Index Political Independents as Uninterested

For a long time now, American politicians have been debating about the extent of cheating in elections. The compelling evidence is that actual voting fraud is rare. But a trio of researchers from Kent State University and University of Michigan start by reporting how with regard to oversight of voting procedures by politicians, the U.S. has performed poorly on measures of integrity. Tactics like placing voting machines in ways which manipulate turnout occur too often.
     The researchers explored the relationships between partisan affiliation and tolerance, or even support, for subversion of democracy via suppression of political competition. The studies accomplished this by presenting to people the same descriptions of unambiguous deliberate attempts to manipulate elections, but with some people the perpetrators were described as Democrats and with others as Republicans.
     Not surprisingly, the study results indicated that people are more tolerant of election manipulation when it’s carried out by their own party than by the opposing party. And, as expected, citizens are more likely to cry foul when the tactic harms their party than when it helps their party.
     The researchers do report their own surprise at the study participants’ tepid response overall to the descriptions of flagrant violations of fairness and the law. The finding I consider most intriguing concerns the responses from study participants who identified themselves as political independents: They were less likely than both the Democrats and Republicans to object to a violation. Independents were better than partisans at being impartial, but worse at calling out infractions.
     Perhaps this indicates that political independents are not so much disinterested—in the sense of impartial—as they are uninterested—in the sense of detached from matters of politics. This has implications for how politicians should allocate funding for persuasive communications. Independents could be less responsive than partisans.
     The study results are consistent with studies showing that voters who support a particular candidate for elective office consider the results of a political poll as less believable when that preferred candidate does less well in the poll. The researchers at Witten/Herdecke University, University of Zurich, and University of Mannheim posit this phenomenon as harmful to society, since in a healthy democracy, voters should be keeping their beliefs correct and current.
     The research findings indicate that this motivated reasoning problem is eased when more poll results from a broader range of sources are provided over the course of a campaign.

Successfully influence the most prosperous & most loyal consumer age group. For the specific strategies & tactics you need, click here.

Click for more…

Pile Plenty of Political Polls on People 

Delay Negative Stereotypes to Post-Experience

Image at top of post based on photo by Lewis Fagg from Unsplash

Limit Limitations of Limited Editions

The business logic of a manufacturer’s limited-edition product release is that scarcity motivates prompt purchase by triggering fear of missing out. The tactic has been used with hedonic categories such as designer accessories, sneakers, video games, and collectible toys.
     However, if a motivated shopper discovers the limited-edition item they’re desperately seeking is nowhere to be bought, their disappointment can turn into anger directed at the brand.
     What are the best ways for a manufacturer to realize advantages of limited editions while avoiding the risks?
     Based on their study results, researchers at University Witten/Herdecke, The University of Texas at Austin, University of Muenster, University of Auckland, and Arden Automobilbau GmbH recommend manufacturers produce or stock enough items to satisfy at least immediate customer demand. To avoid harming store or item brand value and repurchase intentions, ensure that any customer who wishes to purchase a limited edition at market launch can get one.
     These researchers also explored techniques for producers who choose to reject this guidance and instead build excitement by intentionally underproducing for a product launch. In my email exchange with Prof. Michael Steiner, the principal investigator, he wrote, “Nike and Adidas could reduce some of the negative effects of immediate sellouts by combining online sales with a raffle system, ensuring that each customer has an equal chance of obtaining the desired limited edition.”
     Even with this, some sellouts may be unavoidable. For such cases, a manufacturer can help check that at the retail store level, customers don’t feel they’re being mistreated. For example, retailers should use the term “sold out.” In ecommerce retailing, this resulted in better customer reactions than did the term “out of stock.” Item outage didn’t produce as much shopper outrage, according to studies at The University of Texas-Austin, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology, and Kyung Hee University.
     The researchers say that when people hear “out of stock,” they think of problems with the supply chain: The retailer failed to place an order or didn’t conscientiously track the order. The supplier’s production broke down. The shipper failed to deliver on time. Somebody betrayed the customer.
     “Sold out” has the implication instead of product demand which the retailer could not have been expected to anticipate. In the study, participants judged “sold out” to be caused by unexpected sales and therefore to be of shorter duration and more subject to replenishment than when “out-of-stock” was used.

Successfully influence the most prosperous & most loyal consumer age group. For the specific strategies & tactics you need, click here.

