I’m often asked about my long run here at Saatchi X. To give a little perspective, watch this video of Andy Murray, our Global CEO , speaking recently at the annual conference for the Center for Retailing Excellence at the University of Arkansas.

I’ve seen a lot of changes in my seven years, but what has always been consistent is our commitment to putting shoppers at the center of our work. From the very beginning, Andy and team made the decision to take a different approach to solving business problems for our clients. They believed that brands and retailers could build their businesses by focusing on understanding shoppers and developing ideas and solutions that improve their experience at the very moment they make final purchase decisions – making the shopping experience easier, more enjoyable, more efficient, more satisfying. At at time when shoppers’ needs were often an afterthought if they were considered at all, this was revolutionary. Years later, there is now an entire shopper marketing industry building up around many of the principles that were put forward by ThompsonMurray and Saatchi & Saatchi X, and the industry has certainly evolved and changed over time. But what has remained constant is Saatchi X’s commitment to creating wins for brands and retailers by understanding shoppers lives and creating shopping experiences designed to improve them. It is this motivation at the core of who we are, this commitment to not just getting people to buy things but to actually improve shoppers’ lives that keeps me excited about what we do every day.

As times change, good leadership changes with it.  In my mind, it’s all about the ebb and flow of the psychological status of the larger workforce.  It’s ‘sense and respond’ with a company’s employees.  If your people are in a state of disconnect from humanism (2000-2007), you become the “touchy-feely” leader.  If your people are uncertain and afraid for their future (2008-2010), you change to the “here’s-what’s-going-on-here’s-what-we’re-doing-here’s-the-bigger-picture-I’ll-keep-you-updated-regularly” leader. 

Just as we look at the overall mood and status of shoppers and then respond accordingly, companies today must look at their employees through the same lens.

Time for purpose-driven leadership
In the 1980s, business leaders were heroes; in the 2000s, they became touchy-feely team-players. Now we need another transition, writes Richard Rawlinson: To lift themselves out of the downturn, companies need visionaries who can delegate day-to-day decision-making and instead focus on articulating their company’s broader drive and mission. Strategy+Business (free registration) (11/16)

Targeting of Users is Key for Marketers

COLUMBUS, OH — (MARKET WIRE) – 11/11/2009 – Mobile ad spending is poised to grow 27% to $2.1 billion in 2010, according to the Mobile Marketing Association. However, there’s good news and bad news for marketers who are wading into the mobile marketing wars. The good news is the audience for mobile marketing is growing. The bad news is the audience is still relatively small and confined to a limited segment of the market. Marketers who employ mobile marketing to the wrong consumer group risk turning them off, not on, according to an analysis of BIGresearch’s Simultaneous Media Usage Survey (SIMM 14, June 2009) of over 22,000 consumers.

Demographically, consumers who like mobile marketing tend to be young men. They are cell phone-centered and more likely to use social media. On the other hand, those who don’t like mobile marketing tend to be slightly older women who are not as centered around their cell phone or use social media.

Key Characteristics of Mobile Marketing Users and Non-Users

	Mobile Marketing Users	Mobile Marketing Non-Users
Men	57.9%	46.2%
Women	42.1%	53.8%
Average Age	39.2	45.9
Online Search Triggered by Cell Phone	17.4%	2.4%
Communicate about search via cell phone	41.3%	26.3%
Download music/video to cell phone	33.3%	14.6%
Regularly Use Facebook	37.9%	27.8%
Regularly Use MySpace	23.2%	9.8%
Regularly Use Twitter	13.1%	3.5%

Source: BIGresearch, SIMM 14

The mobile marketing user segment represents a desirable consumer group for specific products such as electronics. They are much more likely to purchase electronics over the next six months than the non-user group: 22.4% plan to buy a computer (v. 13.1%), 20.2% plan to buy a TV (v. 12.6%) and 11.2% plan to buy a digital camera (v. 7.1%).

