The paradox of choice

I have talked about the anxiety we feel through being overwhelmed by too much choice (see here). The last decade, driven from consumers' needs for instant gratification, on demand services and personalised products, has created a culture of anxiety full of ephemeral relationships with people and brands. Finally the corporate world has woken up and taking a stand against the world of excess.

Wal-Mart in Canada has started to drop the number of product lines it holds on its shelves. Sales of these product lines has not been affected ie. people still buy the product and and are less wedded to the brand than we may think (see here). Duncan Mac Naughton, chief merchandising officer at Wal-Mart in Mississauga says, “Folks can get overwhelmed with too much variety. With too many choices, they actually don’t buy.”

Regardless of the intent, the outcome clearly does not impact the corporate bottom line. What, though, is the impact on the shoppers' experience? Are they grateful for less choice, are they less anxious or do they feel defeated that their preferred brand is not present so they have to go for brand x? The main thing is that the customer is not always right...and it takes someone brave to put that knowledge into action.

So what does this mean? I believe that we have entered a period of reconcilliation, rationalisation and retrenchment to meet basic needs. We are living in a period of personal responsibility. It is the responsibility of the corporate world to remove choice to help the psychology of society.

Watch 'Pay It Forward' Streaming

I've talked about "Cooperative behaviour cascades in human social networks". For those that don't know, "Pay it Forward" is an outstanding movie from 2000 that sees the theme in practice.

Here is the movie. Click on the red arrow - when it turns green, click on the green arrow. Then click on the screen and it will open in a new window so you can enjoy the full screen. The video, as posted here, is too wide for the posting space.



Here's a link to the movie on Tudou: http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/KfuiMUDLv4s/

Neuromarketing

Neuromarketing is a new field of marketing that studies consumers' sensorimotor, cognitive, and affective response to marketing stimuli. Researchers use technologies such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to measure changes in activity in parts of the brain, electroencephalography (EEG) to measure activity in specific regional spectra of the brain response, and/or sensors to measure changes in one's physiological state (heart rate, respiratory rate, galvanic skin response) to learn why consumers make the decisions they do, and what part of the brain is telling them to do it. Marketing analysts will use neuromarketing to better measure a consumer's preference, as the verbal response given to the question, "Do you like this product?" may not always be the true answer due to cognitive bias. This knowledge will help marketers create products and services designed more effectively and marketing campaigns focused more on the brain's response. This makes neuromarketing and its applied results potentially subliminal. Neuromarketing will tell the marketer what the consumer reacts to, whether it was the color of the packaging, the sound the box makes when shaken, or the idea that they will have something their co-consumers do not.

Here is a video on the subject (you have to wait for the advert to pass - sorry but I can't do anything about it).






Beyond subliminal advertising, Darpa (the Pentagon's innovation department) has invested $4m in an attempt to help soldiers communicate by telepathy. See this link: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/05/pentagon-preps-soldier-telepathy-push/

This truly is mad science but the ideas are sound. Using EEG, if a device can collect, transmit, receive and translate brain waves, soldiers will be able to communicate by telepathy.

Judge me on my intent

I previously raised the question of judging someone based on their actions or intent. It seems that scientists have taken us one step towards answering this question. When we are faced with a simple task, scientists are able to predict our actions by analysing our brain activity in real time. These simple tasks can be adding or subtracting two numbers. By scanning our brains, scientists can predict our intent before we are consciously aware.

Here is an article from New Scientist that describes the work.

This form of mind reading leads to a philosophical and ethical consideration. If our intent is a true and unconscious reflection of our belief system, do our actions always mirror our intent? The answer has to be 'no'. We have a conscious filter that stops us acting on gut instinct, that forces us to behave appropriately in polite situations. If someone were to commit a crime would they be guilty if their intent was never to take part - perhaps they had been coerced, or felt obliged for some reason?

As we learn more about the brain, society will need to hold these debates. As we, individually, learn more about the brain, we have a responsibility to increase our self awareness and be 1) mindful of our intent 2) conscious of our actions.

Money and happiness

Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke addressed graduates of the University of South Carolina with a simple message: having a well paid job doesn't mean you will be happy. Here is the link to the report (click here).

Now I don't think there's anything new in this. I've talked about the science of happiness and the data says it all - there is no correlation between money and happiness.

So why is Bernanke making these statements? Is it because this message needs to be reiterated year after year as students prepare to enter the workforce? Is it our responsibility to help guide students towards making 'correct' decisions for their long term happiness. Or is it something else? Is he preparing society for a harder, less prosperous future? Is it a prelude to how the traditional high earning careers will be constrained through regulatory reform? Is it all of the above?