This morning Duke University professor, Dan Ariely, helped to launch LeadsCon activities with his key note address entitled Transforming Consumer Insights into Market Opportunities.

Professor Ariely’s talk was quite interesting and reminds us that as online marketers there are many ways people are influenced by how things are presented. Given the examples he provided, we may inadvertently not be getting the responses we anticipate because of how we are presenting our information to consumers/customers. It is our responsibility to constantly evolve and test our messaging in order to improve the results we get.

Some of the examples he discussed included:

1. People avoid making decisions when complexity is added to the decision making process
2. People can easily misinterpret information based on how information is presented
3. When people become too focused, they may inadvertently miss noticing the obvious
4. When giving people too many choices you may paralyze them from taking action
5. People’s decisions can be greatly influenced by what you include in an offering

People avoid making decisions when complexity is added to the decision making process

In showing how people avoid making decisions when adding complexity, Ariely gave an example of how citizens in countries responded to government efforts to have them donate their organs upon death. A graph was shown of various European countries with a group of countries where 0% – 25% of citizens donated organs and a group of countries where close to 100% donated organs. Ariely explained that many of these countries shared many of the same cultural backgrounds. However, what affected participation in organ donor program was “Opt-in” vs. “Opt-out” choice. Ariely argued that low participation was associated with “opt-in” programs as people are reluctant to think about what will happen to them after their death.

People can easily misinterpret information based on how information is presented

Ariely showed two images of tables and asked if one table’s diameter was greater than another table’s width. The table with the diameter was tall and thin while the other table was square. As it turned out, the diameter and the width were the same. However, the image he showed tricked the eye into believing the thin and tall table was going to have a much wider diameter.

When people become too focused, they may inadvertently miss noticing the obvious

The audience was asked to watch a short clip of two groups of people each passing a basketball. One group wore white shirts and the other group wore black shirts. Ariely asked the audience to count the number of times the white group passed the basketball and told us our financial success in life depended on accurately counting the exact number. Both groups weaved within each other as they passed the ball so that the audience had to pay close attention. After the film finished playing Ariely asked us if we had noticed the small black gorilla that was in the screen. Few people raised their hands. In replaying the clip, a man in black gorilla suit walks across the screen and waves at the audience. Something extremely noticeable, but something few people caught because we all were paying such close attention to the passing of the ball by the team in the white shirts.

When giving people too many choices you may paralyze them from taking action

Ariely cited a study in how shoppers reacted to an in-store supermarket test with jams. In one test 6 jams were sampled by customers while in the second test 24 jams were offered. At the end of each sampling, the consumers were given a coupon to purchase a jam. While the test with 24 jams generated greater consumer participation, only 3% of the customers ended up using the coupon while 30% of the consumers used the coupon in the test where only 6 jams were offered.

People’s decisions can be greatly influenced by what you include in an offering

The Economist ran an ad for its news service with the following offering for a period of time:

1. $59 for complete access to its website
2. $125 for the printed newspaper
3. $125 for the printed newspaper and access to the website

Ariely pointed out that $125 for the printed newspaper was clearly an inferior offering and should never be chose given that a consumer could also receive access to the web in option 3 at no additional cost.

In testing his students with all three options, 16% chose option 1 and 84% chose option 3. No one, understandably, chose option 2 given its inferiority. However, when Ariely removed option 2 from the equation, the results were quite different with 68% choosing option 1 and 32% option 3.