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