Since June of 2008, the percentage of people who don’t like mobile marketing has increased. 66.8% don’t like text ads (v. 63.5 in ‘08), 60.2% don’t like voicemail ads (v. 56.8% in ‘08) and 59.6% don’t like video ads (v. 56.1% in ‘08). The percentage of people has also increased for those who say marketers need permission prior to sending an ad (58% v. 55.6% in ‘08) and those who think they are an invasion of privacy (52.1% v. 49.5% in ‘08).

“Marketers are excited about the potential of mobile marketing, but they need to beware,” said Gary Drenik. “Cell phones are perceived by consumers as a very personal form of media and unwanted messaging could be interpreted as an invasion of privacy. There is a risk in the mobile space of turning consumers off and have a negative impact on ROI.”

 

For complimentary report: http://info.bigresearch.com/

About BIGresearch

BIGresearch is a consumer intelligence firm providing analysis of behavior in areas of products and services, retail, financial services, automotive and media. BIGresearch conducts the monthly Consumer Intentions and Actions Survey (CIA) of 8,000+ respondents and the semi-annual Simultaneous Media Survey (SIMM) of 15,000+ respondents. More information is available at http://www.bigresearch.com

Contact:

Chrissy Wissinger

BIGresearch

(614) 846-0146

chrissy@bigresearch.com

Last week, Rocky and I had the opportunity to attend Retail Forward’s Strategic Outlook Conference in Bentonville.  I just wanted to share some of the information that we heard along the way.

The first topic is about what economic recovery will look like. 

The Future Isn’t What it Used to Be

• Boomers won’t drive recovery, it will primarily be Gen X and, to a lesser extent, Gen Y
• Recovery drivers:
  • Pent-up demand
  • Lean inventories
  • Economic stimulus
• Recovery will come in stages:
  • Stage 1 – Small Ticket/Nondiscretionary Items
  • Stage 2 – Big Ticket/Nondiscretionary Items and Small Ticket/Discretionary Items
  • Stage 3 – Big Ticket/Discretionary Items
• Recovery behavior will be purposeful, not panicked
• Regional malls are in freefall
• There are new opportunities to win online
• Shopper engagement will evolve

The second topic is around trends that we should keep an eye on in retail:

Six Business Models to Watch

 

NUMBER 1

The online site, Gilt Groupe, represents the Evolution of the Sample Sale.  Lessons to be learned from Gilt Groupe are:

Create a sense of urgency. 

Some other examples of urgency include:

• Target.com – Daily Deals
• Forever 21 – Daily 21 Specials
• The Limited – Timeout Sales email blast
• Neiman Marcus – “Dash” Sales email blast

Provide Uncommon Access

Some other examples of uncommon access include:

• Gucci sales at DSW
• Rollasole (check out the ‘Clubs with Sole’ tab)
• Quicksilver vending at The Standard hotels

 

NUMBER 2

The online site, Groupon, represents Couponing with a Collective Buying Power Twist.  The lesson to be learned from Groupon is:

  Harness the power of community. 

Some other examples of the power of community include:

• Give & Get at Gap
• Next Class at Best Buy

 

NUMBER 3

The online replenishment site, Alice, represents the trend of Consumer Direct Convenient Replenishment.  Lessons to be learned from Alice are:

Create a replenishment business.

Some other examples of replenishment include:

• R Market at Toys R Us
• World Market Coffee Club
• Indiespensable at Powell’s Books
• The Album Club at Rough Trade

Go direct to consumers

Some other examples of direct to consumer include:

• P&G Everyday Solutions – Ready U
• Nespresso Boutiques

 

NUMBER 4

Teen-focused discount store, Five Below, has a tagline that tells what they are all about: Hot Stuff. Cool Prices.  Lessons to be learned from Five Below are:

Tweak an existing model to a target.

Some other examples of tweaking an existing model include:

• Borders Ink
• Supermercado de Walmart

 

NUMBER 5

NYC market and café, Urban Rustic, shows a “Farm to Market” Grocer strategy.  Lessons to be learned from Urban Rustic are:

Create local relevance

Some other examples of creating local relevance include:

• Whole Foods
• 15^th Avenue Coffee and Tea

Champion your inner green.

