The sweaty business of behavioural change

Imagine you are watching a focus group.  The topic is hygiene and in particular, how your gym can get people to wipe their sweat off the equipment. Low adherence to the policy has been causing complaints and some health issues around the club.  The discussion goes as expected with everyone agreeing they would feel revolted if they unknowingly use a machine that has not been wiped down, and all agreeing that they, of course, always wipe theirs off as long as it was easy to do so.  You watch as the group brainstorms some signs that can be placed to remind people of the policy and also where and how many hygiene-spray stations should be positioned in the gym. A few months after you've implemented the findings of the focus group and behaviour hasn't changed. Why?  

Awareness is not enough

This is the scenario my local gym is facing. Despite signs on every piece of gym equipment reminding clients to "Take your sweat home", "You have a towel - use it", and "Please wipe your sweat off",  and despite multiple convenient hygiene stations I reckon about one in seven people actually takes heed (and that one is, of course, virtuous me for a reason I'll come to).

So what's happening here?  Sure we all get grossed out by a stranger's sweaty trail, but when it comes to our own behaviour, could it be we don't think our sweat is offensive enough to mop up?

Give those doctors a hand

In a case well documented by Stephen Dubner and Steven Levitt of Freakonomics fame, Cedars-Sinai Medical Centre in the US decided to tackle a slightly more important issue of hygiene; hand-washing by doctors.  Did the medical staff know the importance of washing their hands? Of course.  But almost 4/10 failed to.   And this was contributing to bacterial infections sometimes leading to patient death.  So why were the doctors not washing their hands?  Ego was thought to play a big role.  The sense that "it's not my germs that harm people - it's those of my colleagues".  And before we shrug ego off as symptom of the profession, I think that's the same factor at play in the gym. 

Cedars-Sinai's aim was to get compliance up from 65% to 90% to meet required standards. They made some progress by running an awareness campaign by email and posters, providing bottles of disinfectant, and awarding spot coffee vouchers to those who washed their hands and this got them to 8/10.  For my gym, having staff parade the equipment and reward compliant clients might help, but seems like a lot of effort!

Why Cedars-Sinai Medical Centre has become a favourite case study is what they did next which saw compliance rocket to almost 100%.  One day after a typical lunch, a number of doctors were asked to take a culture of their palm, pressing it into a petri dish.  The results were striking, with the hidden to the eye bacteria seen vividly crawling around the flesh. Revolting. In a moment of brilliance the hospital then used one of these provocative petri images as a screen saver and watched as compliance rates soared.  Suddenly there was indisputable proof that it is you, me and everyone that carries germs, and simple actions can rid our hands of their bacterial dangers.  (And yes, this is why I am so vigilant when it comes to wiping off sweat.)

What it took for behavioural change

In the case of Cedars-Sinai Medical Centre, developing an awareness campaign was not enough.  And for my gym, whilst it is great to promote the expectation of hygiene on posters, it is not enough in itself to change people who intend-but-don't to intend-and-do.  As Dan and Chip Health cover in their book "Switch: How to Change When Change is Hard", use of negative emotion (like disgust) is great when people know intellectually they need to change. 

Cedars-Sinai made the issue personally confronting, overcoming the tendency we have through what is known as the Fundamental Attribution Error to rationalise our own behaviour due to the situation (I don't have time to wash my hands, I need to get on the bike before someone takes it) but judge the behaviour of others on the basis of character (I can't believe they are so irresponsible, how can they be so lazy?).   Cedars-Sinai levelled the playing field by demonstrating that all are equally impacted by germs. 

The lessons from Behavioural Economics

Let's look back to our focus group.  After the experience of the gym, we now know that there is a gap between what people say they'll do and what they actually will.  So what are some tips from Behavioural Economics that all businesses can use to help close this gap?

