Decisions are often a competition between the speedy hare (System 1) and the considered tortoise (System 2). While system 1 ensures quick, intuitive decisions, system 2 enables deeper, analytical considerations. By understanding these decision-making mechanisms and integrating them early in the creative process, brands, NGOs and governments can support both spontaneous and considered purchasing decisions and positively influence behavior change.
How do we actually decide? Good enough.
The human decision-making process is messy, irrational and rarely characterized by rational reflection. This view used to be different: as recently as the 20th century, we assumed that we followed a primarily rational decision-making model in which we precisely weighed up all the pros and cons and then made an informed, logical decision. Today we know that things are different. 12 billion cans of Red Bull prove it.
We make "good enough" decisions, not perfect ones. We are indifferent cognitive misers who rely on innate and learned skills and heuristics to make action and purchase decisions. The motto: reduce the effort. And that fits perfectly with the mission of a brand: Make something easier to do, buy or think.
The good-enough system
System 1 vs. system 2 = hare vs. tortoise
Imagine a hare and a tortoise betting 5 carrots to see who is the fastest. Both stand bent over in the starting blocks, their hind legs fully stretched and "bang", the hare explodes from the starting position and is off and running. The tortoise, on the other hand, is still deciding whether or not to stay put.
We feel the same way. Daniel Kahnemann popularized this principle under the name System 1 and System 2 - Thinking. The main differences: speed & effort.
System 1, our speedy rabbit, shoots off immediately when it receives a stimulus. Past experiences - good and bad - effortlessly form the first intuitive, unconscious gut reaction. And our tortoise, the slow, analytical system 2, then consciously and logically questions whether it is not simply eating lettuce leaves. This thinking system saves resources because we don't have to process every piece of information.
Driving a car would be virtually impossible if we had to process every sensory impression with system 2. This is why we do not use System 2 for some decisions. For example, for frequently repeated decisions. Once we get used to buying a Red Bull every day, other brands rarely make it into the pre-selection field. We buy on auto-pilot in the supermarket. Caffeine fires the whole thing up again; it's not for nothing that caffeinated water is now available.
What does this mean for brands? Leverage through heuristics.
System 1, unconscious thinking, influences our actions immensely and forms fertile ground for cognitive distortions (biases and heuristics), which are potential levers for changing behavior. More than 180 have been identified to date. These mental shortcuts, which arise from the limited capacities of System 1, allow us to make judgments despite incomplete or even contradictory information. And they do so automatically.
Brands, NGOs and governments must be aware that we do not make rational decisions. There are at least three lessons to be learned from this:
- Decision-making situations should be specifically designed (keyword nudging),
- Emotions are the key to changing behavior,
- and ideas do not always have to be logical.
1. Designing decisions (nudging)
Nudging refers to the purposeful design of decision-making situations that encourages people to adjust their behavior and decisions in predictable ways. Think of it as a nudge in the "right" direction, without having to intervene or convince with prohibitions, commands or economic stimuli. Understanding people and their heuristics becomes the basis for changing behavior. If you own a smartwatch, you will be familiar with this: "Have you reached your 10,000 steps today?" It's a kind of self-monitoring nudge that keeps an eye on the core goal that we otherwise unconsciously forget in our stimulus-flooded everyday lives.
2. Emotions are key
Emotions (as opposed to content) penetrate the unconscious, feeling-driven processes of System 1 and have the potential to influence people on an intuitive level. We do not remember what was said, but how it was said and what feelings it evoked. This feeling usually lasts longer than, for example, short-lived price promotions - and to make it last even longer, these emotional associations need to be creatively renewed again and again.
3. Ideas can be illogical
As Ogilvy's Rory Sutherland said, "The opposite of a good idea can also be a good idea." Red Bull example: We make a drink that doesn't taste good, but is different. And it came true: like wine, it has become an acquired taste.
What heuristics are there?
Nobody remembers 180+ secret routes. To understand and use heuristics, it helps to break them down. Roughly speaking, there are four categories that can influence a brand experience as guiding questions.
- Information overload: How do we prioritize what gets our attention?
- Lack of meaning: How do we promote understanding of information?
- Memory prioritization: How do we order and prioritize what we find important?
- Speed of action: How do we decide which action to put energy into?
You can see a selection of five specific heuristics that we often see in marketing and also use ourselves here:
1. Availability heuristic: See more often, think about it more often
How do you learn something? One way is: repetition, repetition, repetition. These are the availability heuristic and the exposure effect. We assess the probability of an event or the frequency of an occurrence based on the ease with which examples or information about it come to mind. The more often we have seen something, the easier we remember it. Therefore, brand managers try to reach consumers as often as possible with relevant communication and increase physical availability and visibility at the POS. More frequency means more recall; at best, more recall means a positive influence on purchasing behavior.
2. Peak-end rule: intense ending
The peak-end rule states that the most formative parts of an experience significantly influence our overall perception. We tend to evaluate an experience based on the most intense moments (the high or low point) and the end. Less consideration is given to the duration or the average of all moments. A classic example is breaking up with a partner, whose sadness at the moment of separation paints over the good times of the relationship. Experience design, storytelling, PowerPoint presentations: Highlights and endings determine the overall experience. As the saying goes: "End on a high note."
3. Framing: The right light
An absolute classic in the communications industry. Framing means: presenting information in a certain light determines how it is perceived. For example, a problem can be made to sound preventative or risky through a clever choice of words and thus be optimally adapted to the target group.
Risk focus: "Smoking increases the risk of lung cancer by 70%."
Prevention focus: "Quitting smoking reduces the risk of lung cancer by 70%."
A current political example: The U.S. Democrats frame Donald Trump as "weird" in order to avoid substantive debate in favor of his populism.
4. Loss aversion: loss hits harder
The basic assumption: people are more likely to avoid losses than to seek gains. This can manifest itself in nuanced word choices that attempt to trigger FOMO (Fear-Of-Missing-Out) or inform entire campaigns. For example, many Don't Drink & Drive campaigns are loss-based. Closely related is the zero-risk bias, which says that in some situations we prefer 100% safety. Think: 30-Day Money-Back Guarantee.
Both biases can tempt us not to take even calculated risks and to choose half-hearted solutions just because they seem safer. We can already hear the innovators of every company crying.
5. Social proof: 5 stars
Word-of-mouth has always been very effective and various tools - especially online - use the social proof heuristic: the more people think an idea is right, the more likely it is that an individual will also perceive this idea as right. Rating portals, Google reviews, influencer marketing - everything is based on the heuristic that visible and credible confirmation from people can promote a change in behavior. The system is susceptible to fake reviews, for example, in order to buy or destroy trust in a product or service. Nevertheless, it works because we can also use surreptitious means to reach a decision.
Conclusion: Every tool is only as good as the way it is used
No matter which heuristics are used to explain behavioral observations: They are not a one-size-fits-all solution. However, if we understand that we make irrational decisions and integrate the mechanisms early on in the creative process, they help us to see a problem in a new light. Quite simply, they promote an understanding of people and move them further into the center of marketing activities.
We think: Having more human-centered tools in our toolbox is good.
As a lead agency with digital DNA, digitalwerk brings together a wide range of perspectives, interests and personalities to guarantee the best possible understanding of people - without thematic silos, but with heart, mind and openness to the irrational.