Another example of championing your inner green is:

• Walmart sustainability initiative

 

NUMBER 6

Maker of handbags, travel bags, housewares, and much more, Vera Bradley shows us the benefits of a Bigger, Broader Brand Presence.

Multiple channels maximize presence

Some other examples of maximizing channel presence are:

• Nike at 225 Forest in Laguna Beach
• OXO Good Grips for the office at Staples

 

 

 

If you are a Saatchi & Saatchi X employee, please contact adanish@saatchix.com or rlongworth@saatchix.com for a copy of the Retail Forward presentation.

The recently suspended “Smart Choices” food-labeling program is only the most recent example of failed attempts to manipulate shoppers into buying products rather than actually helping them to select items that are best for them. Originally, the program’s intent seemed noble enough: help shoppers wade through the ever-expanding and difficult-to-decipher nutritional information at shelf so they can make well-informed choices. Unfortunately, the Smart Choices logo almost immediately started showing up on nutritionally dubious products like Fruit Loops and fudgecicles, and it became clear that the program was not really looking out for shoppers’ and consumers’ best nutritional interests. Sure, a fudgecicle may be low in fat, but it is also loaded with sugars and calories and has almost no nutritional benefits. It this the kind of guidance shoppers are looking for? Does this kind of manipulation and propaganda help shoppers make “smart choices”? Does it really improve their lives? Clearly not, and that is why the FDA is now “analyzing” the program which has been voluntarily halted.

For marketers, manufacturers, and even retailers, this kind of misleading communication can have very damaging effects on shoppers’ perceptions of them. Sure, this kind of manipulation may create a short-term gain by tricking some shoppers into purchasing products they might not otherwise, but the long-term damage to shoppers’ trust in their word and willingness to listen to what they have to say may have a much more powerful impact. As the old saying goes “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” Most shoppers are not so naive as to truly believe that Fruit Loops are a nutritionally “Smart Choice” – a fun indulgence that kids will enjoy and may have some limited benefits? Sure; a smart choice? Don’t push it. When they see these kinds of deceptive tactics, it has a negative impact on shoppers’ openness to communications from brands and retailers and the trust they are willing to afford them, and it undermines our ability to guide and influence shoppers as they make choices at shelf. Worse yet, this goes well beyond just the “Smart Choices” program itself and impacts all communications coming from brands and retailers. And it’s one of the reasons why shoppers and consumers are increasingly cynical about information they encounter in-store. To me, it seems like a very steep, long-term price to pay for a temporary bump in fudgecicle sales.

With the economy down in the dumps for the past year and a half, it seems that many people have lost the ability to simply have fun!  With constant worry and fear, the last thing on people’s minds is cutting loose.  But, in a creative field such as ours, how can we unleash our creativity and think the big thoughts without priming ourselves with the freedom to think beyond worry and fear? 

Let’s start with giving ourselves permission to misbehave. 

Wholesome Guide to Misbehaving

Always coloring within the lines? Venture a bit out-of-bounds and you’ll reap surprising benefits, from energy jolts to personal revelations. A brief sabbatical from the self can leave you more at peace and committed when you return.

By Rebecca Webber, published on September 01, 2009 – last reviewed on October 02, 2009

Running a company did not leave much time for relaxation, and Jonathan Christian Hudson, a 30-year-old New Yorker and founder of a social coaching start-up, hadn’t taken a real vacation in more than two years. But last winter, during dinner with a group of friends at a Mexican restaurant, someone made an outlandish suggestion: Why not go to Mexico? Why not go, like…right now?

The friends headed to their apartments to grab passports and flip-flops and met back up at JFK airport. “I had a lot of trepidation going into it,” says Hudson. “I try to be logical about the decisions I make, but this was highly emotionally—and alcoholically—driven.”

The group purchased tickets on the spot ($250 apiece) and boarded a flight to Cancun. There, they lay on the beach and partied with the spring-breakers. The experience was “absolutely amazing,” says Hudson. “I had more fun in those five days than in two years of living in Manhattan.”

