Let's change people's minds!

Innovative or just ordinary?

Take a look at the picture. There is a path. And there is a fence. Apparently the fence has been built after people have used the lawn as a shortcut, the existence of the path would otherwise have been rather unlikely.

The fence is an ordinary solution. It forces people to adapt to what once have been decided: This is a street with no crosswalk. This is not for crossing.

An innovative solution would have been to put a crosswalk in front of the lawn. Obviously people have a need here, to cross the street just at this very point. There is a need for change.

Lesson learned?

Ordinary people create solutions and put a lot of effort making people adopt them. It's in fact rather crazy, but as everybody else are doing the same thing, it seems to be right way.

Innovative people see the flow and follow it. Nobody knows where it will end but it's powered by natural forces. If you are lucky it will take you very, very far.

The key to change is no change

There is a common assumption out there stating that the hardest thing to change is people's behavior. And that the hardwalked path leading to change goes through knowledge and attitude change.

During the years I have found evidence proving this is totally wrong. In fact people can change their behavior anytime, only they find the right incentive. But they hate to say they changed their opinion (attitude).

Recycling is probably the best example. A lot of people say they don't want to recycle. They don't think it makes any good (the trash is eventually mixed up anyway) or they don't think it's important to protect the environment (the nature will take care of it - it always has).

Still those people normally recycle - if anyone tell them to and give them the right equipment to do so. In fact a Swedish survey a couple of years ago showed only 1of 5 recyclers believed it did any good. But still the continued to contribute. Why? Because there are social incentives telling them that if they don't, they will break the rule. And good people don't do that unless they have a good reason. One good reason is bad equipment. But when the equipment is fine - you better sort your  trash.

The key to change is to find the incentive that fit the target user. Not to change his or hers  opinion of any incentive.

Instant need

This is a vending machine for books. Located on the train platform at Arlanda Airport where travelers are standing waiting for a train that takes them to Stockholm city in less then 20 minutes.

At first hand it looks quite smart, doesn't it? People may want something to kill their 20 minutes train ride.

But think again. Vending machines are usually made for fresh drinks and candy. How long does it take to consume a chocolate bar? Normally less than 10 minutes. Thus, it doesn't make sense to walk up the stairs just to get a wider choice in a conventional shop.

How long does it take to read a book? Well, something between 6 hours and 6 months. Then you'd better be sure it's a good book.

Moreover, you don't make plan for sweets. Rather sweets make plans for you. That's why we buy sweets, it's suddenly painfully available.  But even if "Place" in the marketing mix has been proven very successful in the book business, it doesn't mean we will buy to any price, anywhere.  Because the dependant variable to "demand for choice" is not "time available". It's "time for consumption".

Free parking rules!

Is there a single feature that will turn your target market into customers - and in that case, what feature?

In Gothenburg, Sweden, 'free parking' when you invest in an environmentally friendly car definitely is. This is especially true in "Haga" where you can't buy parking licenses for street parking. Which shows pretty well on this image. Four out of four cars are Ford Focus Flexifuel.

Don't call an idea stupid only because it is

I have one very important principle when working with behavioral change: Don't call an idea stupid, until it's proved stupid. Because too often the most stupid ideas are the most successful.

Which perhaps will make you pay some respect to this project in Dundee, Scotland.

Positive constraints

A better life!

That's probably the best way to make anybody change. Make their life better. The tricky part is to understand what's better and what's worse.

A big car compared to a small car. Better or worse? Well if you look at the car from inside out I think most of us in fact think big cars are better. They are spacious and they are safe. But they are gas guzzling and if you live in downtown Milan, Paris, Madrid or another narrow European city they will significantly disable your mobility.

South European cities are "positive constraints" for fuel-effiency. Their ancient architecture creates a pitoresque feel, inspire people and it makes these cities so beautiful. But it does not allow big spacious cars. However, for its habitants, living in these cities is more important than driving big.

Other examples of positive constraints are laptops, cell phones and portable players - for power-saving. As long as we don't have better batteries the power-consumption must be more effective. In our home we don't care that much as long as the bill doesn't reach too nasty levels. But when we are on the move we care. Because mobility is more important than energy-consuming features.

So, the a killer question is: Which positive constraints can you use in your business?

Social science vs common sense

People who read this blog probably know I'm very much in favor for interpersonal communication instead of mass mediated channels. Basically because it has better effect on people's attitudes and behavior.

But sometimes studies very well demonstrate that media still has significant effects, even regarding our behavior. A recent study from School of Journalism and Mass communication at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill shows that teenagers with early exposure to sexual content in media seem likely to have sex earlier than teens with low consumption of sexual content. According to the study white teens in the top fifth of the "sexual media" diet when 12 to 14 years of age were more than twice as likely to have had intercourse by age 14 to 16, compared to those ranking in the lowest fifth.

This is the first study that has shown this connection.

The authors agree the study doesn't promise any direct cause-effects results. "It's very hard to establish causality," Jane D Brown, lead author said. But, "it's as strong a linkage as we have seen. It's a very strong association."