Vividness - a surprising and evocative image - like a hand in a petri dish - can shock us into new thinking.  Imagine if the gym had posters of bacteria on un-sanitised equipment?  Would it risk putting people off? Not if they are committed to exercise, and it would definitely get people to cleanse their machines before and after exercise.  

Herding - it is difficult to go against the herd because you risk being socially shunned. Even amongst a group of gym strangers, the more people you see wiping their machines, the more likely others are to.  Just like night clubs who pay cool people to show up, the gym could enrol and reward some clients for modelling correct behaviour.

Heuristics - we operate by rules of thumb, and are most likely to accept a new behaviour (wiping down) if it is connected to an existing one (exercising).  Imagine if the machine would not give you your work-out results unless you wipe it down first?  Or you needed to swipe a card to start the equipment, but the swipe card would only activate if it had been swiped first at a hygiene station?

Changing behaviour at the gym, at the hospital, in your line of work is tough, but it's also the reason why we are in business. After all, business is about moving people from an intended to actual purchase.  Here's the big tip; spend more time on what influences the actual behaviour and less on what people say they will do and you'll see your results flow. Happy changing.

PS If you like my blog, I'd love you to consider supporting my fundraising trek of the Larapinta trail. Every bit helps so to find out more, visit https://www.gofundraise.com.au/page/BriforICV  Thank you!

 Image from http://talktowarren.wordpress.com/tag/patient-safety/

Will the carbon tax change business behaviour?

Thank you to those who emailed me about how the Australian Federal Government's proposed carbon tax would be viewed by behavioural economics. Political views aside, here's the run down;

Is a tax on emitters better than an incentive to drive behavioural change?
Absolutely.  We are more driven to avoid pain than seek gain, so in this case an incentive such as a rebate for organisations who reduce emissions (gain) would be less likely to change behaviour than the introduction of a penalty (pain).  The behavioural principle at play is loss aversion, where we are motivated to avoid a situation where we lose something.  The government is hoping to stimulate the large emitters to change their behaviour because otherwise those businesses will face significant cost.   As a more personal example, think of the following. Would you be more likely to join up to health insurance if you were paid an incentive of $400 to do so, or were taxed $400 if you did not? The proof is in the fact that in Australia we have compulsory health insurance because too few of us were taking proactive action to insure our health.


If the tax is simply passed on to consumers, is it really changing emitter behaviour?
Yes.  Whilst many businesses may adjust their pricing to pass on the cost of the carbon tax, we are all motivated by margin.  Just as with any tax, businesses will be motivated to reduce the amount payable because that helps the bottom line.   Again, it is loss aversion that motivates businesses to take steps to eliminate costs, and now emissions are part of that equation.

Can the carbon tax be used to charge higher prices?
Invariably the tax will be used to adjust pricing, and consumers will expect that. But here is the opportunity for you; by resetting expectations and having a publicly justifiable reason to change, new price levels will be anchored in the market.  Think back to when petrol was under $1 per litre.  Whilst  that now seems like a dream, as consumers we have had our expectations reframed and have been able to adapt to the new pricing levels. What about bananas? With supply of bananas contracting after Cyclone Yasi and the Queensland Floods, prices have skyrocketed ($13/kg in Melbourne). Whilst not everyone can afford to buy bananas now, once supply returns you can be sure that the normal average cost per kilo will be higher than it was before expectations were anchored at the higher price.

A side note on price anchoring. The federal Opposition and the Greens both played a role in helping the Government gain psychological acceptance of the carbon price of $23 per tonne. How? The Greens had asked for a $40/tonne price and the Opposition had jumped on Treasury modelling at $30/tonne.  This meant that by the time $23/tonne was determined, it hardly raised a whimper.

So in sum, the carbon tax will change the behaviour of businesses, but so too would any new impost.  No surprise that it will force businesses to look for new ways to reduce cost and improve margin, but it just so happens that this may help the planet in the process.

