How Evil Marketing Geniuses Hack Group Decision-Making
(a very long thread - Part 1)
(a very long thread - Part 1)
Professional services marketers are often faced with marketing to a DMU (Decision Making Unit). No two DMUs are the same. Groups of people behave in odd ways.
Marketing types know this in their bones. We know damn well that it’s hard to predict the behaviour of an individual. Individuals are mostly random.
But groups – groups we can model.
I’m sure you’ve all seen one of these flocks – murmurations – of starlings.
But groups – groups we can model.
I’m sure you’ve all seen one of these flocks – murmurations – of starlings.
They’re wonderful things – a mass of birds choreographed as though they were one big animal, with one purpose.
These are birds. They’re bird brains.
Back in the 80s, a chap discovered that you could model this stuff with 3 simple rules (no, really):
These are birds. They’re bird brains.
Back in the 80s, a chap discovered that you could model this stuff with 3 simple rules (no, really):
SEPARATION – avoid collisions with nearby flock-mates
(DMU equivalent behaviour: avoid direct confrontation with your peers.)
(DMU equivalent behaviour: avoid direct confrontation with your peers.)
ALIGNMENT – steer toward the average heading of nearby flock-mates
(DMU equivalent behaviour: Seek consensus with your colleagues. They know where they’re going. Also, it helps avoid collision, conflict)
(DMU equivalent behaviour: Seek consensus with your colleagues. They know where they’re going. Also, it helps avoid collision, conflict)
COHESION – steer towards the centre (average position) of nearby flock-mates
It’s dangerous to be on the edge of a flock. It’s good to be in the middle. If you’re a penguin, it’s warmer too.
Most of the time you don’t want to stick out. Only stand up when it REALLY matters.
It’s dangerous to be on the edge of a flock. It’s good to be in the middle. If you’re a penguin, it’s warmer too.
Most of the time you don’t want to stick out. Only stand up when it REALLY matters.
Put them together, and you end up with complex emergent flocking/swarming behaviour
Everyone has unconsciously arrived at harmony just by observing and mimicking each other.
Note: we think we see evidence of this on both the micro (individual) and macro (organisational) level.
Everyone has unconsciously arrived at harmony just by observing and mimicking each other.
Note: we think we see evidence of this on both the micro (individual) and macro (organisational) level.
From an organisational point of view, this is a pragmatic argument for fighting for increased diversity.
As we get more diverse, we should increase diversity of opinion.
As long as people are happy to speak out, more diverse perspectives mean better DMUs and better decisions.
As we get more diverse, we should increase diversity of opinion.
As long as people are happy to speak out, more diverse perspectives mean better DMUs and better decisions.
But the sad reality is that we all feel comfortable when we are surrounded by people like us.
Who think like us. Who we don’t have to explain stuff to all the time. Who - y'know - just GET IT.
Who think like us. Who we don’t have to explain stuff to all the time. Who - y'know - just GET IT.
Also, the longer we work together, the more similar we become.
We unconsciously synchronise our opinions and attitudes.
Companies are even attempting to co-opt and stage-manage this process. They call it "engineering company culture".
We unconsciously synchronise our opinions and attitudes.
Companies are even attempting to co-opt and stage-manage this process. They call it "engineering company culture".
As social animals, we use people around us to set our norms and benchmarks.
It's how we tell right from wrong. It’s DEEP and irrational.
We feel uncomfortable if we’re not doing what others are doing.
It's how we tell right from wrong. It’s DEEP and irrational.
We feel uncomfortable if we’re not doing what others are doing.
Never underestimate humanity's desire to avoid anxiety and stress.
Stress is physically awful.
Stress is physically awful.
I haven’t even mentioned the HIPPO.
I shouldn't even need to go into this.
Groups, it transpires, aren’t particularly rational
I shouldn't even need to go into this.
Groups, it transpires, aren’t particularly rational
In fact, the very things we think a group MIGHT be better at –considering more information, more perspectives...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_in…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_in…
We're not going to try to persuade you that groups are LESS rational than individuals. Only that they’re not all rational.
We think, if you consider your personal experience, you’ll agree with us.
We think, if you consider your personal experience, you’ll agree with us.
So what should we do about this?
How can an evil genius professional services marketer like you use this to their advantage?
How can an evil genius professional services marketer like you use this to their advantage?
We ran some research last year that helped point to the obvious answer.
We surveyed 200 business decision-makers (those with the authority and budget lines to employ professional services firms, in mid-size and large organisations across the UK.
We surveyed 200 business decision-makers (those with the authority and budget lines to employ professional services firms, in mid-size and large organisations across the UK.
We asked them simple questions like, "Are you familiar with this firm?"
We'll call this "familiarity".
(And yes, there are always some jokers. These are raw results).
We'll call this "familiarity".
(And yes, there are always some jokers. These are raw results).
And "how much do you agree with the statement, [this firm] could help our company achieve its business goals.”
Let's call this "favourability."
Let's call this "favourability."
When we cross-plot the results, we get this :
People knew the name well, and reckoned that IBM could help their businesses.
This is the familiarity/favourability chart, but it's also the "no-one got fired for buying IBM chart."
People knew the name well, and reckoned that IBM could help their businesses.
This is the familiarity/favourability chart, but it's also the "no-one got fired for buying IBM chart."
We're not really interested in IBM. We wanted to know about professional services.
We asked the same question about a number of law firms, management consultancies, and accountancy firms.
We asked the same question about a number of law firms, management consultancies, and accountancy firms.
Look at that swarm in the top right-hand corner. The better someone knew a firm’s name, the more they thought that firm might help them achieve their business goals.
The more familiarity, the more FAME, the more favourable they were.
8 out of 10 who knew the name well thought they could help.
9 out of 10 who thought they could help were familiar with their name.
8 out of 10 who knew the name well thought they could help.
9 out of 10 who thought they could help were familiar with their name.
A non-trivial number agreed that Pearson Hardman (a name they were familiar with from the TV series "Suits") were well-placed to help them address their business challenges.
If you only remember two things, remember these…
Thank you for spending so much time reading this thread. As a reward, I'd like to point you to this very useful deck by @BinetLes and Peter Field
We had nothing whatsoever to do with this deck, We're just admirers of Binet & Field.
business.linkedin.com/content/dam/me…
We had nothing whatsoever to do with this deck, We're just admirers of Binet & Field.
business.linkedin.com/content/dam/me…
Credits:
Flocking visualisations from @SebastianLague:
Face The Rear: Candid Camera footage was taken from: vimeo.com/277929528 (see also atlasobscura.com/articles/watch…)
Flocking visualisations from @SebastianLague:
Face The Rear: Candid Camera footage was taken from: vimeo.com/277929528 (see also atlasobscura.com/articles/watch…)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