I don't know what you think but to me it seems to be pretty much common sense. Or "how was it for you" in your high school class? Who will disagree with this?

1. In your class there was a bunch of people, say about a fifth of the class, that didn't seem very sexually interested. They didn't dress sexy, they were shy talking about sex, they were pretty much occupied by being 14.

2. There was another group, say also about a fifth, who were dating more frequently, they had tried alcohol and they were making out in the schoolyard. If they were girls they would be kissing older boys.

3. The first group of people didn't care much about Madonna-videos and did not have any Playboy magazines under their bed.

4. The second group did.

Sexual content in media is not consumed by any person. It is consumed by persons who share and discuss the meaning of the content with others. On the other hand, watching Kelly McGillis and Tom Cruise having sex in the sunset in Top Gun didn't make me less interested to try it myself. So of course, the more sexual content I watch or listen to, the more do I want it. But it doesn't change my values.

Launching the N-curve

Underpromise and overdeliver - that's the key to good word-of-mouth-communication, and thus very important in effective diffusion management. But the concept has its drawbacks:

1. It takes  a lot of courage to rely on other people and their ability to figure out that you're remarkeble, even though you're not saying that yourself.
2. It's not very inspiring to invest money and time in something that doesn't allow richness and fame.

The consequence is that too many organizations don't dare to be low key. That's why the famous S-curve so often in fact rather comes in the shape of an N-curve. At least in terms of perception.

One recent example is the Öresund Bridge, connecting Sweden's third largest city, Malmö, with Copenhagen, the Capital of Denmark.  Prior and during its opening the expectations on transnational commuting, new business opportunities and increased tourism flourished. Not least in the marketing campaigns from the bridge consortium and the politicians behind the idea.

Then nothing happened. Except for disappointments. Less travelling than expected, less new business, less tourism. Less everything. What went up, soon went down. Heavily.

But yesterday the consortium for the first time ever reported they are ahead of expections. More than five years after the opening of the bridge. Suddenly there are proofs of a changed behavior in the region.

The key ingredient here is of course: TIME. It takes time to change behavior. Especially if it concerns jobs, living, everyday culture etc. But also when it comes to use of mobile phones, the Internet, new fuels or new food....But time is frustrating. That's why so many try to sell services, products and ideas that will accelerate adoption. Because that's exactly what we want to buy: "Less time".

So, there we are. With the N-curve.

Is the N-curve good or bad? Well, from a marketing point of view it's rather bad. A product with no expectations will definetly bring more immediate positive user experiences than one with high expectations. And positive experiences bring positive word-of-mouth which brings more users.

But, on the other hand, and from an investment perspective: With no or low expectations, would there be any bridges built at all?

It didn't, but it did

"Working from home" didn't take off. But now it does.

That's according to a Computer Sweden article reporting a heavy increase in VPN sales.

Apart from the remarkable lack of evidence in the article of such a development, it's a rather funny view of diffusion, isn't it?

1. Everbody expect something to happen.
2. It happens, but not to that extent people were expecting
3. Not much more is happening
4. Now it's happening again

It's like if the Wright brothers would say: We did fly. But not more than 500 yards. Let's sit down and wait until there are some real airplanes on the market that people really can make som use of. And hey, look Orville! Now I see one!

The truth is of course, everything that finally will turn out as common use is happening when people think nothing  happens, that is number 3. Number 4 may sometimes (but not in this case) be what we know as "the tipping point". The problem for media is that in their perspective number 3 means nothing. In journalism the development is viewed from a news perspective:

1. People say things will happen
2. Now I've found som tiny evidence
3. There's nothing more to tell
4. Now it is - it's happening again!

Conclusion: journalists are lousy diffusion experts as journalism doesn't pay attention to gradually changes. They want big news. And big news means big changes, which almost never happen, at least not in a pace that is exciting enough to write about.

Engineers - are they human?

Affecting people's behavior normally involves one of three E's: Engineering, Enforcement and Education. Being one of those who often are asked to fix the latter "E" I constantly get problems in my lap that really should have been solved by the former disciplines. Especially the first - engineering.

If engineers knew more about human behavior our world would be much happier. And although communications Pros would suffer from less work, the tasks we would be given then could do some good.

Just read this fabulous post on a situation from a life quite ordinary: Driving in and out from garages. Day out, day in people are getting annoyed only because no one cared to think about how people in fact behave. And when the creativity of annoyed people suddenly is discovered, who's sent there to fix it: Well, first comes the educators, and when that doesn't do, let's call the enforcement. Meanwhile the engineers are busy annoying somebody else. They just don' know it yet.

Wasted waste

Swedish waste management company IL Recycling has published the results of a survey on people's recycling habits. According to the study only 6 out of 10 are recycling by sorting their trash in the right bin.

However more interesting is that only 1 out of 10 thinks the trash then in fact is recycled. Meaning, 5 out of 10 are actually sorting their trash convinced it won't do any good!

Why online grocery shopping failed

Recently I was asked to to speak about grocery shopping on the net and why it failed. The speach should last no longer than 15 minutes, and didn't allow too much research if I should make som gain out of it but when I had started to dig into the facts I just couldn't stop.

