SPEAKER_00 1:04

What I like about your content that you share, Phil, is like you share, you do all your own tests as well, don't you? So you'll say, like, we tested this against this, and this was the di this was the difference. And it's usually just one picture of one ad one way and one picture of an ad another way. What what are the biggest? Obviously, my show is called embracing marketing mistakes. What are the biggest mistakes you see marketers making with behavior in in your area? You know, you do you spot them a lot?

SPEAKER_01 1:31

The classic one, the really funny one is because we've spoken about social proof already. There's this concept of negative social proof. So social proof is very powerful. We do follow the actions of other people. But sometimes marketers get confused and they share that lots of people are doing an action which the marketer would consider undesirable, and they put that in their campaign. And that actually influences the wrong behavior. So let me give an example. This was a study in universities, I think it was a European university, that wanted to reduce the amount of binge drinking on campus. In fact, if it was binge drinking, it must have been a British university. So let's assume it was a British

Opening: Testing Ads And Proof

SPEAKER_01 2:08

one. They wanted to reduce the amount of binge drinking. And so they said the average student drinks eight pints a week. This is way above the uh suggested amount. You need to reduce the amount you're drinking. But actually, if you understand social proof, you realize by saying the average student drinks eight pints a week will make everybody who drinks less think, oh my God, I need to drink more. I'm such a loser. And maybe those who drink more think, oh yeah, cool. I'm above average here. God, I'm that's quite cool, isn't

Defining Negative Social Proof

SPEAKER_01 2:39

it? So you're you're encouraging the wrong behavior. And then that study, they actually found that drinking increased when they showed that. This is um is another example as well. Yeah, I know, I know. It's hilarious. And there's another example from an Arizona park where people were stealing this petrified wood, which is crystallized wood, really, really precious. And people were stealing it. And Robert Cialdini, who's the author behind the book Influence, he went into this park and he looked at the signs, and the signs say, people who enter this park steal one point or something like a hundred tons of this wood every year on average. Please don't.

Binge Drinking Message Gone Wrong

SPEAKER_01 3:12

This is a really bad thing to say.

SPEAKER_00 3:14

And so he's my piece doesn't matter.

SPEAKER_01 3:17

Yeah, well, exactly. So if I just take a little one from my daughter that weighs about two grams, it won't even make a difference.

SPEAKER_00 3:23

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 3:23

When and then when he changed the signs that said just please don't steal the petrified wood, the amount of people who stole actually decreased. And I see this all the time. If you go on Wikipedia today, probably you will see a message that says something along the lines of only 1% of people reading this message will donate. Please donate to keep Wikipedia running. As we the studies suggest that shouldn't work. Because what people will think when they read that is, oh, nobody really gives anyway, and Wikipedia

Park Theft And Better Signs

SPEAKER_01 3:52

is quite successful, it's not going to go anywhere soon. They probably don't need my help. Whereas if they said something like, if they wanted to use social proof, um, I'm in Bristol, if they said something like 4,000 Wikipedia lovers in Bristol donate on a monthly basis, could you join them? That should, according to the sites, be much more effective. And I'd love to see Wikipedia testing that. So negative social proof is definitely a mistake I see a lot of companies make.