The spirit of misbehavior stayed with him when he returned to New York and his business obligations. “Yesterday I bought a skateboard,” he says. “I haven’t skateboarded in 15 years.”

Misbehaving, or acting in ways we’d normally deem improper, can be good for our souls. It can boost our mood, leave us with a sense of liberation, get our creative juices flowing, and make for great memories. Although some people may misbehave too often, or even construct truly transgressive “double” lives, the rest of us are often overly fearful about breaking behavioral boundaries. For routine-oriented types in particular, modest misbehavior can have some very positive results. By exposing us to new and different ways of doing things and of presenting ourselves to the world, it can start a chain reaction resulting in more success and happiness.

The healthy approach to misbehavior, experts agree, is to occasionally break rules, norms, or expectations in ways that don’t cause any serious harm. By doing so, we can test out roads not normally taken, and make sure we’re on the path that’s right for us. Misbehavior usually reaffirms our established ways just as it provides a refreshing break from them. But it sometimes reveals an even better direction in which to steer our lives. If we never misbehave, we’ll never know what we’re missing…and it could be something great.

Revise Your Rule Book

Our own guidelines mingle with the official laws and regulations imposed on us to influence almost everything we do—from what time we get to work, to how far over the speed limit we drive, to what kinds of white lies we tell. Since such guidelines vary from person to person, so do definitions of misbehavior.

We start developing our idiosyncratic behavioral codes when we’re young, in part by registering the disapproval we get from parents when we do something they deem inappropriate, says Leon Seltzer, a clinical psychologist and the author of Paradoxical Strategies in Psychotherapy. Peers, teachers, and coaches also contribute to our early socialization as we soak in their perspectives on what is the “right” way to act. We’re also born with raw personality material that inclines us to either comport ourselves badly (in the case of sensation-seekers) or too well (as with people-pleasers and conformists.) “Some people have inhibiting elements in their personalities that forbid them to go outside the box,” says Seltzer. For many of us, boundaries have always been comforting. Still, it’s important to figure out if those self-imposed limitations are squashing our potential and keeping us from leading a more fulfilling life.

As adults, we absorb even more behavioral expectations when we take on new roles as employees, neighbors, spouses, and parents. Problem is, adhering to others’ expectations can keep us away from harmless natural tendencies that can help us flourish as individuals. The next time you find yourself suppressing the urge to strike up a conversation with a stranger, or to don a platinum wig, you might ask yourself why. If the answer is that the behavior might cause some eyebrows to rise, but there’s nothing inherently wrong with it, try it anyway. You might make a new friend, or learn that you look fantastic as a blonde.

Paul Draper powered his way through a Master’s program in anthropology and scored a professorship at UNLV, “to please my mom,” he says. But a few years into his job, he butted heads with a senior colleague and decided to leave teaching to pursue his childhood passion. “I was performing magic tricks for my classmates when I was 8,” he says.

He launched a career as a magician, losing his apartment and his girlfriend of five years in the process. “My mom’s reaction was terror,” he says.

“You need to come into your own authority,” says Seltzer. “The great paradox is that in going beyond your self-imposed boundaries, you may get more in touch with who you actually are in the first place.”

Step Away From Yourself

Simple misbehavior is a reprieve from the self, relieving the tension that builds up from an unrelenting focus on aspirations and duties. Hence the holidays, feasts, and other celebrations that most cultures and religions build in as a break from day-to-day difficulties.

“If you’re working very hard toward a goal, you’re going to want to let off steam now and then,” says John Portmann, a professor at the University of Virginia and editor of In Defense of Sin. “It’s better to do that every weekend or so, rather than refuse ourselves for too long and then explode.”

There are lots of fairly safe ways to open the valve. Some people have a boys’ or girls’ night out, filled with drinking and dancing. Some gamble (it’s OK, if you know your limits). A lot of people use fantasy. “That explains Internet pornography,” says Portmann.

We act a bit naughty because it feels nice, and we usually know where to draw the line. “I think most of us are pretty good at letting ourselves out of the cage for a little while, and then getting back in and resuming our normal duties as people, parents, and workers,” says Portmann.

