What does it take to change behaviour? Richard chats with Ogilvy's Daniel Bennett about his work in the behavioural science space, specifically around what the science tells us influences change. It's not always the obvious thing! Daniel talks about a number of projects he's worked on where brainstorming a large array of options, driven by knowledge of behavioural science, led to a series of tests that show the many unusual aspects of an experience that can affect change. The conversation explores the often less obvious, and often less expensive approaches to altering behaviour that increase positive outcomes.
Brandon Wehn (00:10):
Welcome to the show. This is Brandon Wehn and you are listening to the Understanding Consumer Neuroscience Podcast, brought to you by the folks at CloudArmy. In this episode, Richard talks to Daniel Bennett of Ogilvy about his work helping companies utilize behavioral science to change the behavior of customers and how brainstorming and testing are key to getting effective results.
Richard Campbell (00:37):
Hi, this is Richard Campbell and thanks for listening to Understanding Consumer Neuroscience. Today my guest is Daniel Bennett, who's a practitioner, speaker, and writer on the creative application of behavioral science to the world's stickiest challenges. He joined the behavioral science practice at Ogilvy at its commencement in 2012, and he's worked on over 80 of the world's major brands and organizations. Also very well written and one of the troublemakers at Nudgestock, which was back last July. I mean in fact, we're getting close to the next one now. Welcome, sir. Glad to have you here.
Daniel Bennett (01:07):
Nice to see you, Richard. Like to be called a troublemaker. That's nice.
Richard Campbell (01:11):
Well, I see the crowd you run with Ogilvy and I've talked to many of them now on various topics around this show and yeah, no, you've got a pack of troublemakers there. There's no two ways about it.
Daniel Bennett (01:22):
We do try to make some trouble. Every year we try and add an idea into Nudgestock that seems a bit crazy and there's always a bit of nervousness at the beginning and then we just do it. And then everybody loves it. Last year's was getting the whole audience to take the Nudgestock oath. So we started the day with just the screen talking to the audience. And we asked them to stand up and then read out the Nudgestock oath, which is all about them to get them to believe in counterintuitive thinking and suspending their rational ways of thinking, et cetera, et cetera. This year, the theme for Nudgestock is all about time and the value of time, bending time to your will, getting customers to think in the future, getting employees to think in the past, whatever it needs to be. Time is the secret ingredient to every brief and we also have Rory Sutherland, who is not a very good timekeeper, excellent behavioral scientist.
Richard Campbell (02:11):
No, after a couple of conversations with Rory, I'm like, "We need to make a time unit called a Rory second." And they're much longer than normal seconds.
Daniel Bennett (02:22):
They're very high quality, very long. And so this year we're going to get the whole audience, it'll be about 600 people, to set their alarm clocks for the end of Rory's talk and so we're launching the-
Richard Campbell (02:35):
There'll be enough noise from the audience to remind him to say his line.
Daniel Bennett (02:41):
That's the biggest nudge of all.
Richard Campbell (02:42):
That's a great nudge. Nudgestock also talked about the world being messy, which I thought was an interesting theme. Because of course, it's true. You're saying sometimes the quiet things out loud, but also that, as a marketer, people are messy, really. If all that mattered was the quality of your product and its price, this business would be very simple and it just isn't.
Daniel Bennett (03:08):
Yeah. Add people into anything. There's that thing in the airline industry, don't they? Where they're very proud that they manage to coordinate people over cargo because people are cargo with legs and minds. And I think it's a similar kind of thing. And one of the reasons for messy was that we tend to think that with complexity, people can't deal with complexity, so they'll take this big complex ball, they'll chop the side off into a small chunk, and then they'll deal with that rationally. They're not dealing with the complexity. They're actually just taking a small bite from the side and then dealing with that part of it.
(03:44):
And so we don't really believe you can bring rationality to the complexity fight. And so really wanting to put back into the heart of the process that we should accept that messiness is there, that creativity is actually a great ax to take to messiness and complexity, and really only a combination of rigorous thinking and creative thinking can solve those sticky, messy problems.