Click for more…

Leave Shoppers Feeling They’re Not Sold Out 

Influence with Trustworthy Scarcity 

Launch Items Which Arouse Competitiveness 

Close the Sale Close to the Source

Image at top of post based on photo by Paul Macallan from Unsplash

Vend Health with Proper Item Placement

When looking at store shelves, shoppers are more likely to select healthy rather than unhealthy food alternatives if the healthy items are positioned to the left rather than to the right of the unhealthy ones. But when the purchase is from a vending machine, it’s the opposite: Researchers at University of Macerata, Università Politecnica delle Marche, and University of Bologna find that placing the healthy alternatives to the right of the row increases the frequency of their selection.
     That’s useful for those promoting healthy food consumption to have in mind since vending machines are highly popular for selling snacks. The researchers attribute the popularity to, among other factors, our current convenience-oriented culture, demand for 24/7 accessibility, and frequency of on-the-go consumption. Compared to when selecting snacks at a store, a vending machine purchase is usually made with less deliberation or interpersonal interaction. Both these factors can nudge choice toward a high-sugar, ultra-processed alternative.
     The argument for placing healthy items on the left of store shelves relates to perceived cost: Consumers tend to assume that higher-priced items are positioned to the right of lower-priced items. For a cost-conscious consumer, reactions to an alternative being seen on the left counterbalance another common assumption—that healthy food items are less tasty than unhealthy ones. But because of the impulsive nature of vending machine purchases, the consumer is likely to be less price-sensitive, so the influence of cost perception is less.
     Beyond this, the researchers’ argument for placing healthy items on the right of the vending machine row has to do with product familiarity: With vending machine purchases, people are more likely to select items which are familiar to them. However, this effect operates differently with vice than with virtue products. As product placement on the vending machine row moves from right to left, the negative impact of familiarity on virtue choice becomes weaker. Virtue products are advantaged by being placed on the right, while the left-hand side favors vice products.
     The studies also found that placement of healthy items on a higher row in the machine enhanced their frequency of choice.
     Please recognize that this doesn’t necessarily mean people will select and consume healthy items to a greater extent than unhealthy ones. Instead, the finding is that relative preferences shift toward healthier items with proper item placement. People might still prefer unhealthy items, but the choice will be noticeably less than otherwise.

Successfully influence the most prosperous & most loyal consumer age group. For the specific strategies & tactics you need, click here.

Click for more…

Help Shoppers Leave with Health Left 

Sense the Pleasure from Tactile Ordering

Image at top of post based on photo by Kuan-yu Huang from Pexels

Fill Coffers Using Retributive Philanthropy

“Donate money to our charity today so we can inflict greater destruction tomorrow.”
     What a strange solicitation I just created! Now suppose the target is cancer. Contributing toward destruction of a disease could bring warm glow feelings we associate with love. I think the pitch makes sense.
     Researchers at Western University in Canada explore other solicitations where the promised payoff is harm, but the motivation is revenge against those who outraged the contributor. Examples cited by the researchers include a Planned Parenthood fundraiser using the tag line, “There’s one person who has a special place in our hearts: Mike Pence. Today, break his heart and make a donation in his name,” in response to Mr. Pence opposing abortion rights and a viral YouTube campaign urging donations of Abercrombie & Fitch clothes to homeless people, so A&F sales are hit, in response to past fatphobic statements made by A&F’s CEO.
     The researchers call such campaigns retributive philanthropy.
     To help your charity best increase overall donations and attract new donors by using retributive philanthropy, understand what the researchers concluded. Results from their studies indicate: 

• For the harm to others to be accepted as morally acceptable, it must be with the contributor’s prosocial intent. Therefore, highlight in your solicitation the social benefit consequence of the damage. 
• Point out how the bad actions of the offender are a clearly intentional, not accidental, violation of what the contributor considers to be moral. 
• To the degree possible, send retributive philanthropy solicitations to prospects who have demonstrated an authoritarian propensity for punishing norm violators.

     Regarding this third one, the researchers note how authoritarianism is a trait associated with disagreeableness and antagonism. These are unlike traits like agreeableness, benevolence, and empathy which we’ve generally associated with charitable behavior. This hints to me that by attending to retributive philanthropy, we can expand the pool of likely donors.
     Mobilize emotions when asking for contributions, whether those emotions arise from authoritarianism or empathy. It can make a difference if we present offenders or beneficiaries as a set of individuals rather than as an organized group of individuals.
     Researchers at University of Michigan and London Business School found that charitable donations to help poor children were higher when the children were described as belonging to the same family than when not. The emotional pull was stronger when the prospective donor had been shown a single entity than when shown isolated individuals.

Successfully influence the most prosperous & most loyal consumer age group. For the specific strategies & tactics you need, click here.