Temporarily stepping outside our normal behavior gives us a taste of another lifestyle, but also helps us understand that it might not be sustainable for the long term. We realize we’d feel sick and die young if we pounded tequila every night; we’d be broke if we went on a shopping spree every weekend; and we’d get really bored (and sunburned!) if we had to lie on a beach all day, every day.

The downsides of our misbehavior—the hangover, the empty wallet, the guilt we feel after flirting with someone behind our partner’s back—also remind us why we typically choose the alternative.

Be Less Angelic And More Innovative

For those not naturally inclined to naughtiness, most psychologists encourage the occasional foray. “When I work with patients who are unhappily rigid and rule-bound, I have sometimes said, ‘I hope you don’t take this the wrong way, but I think it would be good for you to break a rule every once in awhile,’” says Seth Aronson, a psychologist with the William Alanson White Institute. “It’s one thing if living within your rules makes you happy. If not, why are you adhering to them?”

Even those who are content may be limiting their potential, just like a guy who never leaves the town in which he was born. If you’re never willing to step outside the box, think about what it’s costing you.

“There’s a very important link between risk-taking and creativity,” says Portmann. You could still achieve excellence—just like perfectly proficient musicians who never miss a note—but you won’t become great. Yo-Yo Ma and other standout players deliberately add imperfections—slowing things down and speeding them up and slurring things. They musically misbehave.

Sure, acting improperly can be a little scary. “Whenever you do something out of your comfort zone, you’re going to feel anxiety,” explains Seltzer. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong, just that it’s counter to your programming. But if you want to experience personal growth, there aren’t any shortcuts to a different understanding of who you are and who you can be. “You have to be willing to face a challenge that is more than you thought you could handle,” Seltzer says.

If you never build up the courage to speak out-of-turn at a meeting, your boss may never see you as more than a competent assistant. And if you aren’t bold enough to ask for the phone number of the pretty woman on an airplane who just spilled her boyfriend woes, you might miss out on a potential mate.

We can force growth, suggests Portmann, by making ourselves go to intimidating parties, or showing up at events where we think we don’t belong. The good news: “Once you’ve done it a single time, it’s easier to do the second time, and the third time,” he says. The sense of liberation tends to last much longer than the particular experience, and ultimately you’ll be free of any artificial constraints.

DeAara Lewis, an independent filmmaker in Memphis, hit roadblocks every time she contacted a new location to get permission to shoot. “There would be documents to fill out, district managers to call, and other tasks that took an incredible amount of unnecessary time,” she says. Finally, she decided to try a different, illicit, approach. When she needed a shot from the roof of a prestigious hotel, she and her cameraman just walked in as if they belonged there. “My imagination was wild with the possibilities of what would happen if we got caught,” she says. “But nobody cared about us, and we got the shot we needed. I was elated!”

The lesson? “Sometimes, it’s easier to beg forgiveness than ask permission,” she says, because while many of our rules are important and necessary, some are not.

“I tell people to think about whatever the rule is and then turn it on its head. What would happen if you did the opposite? Ninety-five percent of the time, you realize you’d have chaos,” says Robert Root-Bernstein, co-author with his wife, Michele, of Sparks of Genius. “But the rest of the time, you see that there’s no real reason we do what we do. Years ago, someone decided to do it that way and no one ever asked if there’s a better way, or a different way.” Breaking away from the norm can lead to a real breakthrough.

Expect pushback, though. “People want to go to work and know exactly what they’re going to do every day,” says Robert Root-Bernstein. And no one should misbehave all the time. “You want to fool around just enough to get good ideas that you then bring back to your problem-solving mode.”

Make Memories, Not Trouble

Of course, even light misbehaving can go wrong, especially if it’s not well thought-out beforehand. When Lesa Thayer, a senior manager at a nonprofit organization, was called into her boss’s office a few years ago, she knew what was coming. “We were having budget cuts, and I took up a large portion of the budget with my salary,” she says. When her boss told her she was being terminated, “I basically told her off,” Thayer says. “I asked, ‘Whose ass can I stick this beeper up?’” Thayer ended up keeping her job, but had to deal with a now-frosty supervisor. “I’ve learned a lot about communication since then and I should have handled that differently,” she says.