Richard Campbell (04:11):
Yeah. And I also firmly believe, and test your results. I feel like there's way too much intuition going on and then just accepting that as fact. I love bringing intuition to any of these balls of mud, but you've got to validate it. Did that do something or not? And one of the pieces I read of yours, you were talking about just changing the background music in a store, and I'm like, as a marketer, I spent a lot of money on campaigns, this big talking to you about my product, but what if I spent a little money on just measuring the effects of my retail space, like the things, the aesthetic to it, the look to it, the sound to it, all of those things that ultimately could lead to a behavioral change.
Daniel Bennett (04:58):
Yeah. And then even I think a lot of the reasons is some of those channels, if you might call them that, are not very glamorous. We used to spend a lot of time in call centers, so we'd get on the train outside of London from our lovely glamorous office, go out outside of London, and then spend time training up call center agents in behavioral science. And we'd teach them things like if someone's ringing up to cancel, rather than saying, "Why did you cancel today?" You ask them to ask a positive prime, which is, why were you looking to join in the first place? Because then you can have a conversation about how to save them rather than getting further entrenched, why they want to go.
Richard Campbell (05:34):
Keep them off their defensive.
Daniel Bennett (05:35):
Yeah, yeah, absolutely. So you change that one sentence at the start of the phone call and we had an 8% reduction in churn, which equates to millions of pounds just by changing that up front. But it's not where a CMO thinks first to make... They often think it's a place to make cost savings rather than value adds and it's just not a very glamorous button. I think there's lots of things. One of the ideas we've been thinking about lately is people will do a lot of work to optimize online conversion, but not a lot of work to maximize offline conversion.
(06:12):
I don't know why the fitting room, a moment of decision making, the changing room, the fitting room doesn't get as much attention as the online website. Why inside the fitting room isn't there optimization hacks such as you might have three hooks. One says yes, one says no, one says maybe. So as you're trying things on, you can pop them on the right hook and it helps you make that decision. The maybe hook might have a nudge on it that says something like, "Remember, you have 28 days to bring it back. Just keep your receipt," which would encourage you to add more. We could cross pollinate that thinking far better, and there are just a lot of big blind spots in business to the Chief Marketing Officer.
Richard Campbell (06:53):
Yeah, I guess that's the problem is that often we are measured as marketers on the size of the campaigns we pull off, the budget that we've got. And a lot of these things are not expensive, they're just more thoughtful, and so they don't make the same flash. And also the question of measurable. Obviously there's measurements in physical retail that would be easy to do. Digital ones are even better, although I would argue they're of poor quality. I mean in the end of sale is a sale. The association of that is trickier. I love your dressing room concept just because that's a set of signs and you're just looking around the space and saying, how do you make this space better?
(07:34):
What's the impact of a good sign of a physical sign, the one that delights, that just gives you a grin? You're with your people because you think this is funny too. They-
Daniel Bennett (07:44):
Yeah, I think we have a bias of business of being too good to be true. I think, well, this is a really easy thing and low cost and therefore it can't have a big impact.
Richard Campbell (07:52):
It couldn't work. Goodness knows. But yeah, I appreciate that different way of thinking of just being open to, there are a bunch of things we can do here and all of them collectively represent the changes we want. But Dan, it's hard to be unhappy about any of that because it's also a time where we're getting a lot of pressure on the budget. It's tough to get a big campaign through these days, the idea that we could do more with less to really retrench and look at what we've already got and think through all those different pieces. You've written a piece that I appreciated talking about, cognitive closure. Maybe you should define that for us. I've got my thoughts, but I'd certainly like to hear yours.
Daniel Bennett (08:36):
It's what are the psychometric measurements? What are the things that psychologists measure primarily in relation to creativity? And it's basically the idea that the longer you can go and hold that feeling of uncertainty where you're thinking about a problem but you haven't settled on an answer, the higher your cognitive closure.
(08:55):
And the theories show that the longer you can self debate for and keep that discomfort inside you and keep that window of thinking about it open, the more creative the solution that comes out the end. It's interesting, I just had a six-week sabbatical from Ogilvy in January. One of the hardest things about coming back was getting used to that, and I consider myself a person who has quite a high cognitive closure who can kind of deal with that level of uncomfortability, but taking six weeks off and coming back to the business cold, opening up that window again was definitely a muscle that needed regrowing.