In research reports there are tons of insight on why people don't buy their food on the net. Too expensive having it delivered, too hard to arrange the deliveries, lack of broadband connection, hard to file complaints etc.

The only variable people seem to have overlooked is: Is grocery shopping on the net doing a job the user wants to have get done? And, more importantly, what job is that?

Delivery. That's what everybody says. And if you ask them: "would you like to have your groceries delivered to your door instead of going to the supermarket and buy them yourself?", what answer do you think you might expect?

But, if you instead ask: "what would improve your grocery shopping" the answer probably would be different. Just look at these facts:

- 33 per cent of the Swedes buy grocery more than 4 times a week
- In avarage 70 per cent of the decisions on what to buy are made inside the store
- In avarage 90 per cent of the decisions on what brand they will buy are made inside the store

My conclusion is the most important job someone can do for people who wants to improve their shopping is to "help them make them good decisions".

The supermarkets are pretty good at that. That's why we are going there, because the store helps us to make decision. The web shops fail in doing this, especially the grocery web shops. But they could, if they would be organized and designed to do a job people WANT to have get done and not a job they SAY they want to have get done.

Customers aren't especially good at telling us marketers about their needs. Because they can't even tell them selves.

So, shouldn't we listen to our customers? Well, no. Because customers in general are experts in incremental innovation, that is, improvements of what already excists. This is of course a contriction to my opinion that users are innovators. But it is a difference between a customer base and innovative customers. For a start-up this means you have to be very analytical and couragous:

Or as Cynicalman puts it: When you are in a position where you need clients more than they need you, your ship is sinking…fast! You must never confuse “the customer is #1″ with “the customer is always right”, because that way lies madness.

Parking troubles solved

I don't know the rate of heart attacks caused by parking trouble, but I am sure it's significant. Thus solutions are welcomed.

In Pacific Grove, a coastal resort town by the Monterey Bay in California, they have found a solution inspired by the hospitality business: increased parking turnover. By using a digital system that charges you more and more per hour they enable people to make small arrends while long-term parkers are to find spots outside the city. The parking spots are equipped by a wire grid under the pavement that triggers a sensor when the car moves, resetting the level to the next parker.

Hopefully the solution can decrease the so annoying hunt for parking spots, which also causes a lot of polution.

(I can't get no) Satisfaction

This Summer C-Net provided us with the list of the 10 greatest dot-com flops. It's really amazing reading about something that never should be forgotten. How could so much money be invested in so ultimately bad business? And how could senior business people take so dramatically bad decisions? Such as:

- Employing 2,000 and expanding to 26 cities in three years (Webvan)
- Designing content that barerly no one could see on their screeens (Boo.com)
- Paying instead of receiving for every item sold, because of undercharging of shipping costs (Pets.com)

But the greatest riddle of them all is:

How could so many companies get funding when they didn't offer their customers any improvement?  In most cases every venture capitalist could have surfed in on the web site and said: Sorry guys I can't get no satisfaction here.

Or isn't a life most ordinary something for a VC?

Green hot rodders

More on fuel efficiency.

The procedure has been around for a while but it sure starts to seem more like an innovation - Plug-in cars.

Although the hybrid industry with Toyota and Honda in lead has done everything to persuade people it's not about plug-in, people are doing it. By adding extra batteries to their Prius they receive up to 250 MPG. And now the industry starts to listen as well. I think this statement from Toyota very well examples that the real innovators are the users who want the little extra:

"They're like the hot rodders of yesterday who did everything to soup up their cars. It was all about horsepower and bling-bling, lots of chrome and accessories," said Cindy Knight, a Toyota spokeswoman. "Maybe the hot rodders of tomorrow are the people who want to get in there and see what they can do about increasing fuel economy."

So, now you have a choice. Fuel your CNG car with natural gas, or plug in your hybrid. Just add a vending machine and your own garage will offer full 24h service.

Nearest gas station: 0 miles!

For a new product to succeed it has to be better. It has to do a job people like to get done, and it has to do it better than previous solutions.

Honda has just come up with such a product. The PHILL. It makes it possible to fill your car at home, while you are sleeping, and to a rate that sure will give you sweet dreams. If you have a CNG car, that is.

The problem with CNG (compressed natural gas either drilled or from landfill gas) has always been the infrastructure. How do we get enough filling stations out to secure the demand of the cars and how do we get enough cars out on the market to create sufficient demand of gas? Especially when other solutions such as ethanol, biodiesel and in future, fuel cells, will compete in the same marketplace.

But while nobody saw the woods because of all the trees, Honda did just that. They saw that the infrastructure is in fact out there already and it could be much more compelling to drivers than the current alternative. By using the PHILL appliance CNG drivers in California now actually can use their own gas equipment in their homes to fill their cars. So instead of driving to odd places to find CNG, PHILL users now barely ever have to visit a gas station at all. And, on top of that, they pay about a buck for a gallon.

Using the PHILL means a new behavior which is something completely different compared to changing people's attitudes towards alternative fuels. But it doesn't have to harder. Just different..