If your misbehavior is likely to hurt yourself or someone else, you’re going too far. But if no one else is really going to notice or care, go for it. You’ll get an immediate adrenaline boost and a vivid anecdote to share. “The more emotions are involved in an activity, the better you remember them,” explains Michele Root-Bernstein.

Once a year, on her birthday, Josephine Geraci of Lloyd Neck, NY, pulls her kids out of school for a fun family activity like a Broadway show or a day in Central Park. It’s against policy. “We aren’t even supposed to take the kids out for doctor appointments,” she says. “But my kids still talk about those trips.” Geraci herself cherishes the time her aunt took her and her siblings to an afternoon movie, instead of back to class, after their annual dentist appointments. “My mother always said, ‘Every day will be ordinary unless you choose to make it special,’” says Geraci. “I think it’s so true.”

After returning to New York from Cancun, a reinvigorated Jonathan Christian Hudson quickly got his latest business project off the ground. DeAara Lewis, the filmmaker in Memphis, recently finished her first feature film. And Paul Draper, the professor-turned-magician who deviated from an accepted path to success, performs globally from China to Dubai.

“It’s the people who are comfortable with risk who go further in life,” says Portmann. So get out there and start behaving “badly.”—Rebecca Webber

How Dare You?!

If your car tires have worn grooves in the route from your home to your office and you can cook dinner with your eyes closed, you might be stuck in a rut. Try one of these kinda naughty activities to remind yourself that there’s more to life:

Play dress up—Dig deep into your closet and find something outrageous to wear to work tomorrow. That tie your Aunt Bessie gave you for Christmas 20 years ago. Or the shimmery bustier you could put on under your suit.

Tell a tall tale—Make up a crazy story for the next stranger you speak with, like the telemarketer who calls after dinner or the guy sitting next to you on the bus.

Crash a party—Don festive attire and head to the fanciest hotel in your town on a Saturday night.

Go rogue at work—March into your boss’s office and share your ideas for improving the business.

Attend an age-inappropriate event—Go to senior citizens’ bingo at the fire hall, or attend the homecoming game of a local high school.

Go on strike—Tell your family they’re on their own for dinner/homework/laundry tonight. Instead, take a bubble bath and crawl into bed at an obscenely early hour.

Say “yes”—Accept an invitation to an event even though you already have plans that night. Cancel them to do what you really want.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200908/wholesome-guide-misbehaving

I have never seen a toddler this coordinated…

Watch this video. (You actually have to click through to watch it on YouTube). It does an excellent job of demonstrating why it is so critical that we strive to understand shoppers and their lives. This understanding is crucial to developing communications that are relevant to shoppers and are capable of breaking through the selective attention process. We often say that we must break through the clutter to capture shoppers’ attention, but even in “clean stores” the automatic selective attention mechanism is very powerful and must be overcome by relevance.

Change blindness is a form of selective attention. In this experiment, participants are focused on the task at hand, they’re probably a little anxious, and they only attend to the details of the environment that are most relevant to them.  This is not a conscious choice. Instead, it is an automatic process that occurs outside of our conscious control. In this case, the specific details of the person checking them in just aren’t very important. The selective attention mechanism that their brains employ automatically to help them focus on the important details leads them to a miss seemingly obvious change in the environment.

Just like the participants in this experiment, shoppers are blind to many of the details of their environments – even ones that we may think are obvious or very important. It is critical that we understand shoppers, their lives, their motivations, and their mindsets to give our communications even a small chance of breaking through.

Check it out:

So, I was checking out the cosmetics on the Kohl’s site this morning.  (A little birdy let me in on the secret that Flirt! makeup at Kohl’s is the same as Mac!)  As I browsed the thumbnails, one image really caught my attention:

Look familiar?  Presenting: The Color Institute Eyemobile Eyeshadow Compact.  I immediately could imagine the business problem leading to this solution … ahem …

Boss:  “So, here’s the deal.  No one sees our cosmetics as high quality or the ‘latest thing.’  Fix it, people.” 