Richard Campbell (09:30):
One could equate it to you stood in front of the fire hose again.
Daniel Bennett (09:34):
Yes. Exactly that.
Richard Campbell (09:36):
Hold on. Here it comes.
Daniel Bennett (09:38):
Standing on a break I think
Richard Campbell (09:39):
After six weeks, I don't know what your inbox looks like. I'm terrified for you.
Daniel Bennett (09:44):
I'll get round to it soon.
Richard Campbell (09:45):
That's it. Or just declare email bankruptcy and start over. Yeah, it's a fascinating problem to hold those things open. I'm going to go back to one of the metaphors you used about taking a slice off of a ball because if you cut that ball into four pieces and you optimize each piece separately, I suspect it's not a ball when you put it back together.
Daniel Bennett (10:06):
Yeah. I mean Rory Sutherland, who is our founder [inaudible 00:10:10], I know you've had him before. And he talks about business problems are like Sudokus and you can't really chop a Sudoku into four and get different teams to solve different bits. You need to encourage that cross-silo because everybody feeds into different elements. Someone from the call center may have, don't know why I'm obsessed with call center today, but someone from the call center may have that game-changing insight to something that could be solved in a head office.
Richard Campbell (10:34):
Yeah. And so you've got to keep each of those pieces open. I don't have a big problem with breaking the ball apart, but you still have to look at it as a whole, right? If I look at the goal of, I'm trying to get more results out of a given retail outlet or a set of retail outlets, all of these different, you could overdo the dressing room and not work on the racks enough to get people in the dressing room in the first place. Each of those pieces has to equate together and have some coherency. So it is interesting to say, yeah, I want to break down the problem because it's easier to work on smaller pieces, but without the whole, none of this matters anyway. You aren't going to get results.
(11:16):
But I mean in the end, we call it behavioral science, but our goal is to create behavioral change. The question is, I mean at simplest level, it's just more people buying more, but is there other changes that you look for? I got to think you've worked with an array of organizations. It's not just about retail sales.
Daniel Bennett (11:35):
I really like the quote from, I think it's Stuart Butterfield who was at Slack at the time, and he was saying there is no point to innovation essentially, unless it changes behavior. Unless it gets you to do something different, what is the point? Then it becomes a gadget that will die over time. It's not going to be something that's going to play an integral role and add integral sustained value to the world. And so everything we think about is under the lens of ultimately behavior change.
(12:03):
And our founder, David Ogilvy, had a great quote; we sell or else. We don't tend to use it as much anymore. And I think primarily because sales is certainly something that needs to happen, but products are so much more complex now. We're not just selling fast-moving consumer goods very quickly and relatively simple. We have very complex financial products, investing products, sustainability products, all that involve a lot more of a deep dive into the psychology and how we think, feel, and act. So for sustainability, for example, we're needing to get much more sophisticated, and for financial service products, mortgages, it's not investments, getting people to think about their future selves. I read some great research that said, if you put people into a brain scanner and you ask them to think about their future selves, the same part of the brain that lights up is the part that thinks about other people.
Richard Campbell (13:02):
Your future self is another person.
Daniel Bennett (13:04):
It's another person.
Richard Campbell (13:05):
Yeah, that's really great.
Daniel Bennett (13:06):
And so no wonder we struggle in getting people to think about themselves as a real person in the future because it's not going to be there. And so we have to think about all these different ways, all these different levers that we can pull to get to transport people to different places. And I think that's one of the biggest things that we're trying to do right now, which is behavioral science is very helpful in providing a map to the mind. It's very good at saying, and this is why the creatives that we work with at Ogilvy find it very liberating, where you might think behavioral science is more of a policeman for the creatives, this is wrong, this is right. But actually the way we use behavioral science is to show them that there are many more levers in the brain that you can use to change behavior, and they get excited about that. The challenge is we just don't know which one is going to work.