Click for more…

Collapse to Soles When Asking for Money 

Let Go of Grudges

Image at top of post based on photo by Sora Shimazaki from Pexels

Consider Consumer Confidentiality Concerns

People are happier with items which are personalized. Personalization goes beyond customization in that personalization takes into account distinctive individual characteristics of the particular consumer.
     What better way to know about such characteristics than by analyzing each of your shoppers’ DNA? Many consumer tendencies, such as selecting a compromise rather than going for the extremes, have a strong genetic component. So do preferences for specific products, such as chocolate, mustard, hybrid cars, science fiction movies, and jazz. Expert analysis of the adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine bases in the DNA strand could end up saving time and energy for both the shopper and the marketer by allowing pinpoint identification of best fits.
     DNA analysis also could be helpful when selling to family members. We might not even need to meet those others when our shopper says, “Can you help me select holiday gifts my children would enjoy?”
     So how interested would your shoppers be in having their genetic testing information used by you?
     The answer to that question, indicates a University of Gothenburg study is, “Not very.”
     The researchers surveyed a sample of Swedish genealogy enthusiasts who had participated in DNA testing. Among the items on the survey were, “I am interested in having my personal information used by the genetic testing company for hyper-personalization of products and services,” and, “I am likely to provide my personal information to the genetic testing company to receive hyper-personalized recommendations of products and services.” On the five-point degree-of-agreement scale where a higher number indicates greater agreement, the mean average responses for the items were 1.75 and 1.67 respectively.
     The researchers note that their sample was not selected randomly and consisted of people who had already shared their genetic information with the testing company. It would seem that among the general population, interest in sharing a DNA profile with a marketer would be even less.
     Analysis of responses to other items on the survey indicated the reason for the reluctance is, not surprisingly, a concern about misuse of the information. This might refer to worries about data disclosure to others. It also might refer to fears the marketer would use the information to exploit a consumer’s weaknesses.
     All this serves to remind us of the concerns our shoppers have about protection of their confidentiality. When it comes to personalizing, let’s gather the necessary information in ways which don’t jeopardize a relationship of trust.

Successfully influence the most prosperous & most loyal consumer age group. For the specific strategies & tactics you need, click here.

Click for more…

Attend to Genetic Influences in Selling 

Open Up Shoppers So You Can Personalize 

Drive Personalization by Fostering Narcissism

Image at top of post based on photo by Google DeepMind from Unsplash

Lay Off Latinx with Latinos

What do Latinos think of “Latinx”? That’s the term devised as a gender-neutral way to refer to people with Latin American roots. The term has found its way into advertising directed toward this population.
     The answer, according to a study at Washington State University, depends on political orientation. Their surveys conclude that politically liberal Hispanic/Latino consumers don’t care whether a marketer uses Latino or Latinx. Politically conservative Hispanic/Latino consumers, however, were found to generally consider use of the term Latinx to be offensive, and these conservative consumers expressed a lowered willingness to purchase items advertised using the term.
     The greater resistance among political conservatives to Latinx is consistent with other research and anecdotal evidence that conservatives prefer social tradition to social change. At the same time, there was no evidence Hispanic/Latino consumers, regardless of political orientation, clearly prefer use of Latinx to Latino for gender-neutral designation.
     Further, the researchers point to prior studies which indicate Hispanics and Latinos consider the development and use of the term as an insulting imposition of Anglo norms on Latinos and as a tone-deaf failure to recognize differences among the numerous Hispanic and Latino cultures.
     I recommend you lay off Latinx in advertising. There seems to be little upside and the clear potential of downsides in use of the term.
     Competent marketers who use Latinx don’t intend to offend Latinos. The motivation is proper, but let’s not assume we always know what our audience segments want to be called. The older adult demographic prefers “seniors” over “elderly.” Lesbians and gay males consider use of the label “homosexual” as demonstrating cultural incompetence.
     Consumer reaction to use of an identifying term also depends on who is doing the calling. In my email exchange about her study with Anabella Donnadieu Bórquez, now an assistant professor at The University of Texas at El Paso, she wrote, “Regardless of political orientation, Hispanic/Latino consumers are most receptive to this term when used by members of their own community (their Latin American friends and family). A possible implication of this research is that companies/brands recognized as part of the Hispanic/Latino community may have more success using Latinx in their advertising.”
     Add to all this the individual differences within any demographic group and how people’s preferences change over time. Monitor the reactions of your customers and clients to how you refer to them and ask them what they prefer to be called.

Successfully influence the most prosperous & most loyal consumer age group. For the specific strategies & tactics you need, click here.

Click for more…

Conserve Tradition If Serving Conservatives 

Market to Seniors, not to Elderly 

Step Away from Calling Stephen Stephen 

Accommodate Culture with Low-Involvement

Image at top of post based on photo by Jhovani Morales from Pexels