(exit.  stage left.)

Creative 1:  “What’s the latest thing out there right now?”

Creative 2:  “I don’t know.  Let me see if I can find anything on my iPhone.”

Creative 1:  “Heeeeeyyyyy … Wait a minute!” 

(end scene)

Does it work?  It made me stop and look at it, but would it make me take the step to buy?

As a follow up to Chris’ earlier post, we know Halloween will be bring in a lot of business for confectioners. But who will be the ultimate winners in candy sales? According to Quirks and Nielsen, it won’t be private label:

Private-label candy marketers are facing a scary Halloween season, with category share projected to fall from 8.1 percent to 5.6 percent in the days leading up to and including Halloween, according to New York researcher The Nielsen Company. The trend will be evident in both chocolate and non-chocolate candy segments. Perhaps due to the special festive packaging and the promotional pricing, consumers are expected to stick with the spooky celebration staples, like those made by Hershey’s, Nestle and Mars.

“Without a doubt consumers continue to turn to store brands in a down economy,” says Todd Hale, senior vice president, consumer and shopper insights, Nielsen. “What we see with Halloween candy sales, however, is a sign that consumers may be splurging with brand-name products for the holiday or simply taking advantage of brand-name promotions and price reductions.”

Halloween candy sales are projected to total $1.9 billion and a whopping 598 million pounds of candy sold (more than Valentine’s Day or Easter), and consumers cut it close when it comes to the shopping. Nearly 90 million pounds of chocolate are sold during the holiday week, with the Sunday before Halloween and the actual day being the most popular days for sales.

There can no longer be any doubt that Halloween has become a major holiday in the U.S. When all is said and done this season, Halloween will be a $4.7 billion holiday with most of its sales coming from candy, costumes, and decorations. In fact, candy will account for nearly half of that take at $2.23 billion in sales, or approximately 600 million pounds of sweets. The 90 million pounds of chocolate candy sold at Halloween surpasses even Valentine’s Day. And even in a down economy, there are a lot of treats for the confections industry this year:

Sales are up:

For the biggest sugar rush of the year, Halloween candy sales are expected to nudge up 1.8 percent over last year, said Susan Fussell, spokeswoman for the National Confectioners Association. Landing on a Saturday this year only ups the opportunity for more celebrating, more candy, Fussell said.

Shoppers are not trading down in the category:

Unlike other products, candy sales have not experienced a lot of consumer downtrading to less expensive brands, said, Erin Swanson, an analyst with Morningstar who tracks Hershey.

And brands are offering innovations that make them relevant to shoppers:

Candy manufacturers aggressively target Halloween with special packaging. This year for instance, Hershey’s has bundled three Halloween-colored Kisses in single packages for handing out, said Jody Cook, a spokeswoman for the chocolate maker.

The Fairfield-based Jelly Belly Candy Co. churns out Halloween-themed candy, such as candy corn and pumpkins and jelly beans in autumn colors, said Tomi Holt, a spokeswoman for the candy maker.

The methodology of simply asking shoppers if a particular advertising approach is effective is questionable, but it’s still quite nice to read the headline of this article in BrandWeek:

In-Store Marketing Beats Traditional Ads

-Kenneth Hein

In-store marketing is more effective than traditional ads, according to “The Elements Report” released today (Tuesday). Nearly a third (32 percent) of the 999 shoppers polled online in March said that in-store marketing is “very effective.” Only 27 percent said the same about ads living outside of the store.

The report, which is part three of the “Gone in 2.3 Seconds: Capturing Shoppers with Effective In-Store Triggers Series,” found that the shopping experience is crucial for marketers. Sixty-nine percent of those polled called the in-store experience a “make or break” scenario. While 65 percent of shoppers are making lists, brand decisions are still being made at the store, according to 60 percent of respondents.