Richard Campbell (13:54):
Right. And this has got to be where the testing comes into play, right, is to get back to that science angle of, here's a hypothesis that adjusting these things will make a difference. Here's a set of tasks. Let's measure the results and iterate. Hopefully learn from that.
Daniel Bennett (14:11):
Exactly. Yeah. We did a nice piece with KFC. $1 chips, it was an offer, and so we couldn't change the price of the chips, we couldn't give away more chips, we couldn't spend more on advertising the chips. All we could do is change how we frame the offer. So we had to find out what was that right persuasion strategy, what lever do we pull in the customer's brain to get them to act? And we tried 90, but the handful that I'll talk about now are some relatively simple ones.
(14:37):
We used social proof and we said, the idea that we follow the crowd. So we said, everyone's buying these chips, very, very popular. Do you want to buy $1 chips? We tried loss aversion, like a scarcity nudge and said, don't miss out on the chance to buy this. The offer ends next week. Whatever it was. And then we also tried one called anchoring, which was basically we said the human brain loves targets, so we said maximum four per person. It was previously in the terms and conditions, we just elevated it to how we framed it.
Richard Campbell (15:05):
Now it's in advertising.
Daniel Bennett (15:07):
Yeah, yeah, exactly. So when we showed, and we still show audiences, show clients, show customers, whatever it is, when you ask them which one's going to change your behavior, they guess randomly. Monkeys on typewriters kind of thing. They guess absolutely rapidly. Put it in the context and put it into the field, and it was the anchoring condition that made a significant difference to the amount of chips that were sold. So we don't know what is going to change our own behavior, which makes us very bad at guessing what's going to change other people's behavior ultimately.
Richard Campbell (15:38):
Sure, yeah. Our own disconnect with the effects of marketing and branding makes us... You are not the customer and you can't measure the results. You have to actually take it out in the field. You can't guess. You're going to be wrong, and so you've got to go out and put that set of changes out, measure them, and see what the results are. And be delighted when you find one. It is like cracking a secret code the moment that you have that result, but it's never the one you think-
Daniel Bennett (16:05):
You'll never get... It's never the one you think. It's not even the one... We've done hundreds of these tests and you don't really get sharper because there's so much complexity, so much messiness, as you were saying earlier, and that is the most infectious part of the job I think, which is figuring out what's going to work strongest and sometimes the effects can be disproportionate. We had a charity mail out, a charity that was Christian Aid in the UK and had fewer donations every year for the five previous years, so it's not going in the right direction.
(16:37):
We did a test and basically they have Christian Aid Week, you send out envelopes on the Monday. The idea is you fill it with a bit of cash throughout the week and then someone collects it on the weekend and then they count up the amount which they've made. And so we had the opportunity to do a huge test across the United Kingdom and try different envelope designs with different households and then randomize the order and see which one wins. There was lots of different nudges that we applied. One of them was that we turned the envelope from landscape to portrait.
Richard Campbell (17:07):
Interesting.
Daniel Bennett (17:08):
Nobody thought it was going to win.
Richard Campbell (17:09):
No, that should do nothing.
Daniel Bennett (17:10):
But it was one of the winning conditions.
Richard Campbell (17:13):
Oh, wow.
Daniel Bennett (17:14):
Didn't increase the amount of people that gave, but it increased those who did give, they put more money into it. Perhaps the envelope felt safer or it was meant for notes rather than coins, for example. So what's really interesting. When you've got a declining amount of donations every single year, sounds like a really serious, scary problem. No one is allowed to put their hand up around that table and say, "What we need to do here is we need to experiment with the envelopes and one of the experimental conditions is going to be the orientation of the envelope." And yet it can be the thing.
(17:46):
That's what I find most infectious. There are so many blind spots in business. There is all of these areas that people aren't looking under the stones of that could provide value. All this messiness that can be embraced more. But once you do start to figure out, okay, there are these levers in the brain. We don't know which one's going to work, but we are prepared to do some tests. And then, wow, it's that one and now we know it's that one, we can do all of these things. When you see the change that makes to a team, that's what... Yeah, it's really exciting.