As always, let me know if you have an issue on which you would like a behavioural economics perspective. Email peoplepatterns@gmail.com or tweet @peoplepatterns. Until next time, happy taxing.

This post also appeared in http://www.smartcompany.com.au/blogs/20110726-will-the-carbon-tax-change-business-behaviour.html

Marketing lessons at 60kms/hr

Here's your brief: You are to create a sign that will be posted in public that needs to do one thing - change behaviour.  You can determine the shape of the sign, but it is to include 3 colours maximum, 1x graphic and up to three letters or numbers.  Now, remember your audience will be very distracted as they come across your sign, will be in a life threatening situation, and have milliseconds to process your message. Up to the challenge?  Oh, and I forgot to say what the behaviour was you need to change...

The humble speed sign is something we come across everyday, change our behaviour as a result (accelerate or decelerate) and yet the signs don't even register a blip on our conscious thinking. And this strikes me as a good illustration of marketing and design principles.

So what are the lessons of the speed sign?

1. Consistently distinguishable

Speed signs consistently comprise a white background, red circle with black numbers.  It is the same across Australia so that the consumer has no ambiguity to process when confronted with the sign.  Furthermore, there is no mistaking a speed sign for another road message because the 'branding' is strong and differentiated from other road signs.  So what advertising does this remind you of?



Apple iPod poster



2. Clarity and certainty

Both in the design elements and the behaviour expected, speed signs are unambiguous in what they convey.  The consumer is forced to respond to the designated speed without further consideration. On the road, it's important that the mind be directed because distraction can be deadly.  "Hmm did they really mean 60?   Honey, what do you think it meant?"  No, it's clear that 60 is 60. 40 is 40. 100 is 100.  So what can we apply from this?  If you are trying to get people to do something - buy your product for example - be clear!  "Where the Bloody Hell Are you?"  Ummm, sorry....what's that?  Or more recently, Microsoft's "To the cloud" ads?

Tourism Australia's maligned "Where the Bloody Hell are You?" campaign

3. Targeted audience

Speed signs are targeted at drivers and only when driving.  Speed signs do not try to appeal to everyone - "hey look at me dog-walker - you can only do 60 kms/hour here!", and they do not try to haunt me as I sleep "hey, remember me, that 80 km/hr sign you saw on Nepean Highway? Wasn't I the best sign ever?!". And they do not appear in irrelevant locations, say, like in a park. In other words, speed signs are targeted to their audience.  No matter that it probably doesn't cost that much for that extra sign to be placed in the Botanic Gardens, the audience is not right and it's proper to say no.  Imagine if they sign was placed in a stupid spot - the harm to the credibility and clarity of the message it would do? Why then as marketers do we fall into the intoxicating promise of 'extra reach' by a placement of our product or ad somewhere that is not right for our objectives?  Think it doesn't happen?  Tune into the inevitable Christmas sale ads on Boxing Day to see what I mean.

4. Moment of truth
The sign only works - for the large part - because it is one element of a bigger context - road rules, policing, education, reinforcement (penalty rather than reward in this case). But whilst the road sign by itself may not be able to change behaviour as a single media with a singular tone and message, it is the ultimate point of behavioural impact - the moment of truth.  The lesson here?  The speed sign is placed where it is because that's when behaviour is required to change.  Think of it like Coke's points of interruption in a convenience store where signage cues you to buy a Coke as you step into the store, head to the fridge and slap your money down on the counter.  In order for those points of interruption to sway the consumer's behaviour, the rest of Coca-Cola's marketing and product chain have to work to establish the purchase context.

So the humble speed sign belies it's marketing expertise - it's ability to change behaviour at 60 kms/hour through differentiation, clarity, audience targeting and precision placement. Sounds like an effective marketing campaign to me!

Normalising ethical shopping with elephants and underpants

I have only recently become aware of Ethical Clothing Australia (ECA), an organisation charged with encouraging production and consumption of ethical clothing and footwear in Australia.  This new information raised a number of things in my mind about shopping, and how ECA can go about building on the great work they already do to gain broader traction in the consumer market through behavioural change. 