…

To build on Becky’s earlier post, I thought I’d share some amusements from my recent research extravaganzas!

1. The Bird Lady – a Dreamstate Lab participant carried a shoe box in to the room.  She didn’t immediately mention it.  As the group progressed, everyone, including us, was distracted by the fact that she opened the box and stuck her fingers in it every 30 minutes or so.  Finally, we had to decide whether she was totally insane and should be kicked out of the group, or if she had a legitimate reason to be so enamoured with the box.  As it turns out, she had a baby bird in the box and was feeding it every half hour!  Everyone (of course) had to take a peek at this hideous, raw-looking animal with no feathers.  Then, we all pretended that it was adorable. 

2. Jerry Maguire Moment - Near the end of a lab a few weeks ago, one woman approached Chris and myself.  She said, “It’s obvious that you guys really have fun doing this together!”  She then looked at me and said, “You complete him.” 

3. Nothing Could Be Worse - A woman was describing the horrible store she had recently experienced.  With a look of utter disgust on her face, she said, “It was like going in to a Walmart!  No.  Worse that that.  An ARKANSAS Walmart!”  Methinks she has never been in an Arkansas Walmart.

And now, for a classic…

4. You Wouldn’t Understand – A few years ago, in Dallas, TX, a group of us were conducting a lab discussing beauty.  One woman felt the need to inform us that, we “just wouldn’t understand!  See, in Arkansas, they’re mass, in Dallas, we’re class!”

It is very difficult as a shopper/consumer to decide what is healthy and what is not.  Is wine bad for you or good for you?  Eggs?  Avocados?  Meat?  Butter?  Something new is always coming out telling people what should now be in or out of their diet.  Shoppers are getting fed up with it! 

It also makes things more and more difficult for food manufacturers.  Can you ever “help” shoppers by telling them that something is healthy?  Will it be true next week?  If you tell shoppers that something is a better choice for their health, will it come back to bite you?  Manufacturers using the “Smart Choice” logos found out that it may.

Food cos. dropping Smart Choices labeling

WASHINGTON, Oct. 24 (UPI) — U.S. food manufacturers say they are moving away from an industry-devised labeling campaign meant to spotlight the nutritional benefits of their products.

PepsiCo and Kellogg’s have announced they are phasing out the Smart Choices labeling campaign, which sports a green checkmark on the front of packages, The New York Times reported Saturday.

Officials of the Smart Choices program told the newspaper most of its operations would be suspended. The move comes after the labels received criticism from state and federal authorities who say they could mislead consumers into thinking processed foods high in sugar were an adequate substitute for healthier foods such as fresh fruits and vegetables and whole grains.

“I regard it as a partial victory,” Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal told the Times. He has begun an investigation into the program to determine if the labeling campaign violated his state’s consumer protection law and has reportedly urged more companies to pull out of the program.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Margaret Hamburg says the agency is moving quickly to devise its own rules for package-front nutrition labeling, which has historically been loosely regulated, the newspaper said.

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2009/10/24/Food-cos-dropping-Smart-Choices-labeling/UPI-18371256393278/

Thoughts?

Conventional wisdom (and history) tells us that in the midst of a recession, alcohol sales typically increase as people look for inexpensive escapes from their worries. This recession, however, appears to be having a very different effect. According to Nate Silver who tracks politics and consumer sentiment at his blog Five Thirty Eight, alcohol sales are not just down – they’re WAY down.

Sales of alcohol for off-premises consumption were down by 9.3 percent from the previous quarter, according to the Commerce Department. This is absolutely unprecedented: the largest previous drop had been just 3.7 percent, between the third and fourth quarters of 1991.

Beer sales, it seems, are the main culprit, with an almost 14% drop in sales, while wine and spirits are more stable with only small decreases. And it’s not just alcohol, even gambling is taking a substantial hit:

Casino gambling receipts are down about 8.5 percent from a year ago, far and away the largest decrease ever over four consecutive quarters.

So the question, of course, is “Why?” What is making this recession so different than previous ones? Why are consumers and shoppers responding so differently this time around? What do you think?