Richard Campbell (18:15):
The other element to this from the team's perspective is you thought brainstorming was crazy. Nobody was campaigning for the portrait envelope. It was one of the dumb ideas because we were just going to fill the board with as many ideas as we possibly had. You talked about 100 ideas for the KFC campaign. There's maybe six or 10 of those that everybody thought were gold and none of them were the winner. So it is that brainstorming session and writing down all of the crazy ideas.
(18:47):
And then I got to think, you sort them into what's expensive? What's inexpensive? There's going to be categories of those. And so the portrait envelope one survives because it's trivial. It's not a big thing and it probably will amount to nothing, but it's fine. You spend a little bit to make a different kind of envelope and then you get results and it's like, why? Why this one? Okay. It definitely leads to another set of tests. But you've learned real information.
Daniel Bennett (19:10):
Yeah. And certainly this is where the rigor and the creativity mix I think, which is we love brainstorming. We love doing the double diamond, divergent, convergent, divergent, convergent to really explore spaces. What allows us to explore even further, I think, is using the psychology of constraints and really pinning ourselves to not just anywhere, but to really pinning ourselves around thinking exhaustively around a couple of areas at once.
(19:38):
And for that, we tend to use the psychological principles. So we'll take social proof for example, and we'll think hard and long, think of all the ideas we can do to make something have social proof embedded in it. And then we'll forget that and we'll move on to scarcity and we'll think hard and long about all of the ideas we can do to make something feel scarce and then we'll move on. And that allows us to explore far more spaces than we ordinarily would. So even though the ideas are, it is kind of anywhere goes, it's always rooted against the psychological principle, which is based in how we know behavior changes ultimately.
Richard Campbell (20:13):
And I appreciate that you have that checklist that you also feed to the stormers. You go, "Okay, now think about it this way. Now think about it this way." I wouldn't be surprised at all if halfway through one of those, that triggers a thought for the previous idea and someone goes, "Oh wait, go add to..." Those kinds of keeping people's minds flipping around allows a lot more ideas to appear.
Daniel Bennett (20:36):
That's why it can be really hard to recruit for behavioral scientists that have a creative mind, because we're needing to activate all different types of thinking at once. You need the people that can be quite methodical. Then you also need the people that are comfortable in that kind of messiness and kind of going in different directions.
Richard Campbell (20:52):
Yeah. But this does bring us around to the core concepts here of there is a set of science and there's a set of creativity. In this sense, you're really describing a harmony between the two of them that it's not just pure brainstorming, you're picking ideas out of the air. It is going through a structured process to explore many ideas as possible. And then taking them out and testing them. And then bringing those results back and you can optimize them again once you see there's a few things work, it's like, what else could we do in that space to drill deeper into it to find the perfect envelope, so to speak?
Daniel Bennett (21:21):
There was a really nice case that we had working with a financial services company and it was looking at a really boring task, which is how to get people to upload all of their documents to their account so that basically when it's time to hand their account over, after they've died, it's easier for the next person. And nobody liked to scan in paper documents. It took a weekend to do this thing.
Richard Campbell (21:47):
Yeah. Terrible job.
Daniel Bennett (21:47):
Terrible job. And you're reminding yourself about your own mortality and all of those things, all those kind of psychological barriers. We came up with the idea of calling it a legacy score. So the amount of documents that you uploaded increased your legacy score.
Richard Campbell (22:02):
You gamified it.
Daniel Bennett (22:02):
We came up with that, you make it all about the next one. And it makes a huge difference.
Richard Campbell (22:10):
Sure.
Daniel Bennett (22:10):
My favorite principle is, that you've probably heard of it, the goal gradient effect where the closer you think you are to your goal, the higher your desire to achieve it. If you put rats in a maze, they run faster when they see the finish line. So if you artificially inflate or make the progress bar non-linear that you start a third of the way around and then complete the bar rather than start from fresh, people are much more likely to get to the end. So you can do lots of these little things to help people achieve that goal that they were trying to get to just by having that more creative solution in there
Richard Campbell (22:43):
Way to present it. Yeah. There's a hike outside of Vancouver called the Grouse Grind, and it's very steep and difficult and so they deliberately put the one quarter marker sign at one third because if you get to the quarter mark, you're like, "Oh my goodness, how am I..." You should turn around because you don't want to get stranded on that climb. It's a hard mark.
