Marketing aspects of the grocery hunt

Words: 445
Reading Time: 1 minute 29 seconds

Suddenly you can’t find your favoured brand of breakfast muesli? Of course not; it’s deliberately been moved to confuse you. The conventional wisdom used by the non-thinkers that run supermarkets is that moving products around to confuse customers has a tendency to increase sales.

Thus it is that eventually I found cling film with the pet food this week; kitchen towels in the “seasonal” aisle and chilled puff pastry next to the butter. Where else?

The trouble with the way this rule has evolved is that there is no effective control group. It is impossible to have two stores on the same site at the same time, one relocating goods, the other not, to give any true comparison.

So sales go up on the confusingly located product, or the one that took its place – would they have done so anyway? There is no way of knowing. And what about related products sales; how have they been affected? Brainless in marketing has no idea because what constitutes a related product is peculiar to each shopper.

This received dogma, this unexamined conformance to an out-of-date rule ignores some basic commonsense contrary indicators:
1) If this rule is so great at increasing sales, why are all the soup tins together? Why not put some with the cereals, some with the cakes and some with the soap powders? Why not simply throw all the products onto the shelves in a totally random and haphazard manner? That would really bump up the volumes – not.
2) Familiarity increases spending. I personally spend more in stores where I feel more comfortable and less threatened by the child-level psychology in use and for which, I suppose, the retailer pays handsomely.
3) Confused customers become frustrated customers. They will take out their aggression on your staff, leading to higher staff turnover. Confused customers will also give up the hunt, even abandoning goods they have already put into the trolley, and go elsewhere. Total sales go down.

Sometimes stuff has to be moved around for good reasons of space and changes in product mix. We know that. In which case:
1) Provided handy, current, printed store guides at the entrances, so that we can still find stuff;
2) Make the aisle signs reflect what is on the shelves – or simply take them down;
3) Place a bright, eye-catching (you know how to do that) re-direct label on the shelf-edge at the old location, directing us to the new location.

Isn’t it about time our retailers stopped treating us – their customers – as dim-witted cattle and accorded us a little respect?

It would certainly improve their image among the general population.

What would that do for sales?

Lessons in Staying Positive – #8

Words: 959. Reading time: 3 minutes 12 seconds.

Our feelings are contagious. For example, if you are feeling down and disappointed then that feeling is likely to be transmitted subconsciously to those who interact with you.

Some individuals may believe that if they speak in a bright, cheery voice and act in an upbeat manner then that will effectively conceal what else is going on. It rarely does.

Even if the person concerned exactly modulates her voice to the precise pitch and timbre she uses normally when she is actually feeling bright and cheerful, her true inner feelings are almost certain to “leak” into some of the other ways we express ourselves.

These will include facial expressions, verbal dexterity and variety, breathing patterns, eye accessing cues, blink rate, gestures and body language. And it is likely to be the motions of the person’s further extremities, such as feet and fingers that give the game away.

The multiple ways we humans use simultaneously to express ourselves makes whole-body, consistent make-believe a daunting task.

And the longer, deeper and more frequent the interaction, the more likely it is that subconscious transmission will take place. Put simply, the longer pretence is maintained, the more effort it takes.

By the same token, if you are truly feeling buoyant and optimistic then the people you are communicating with will pick up on it. If you have a really good state people will think “I like this person” and be drawn to you.

We are more comfortable with people we like and it is easier to like someone who is happy, just as a warm, sunny day in May is more elevating than a cold, wet Wednesday in November.

We are also more comfortable with people who we think are like us, or who we would like to be like. Given a choice, most people would elect to be happy and most would hesitate to describe themselves as sad, miserable or cheerless. That’s not going to win them any friends.

That happiness is catching is confirmed by a study that followed a whole community of people for 20 years. The study, published in the British Medical Journal, followed more than 4,700 people living in Framingham, Massachusetts from 1983 to 2003. Researchers found that the effect of one happy person could ripple through three degrees of separation. The researchers liken the pattern of happiness transmission to the spread of a virus: those with the most number of happy contacts are the mostly likely to catch the happy bug.

“Happiness is like a stampede,” said [co-author] Nicholas Christakis… “Whether you’re happy depends not just on your own actions and behaviours and thoughts, but on those of people you don’t even know”

In this study certain social relationships were more effective at spreading happiness; the good mood of a next-door neighbour was more contagious than that of a live-in spouse. Friends of the same gender were the most likely source of good cheer.

A temporal element was also detected: the effects of a happy encounter could linger for as long as a year before fading.

One important dimension of such “contagion” has been rightly emphasised by Shigehiro Oishi, a University of Virginia psychologist who studies the causes and consequences well-being. He has said:

"Although we are connected with friends and family members who live far away via cell-phone and the Internet, these results indicate that there is nothing like a face-to-face interaction. We are told to get connected by cell-phone companies, but in order to get connected you really have to live close by and interact face to face.”

