online consumer persuasion: a short introduction
TRANSCRIPT
Online consumer persuasion: a short introduction
Interactive Marketing 24th of February 2015
Dr Lukasz Piwek@motioninsocial
digitalreality
EMAIL SEND (every minute)
279 million
PHOTOS UPLOADED AND SHARED
500 million(every minute)
SEARCHES (every minute)
2.8 million
VIEWS (every minute)
3.2 millionWEBSITES CREATED (every minute)
839TWEETS (every minute)
278,000
SALES (every minute)
$100,000LIKES (every minute)
2.6 millionPEOPLE WATCHING PORN
124,000 (every minute)
PEOPLE CONNECTED TO INTERNET
PEOPLE SHOPPING ONLINE (2013)
2.3 billion
3 billion
ONLINE SALES ARE WORTH (2013)
£588 billiongrowing by 19% every year
(2015)
PEOPLE WITH SMARTPHONES GLOBALLY
1.8 billionADULTS WITH SMARTPHONES IN UK
80%EVERYONE WILL HAVE SMARTPHONE BY
2025
the Internetand digital technology
have changed consumption patterns,
marketing,economy,
everything.
consumerchoice
vs
vs
vs
ego depletion
resisting temptation takes considerable effort and energyand after some time our capacity to resist is exhaustedleading to
(Baumaister et al, 1998)
complexity of consumer decisions can result in ego depletion
depleted consumers are more likely to become passive
and make more impulsive decisions Baumaister et al (2005)
if you’re ego depletedyou’re more likely to be selfishuse sexist languagemake superficial judgements
Muraven et al (2003) Baumaister et al (2005)
Gaillot et al (2007)
judges grant more parole in the morning and just after lunchtime
Danziger et al (2011)
behaviour economicswith examples of:
ego depletionpriming
behaviour economics“we are not always rational, and we often make mistakes”we are susceptible to influencesfrom our immediate environment,irrelevant emotions, stereotypes,beliefs, norms, and many other factors
system 1
system 2
automatic & unconscious rapid & low effort recognition, perception, orientation nonverbal
control & conscious slow & high effort rule following, comparison complex computations linked to language
Dual process theory Stanovich & West (2000)
primingautomatic memory effect in which exposure to one stimulusinfluences a response to another stimulus
support to increase funding for schools is higher if voting takes place in schoolsBerger et al. (2008)
priming people with moneymakes them more selfishVochs (2006)
people litter less in the trainif there is a smell of cleaning productDe Lange et al (2012)
women who were exposed to flowersperceived the manto be more attractiveand sexierGueguen (2011)
more donation made when word ‘love’was added to messageGueguen (2011)
children consumed 45% more food when exposed to food advertising in cartoonsHarris et al (2009)
onlinepersuasion
with examples related toCialdini’s social influence
Fogg’s persuasive technology
judgement heuristicsare mental shortcutswe employ in making
our everyday judgementsKahneman et al (1982)
Ashmore et al (1971) Worchel (1992) Cialdini (2001)
scarcity a perceived limitation of resources will generate demand
scarce items are perceived as higher in value
and more attractive especially if we compete for them
metro.co.uk
Ashmore et al (1971) Worchel (1992)
scarcity a perceived limitation of resources will generate demand
examplenightclub queue“deadline tactic”
scarcity a perceived limitation of resources will generate demand
reciprocity people tend to return a favour
we may feel in debt by getting uninvited favour
small initial favour can produce obligation to agree
to much larger return favour Pease & Gilin (2000)
reciprocity people tend to return a favour
examplesmail appeal for donation:18% success - mail only
35% success - mail + giftfree sample in supermarket
Cialdini (2001) Wasko et al (2005)
reciprocity people tend to return a favour
Amount Twitter makes each time you look at your feed
$0.0008
reciprocity people tend to return a favour
commitmentconsistency
people don’t like to be self-contradictory
Cialdini (2001)
example“throwing a low-ball” in car sales
by adding “surprise” costs at the end of transaction after initial agreements,
and test drives
commitmentconsistency
people don’t like to be self-contradictory
social proof people will be more open to things they see others doing
Provine (2000) Nosanchuk & Lightstone (1974)
Darley & Lantane (1968)
example“canned laughter” in a comedy
makes audience laugh longer and more often,
rate material as funnierespecially effective for poor jokes
bystander effect
social proof people will be more open to things they see others doing
Average industry profit per commercial-flight passenger
$4
liking people are more easily swayed by people they like
Langlois et al (2000) Berscheider & Walster (1978)
attractivenessattractive individuals are perceived as
talented, kind, honest, intelligentsimilarity
even small similaritiesproduce positive impression
complimentsgood cop/bad cop
liking people are more easily swayed by people they like
personalised & timed suggestions
personalised & timed suggestions
personalised & timed suggestions
scarcity
one-click choice
easy commitmentreduction & simplifyinghigher motivation to engagereduced cognitive effortquicker goal achievement & quick decision can be rewarding(but also regrettable)Fogg (1998) Bandura (1997) Desphande et al (1983)