1. Close the gap between Behaviour and Intent
Yes of course I want to shop ethically, don't we all? In fact colleagues laugh at my rationalised outrage about the proliferation of pirated DVDs.  But take me into a shop, fit me in a dress that is perfection (refer last blog!) and my unconscious sees me reaching for the Visa.  You may have seen this play out after BP's oil spill - a conscious decision to boycott BP was undone by sheer convenience of their bowsers.

As I've mentioned in other articles, Dan and Chip Heath call this the "Elephant and Rider" problem. The unconscious - the elephant - is so large and mindful that the conscious - the Rider sitting a top the beast - struggles to get behaviour to be consistent with intent.  A familiar example is the desire to get healthy - we may consciously decide to go to the gym and eat more vegetables, but gee the couch feels good right now so let me start tomorrow!

So what can ECA do about the divide between intent and behaviour?

• Find the Bright spots - identify and promote influential people who are shopping ethically
• Point to the Destination - paint the picture of what an Australia with ethical consumption looks like
• Script the Critical Moves - tell me what I need to do as a shopper. The calling card ECA make available are a great idea to influence retailers.
• Find the Feeling - capitalise on the positive feeling that comes from shopping ethically, make me feel miserable about imagining one of my loved ones being treated unethically in an Australian sweat shop
• Tweak the environment - bring the ECA brand forward - stitch it into the garment as a point of pride. Which brings me to...

2. Use the peacock principle - Personal identity on display
Clothing is one of the most important signals we give about ourselves, and ECA has an opportunity to use its logo as a way for people to identify themselves as ethical (and who doesn't want that?).  Would people really want to carry the logo on their clothing?  Well...

• Calvin Klein smashed a previously entrenched behaviour - underwear is for under-wear - by tapping into the low slung jeans/boxer above the rim trend and branding the banding. From that point on, large sections of the population adopted branded undies as a form of personal status.
• Louis Vuitton bags market their craftsmanship as justification for premium pricing, but what people really buy into is the opportunity to display the branded fabric and logo - otherwise any other bag would do.
• Powerbands became a common wrist accessory across professional and amateur sporting fields. A weird plastic bracelet - who would go for that? People who wanted to be, and be seen to be, high performance. 
• University t-shirts are a classic example which project the message that, whilst I may not have gone to Harvard, I am smart enough to know it's full of smart people with whom I want to associate my brand. 

3. Focus on small behaviours not big behaviours
By this I mean that ECA can't change the big behaviour of going to the shops, but can change the small behaviour of what goods are consumed. This is where their educational and labelling efforts can really make a difference. Reusable enviro bags you see in supermarkets are an example of this strategy. My big behaviour - shopping for groceries - was not interrupted but the small behaviour, how to carry them, was.  And when you think of it, remembering your bags, carrying them empty and storing them is a much more burdensome task than selecting from an ethically produced range of clothes and footwear.

4. Strip the issue of anonymity
The principle here is that responding to an abstract concept like 'ethical treatment of people involved in the manufacture of goods' can be hard for people to grasp let alone act upon.  Likewise the scale of the problem can be overwhelming.  In Mother Teresa's case, she tackled poverty by acting for one. If you can help one person, you can help many. World Vision accomplish this by sponsorship of individual and identifiable people - they give a face to the people that need help.  ECA could follow suit by bringing forward the faces of those involved in the ethical manufacture of clothing and footwear, making shoppers feel personally engaged in resolving the issue.

 Many more strategies can be employed by Ethical Clothing Australia in tackling exploitation in the Australian textile clothing and footwear industry. One thing is clear, this will be a battle for the heart of Australian consumers not the mind.  For more information I encourage you to visit the ECA site http://www.ethicalclothingaustralia.org.au/  to find out how you can take action.