Technology is evolving a lot faster than the human animal.

But how can something like happiness be contagious? Some researchers think one of the most likely mechanisms is empathetic mimicry. Psychologists have shown that people unconsciously copy the facial expressions, manner of speech, posture, body language and other behaviours of those around them.

Through a kind of neural feedback, they experience the emotions associated with the particular behaviour they are mimicking.

Barbara Wild and colleagues at the University of Tubingen, Germany, found that the stronger the facial expression, the stronger the emotion experienced by the observer. She believes this process is hardwired, since it acts so rapidly and automatically.

Others suggest it works through the action of mirror neurons, a type of brain cell thought to fire both when we perform an action and when we watch someone else doing it, though it is not clear whether the mimicking would cause the neurons to fire or whether their firing would trigger the mimicry.

What is clear is that unconscious imitation allows people to "feel a pale reflection of their companions' actual emotions" and even "feel themselves into the emotional lives of others", says Elaine Hatfield, of the University of Hawaii.

There is plenty of evidence for emotional contagion outside the lab. In 2000, Peter Totterdell at the University of Sheffield found a significant association between the happiness of professional cricketers during a match and the average happiness of their teammates, regardless of other factors such as whether the match was going in the team's favour.

Other studies have found that waiters who offer service with a smile are rewarded with bigger tips.

In NLP this is called being in uptime. Make sure your head, your heart and your happiness are all on the same plain before launching into any key activity, particularly where it involves face-to-face contact. If not, then postponing to a better time - or making a phone call instead - might be the better strategy.

In business giving your clients, the people you are communicating with, the sense of having your “unconditional positive regard”; that you are there for them and with them; that they have your undivided attention, is the foundation on which good rapport is based.

Imparting happiness with the deal is a big bonus worth having.

Everyone nods

Everybody nods.

In the years leading up to the collapse of the South Sea Company in 1720 there was an increased potential for foreign trade. Consumerism was on the rise. Wealth and luxury were no longer reserved exclusively for the aristocracy.

The company was promised a monopoly of all trade to the South American Spanish colonies.

Everyone agreed that the future was set fair. Everyone nodded.

But through a web of deceit, corruption, and bribery that included both company and government officials it was grossly oversold. The trading concessions barely materialized; the company had a very shaky commercial basis.

The company’s share price fell from a peak of £1050 at the end of June to £175 by September 1720, devastating institutions and individuals alike.

The bursting of the bubble, which coincided with the similar collapse of the Mississippi Scheme in France, ended – temporarily – the prevalent belief that prosperity could be achieved through unlimited expansion of credit.

In the later 1990s the new internet sector and related fields were the place to make your fortune. Everyone nodded.

A combination of rapidly increasing share prices, individual stock market speculation and widely available venture capital created an environment in which many of the internet based companies dismissed standard business models. They focused on increasing market share without regard to the bottom line. That would take care of itself.

These companies expected that they could build enough brand awareness to charge profitable rates for their services later. The motto "get big fast" reflected this strategy.

But the bottom line didn’t and the companies couldn’t. The dot-com model was inherently flawed.

Even if the plan was sound, there could only be, at most, one network-effects winner in each sector. Yet there were a vast number of companies all with the same business plan for the same respective sector. Therefore most companies with this business plan faced inevitable failure. In fact, many sectors could not support even one company powered entirely by network effects.

The dot-com bubble crash wiped out $5 trillion in market value of technology companies from March 2000 to October 2002. Add to this the write-downs by the venture capital community which, to name but three, include at least $280 million for kozmo.com, $160 million for boo.com and $65 million for MVP.com.

And so we come to recent times. The bankers announce they have found a way of lending the same money many times over and, even if it is lent where there is a high risk of default, it’s still safe. And everyone nodded.

However, these events and those like them down the years are merely the tip of the iceberg. These are just instances of high–profile, bizarre and reckless conduct. There is just as much perverse, incomprehensible and destructive business behaviour to be found in everyday dealings.

For example, a recent, cash-strapped client who offered 90-day credit to his customers because, “that’s what this industry does.” Everyone nods.

For example, a business acquaintance who cut back on his sales and marketing expenditure in anticipation of a fall in customer volumes (everyone nods) happily reporting that’s what actually happened.

For example, a company, anxious to have its employees engaged with the business (everyone nods), commissions a consultant to conduct a survey in order to discover what its people think.

For example, the business that is doing things in the same way as its competitors (everyone nods), yet expects a result that will show them as being exceptional.

The human animal is tribal. That is not the same as having a herd instinct. We can think independently if we chose; we are more likely to succeed if we do.

In 1841 Charles Mackay published his book "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds", often cited as the best book ever written about market psychology.

In May 2004 James Surowiecki published The Wisdom of Crowds.

In the light of subsequent events, perhaps Mackay had it right after all.