Daniel Bennett (23:06):
It's one of my favorite things, which is this is why behavioral science is kind of forever interesting because the whole world has been doing it since we began. It's now just being formalized-
Richard Campbell (23:19):
Systematized.
Daniel Bennett (23:20):
There's such amazing... Yeah, systematized, which is great because now we have a language to deploy it more purposefully and across categories and all of that type of thing because we learn so much working across categories. For example, we once worked on trying to reduce the stigma for an adult diaper product and-
Richard Campbell (23:36):
Challenging.
Daniel Bennett (23:36):
... the challenge... Very challenging. And not least through lots of the physical aspects of it in terms of where it is in the store and the things you were talking about earlier, but a lot of it was down to the language. And so it would be referred to, the condition would be referred to as bladder weakness and it's already a condition that makes you feel very out of control. You can't really go too far from home and all of those types of things. You can't drink as much as you'd like to and you never really know what's going to happen. So you feel very out of control, very uncertain all the time.
(24:10):
So we tried a condition, we went through our brainstorming process and we added the word manageable onto bladder weakness. So you say this is for people that have manageable bladder weakness and this is how you manage it ultimately. That word of manageable, we did implicit testing around this, allowed people to feel more in control of the condition and made them much more likely to engage with the product just by changing the language. Now we only got there because we borrowed that strategy from another category, which is trying to reduce stigma. So we looked at lots of places, not however other adult diapers were doing it, but by how other organizations that needed to reduce stigma to get acquisition were doing it. So we looked at Scientology for example. That's the first place that... And we never saw him again. That's a joke.
Richard Campbell (24:57):
I was fishing for the joke too, Dan, but no, you got there
Daniel Bennett (25:06):
And doing really well. And we borrow strategies across categories. And that's only possible because, like you said, behavioral science has been systematized, which allows us to have this language of influence, which was never there. It's amazing how often we're in meetings where no one has identified or even thought about what's the persuasion strategy here. They think about where it's going to go, what the message is going to be, but they're not thinking, what's the lever we can pull inside the customer's head to get there? It's an amazing blind spot.
Richard Campbell (25:37):
So yeah, just having those checklists, having all those steps to go, have we looked at this yet? Have we looked at that part yet? Each of these pieces, and sometimes you'll get an a-ha from them, and of course, the other part is sometimes you won't, but it'll give you a couple of ideas and then that turns out in testing to have those results. And I guess the key here over and over again is, you need to test because your instincts are incorrect, for better or worse.
(26:01):
I think we're getting close to our time here, Daniel. I really appreciate you sitting and talk to us. Any place else folks should be looking? I have to ask about the National Geographic Air Crash investigation. What's that about?
Daniel Bennett (26:13):
So before COVID, and still a bit now, but we used to do a lot of travel on the team because we were a UK-based team that were basically going to all four corners of the globe to lead the way of applying behavioral science, quite Mormon based when you say it like that, we did go in pairs a lot the time too.
Richard Campbell (26:29):
Nice. I won't ask you what kind of underwear you wore. We'll let that go.
Daniel Bennett (26:34):
That's a different podcast. You can subscribe for that one. So we'd be traveling a lot. And I had a bad flight where we had so much turbulence that we dropped so much that some of the oxygen masks on board deployed, which gave me an instant fear of flying, which made it really difficult. And my way of dealing with that was to watch as much aircrafts investigation as possible to understand how planes can go down and if it's possible. And it didn't help at the beginning, but in the end it really did.
(27:13):
And I think there's a parallel in here realizing that a lot of what we've learned in behavioral science has already been learned by air crash investigators. They tend to make a big distinction between pilot error and cockpit error because if a pilot is consistently making a mistake at 2:00 AM pulling the wrong lever, you can say it's the pilot's fault, but you can fix it by changing the lever in the cockpit because the pilot's always going to be tired at 2:00 AM for example. So this idea about, like you said at the beginning, change the context to change the behavior is key.
(27:49):
And I'd love to tell you one more airline-based story, which is one of my favorite behavioral scientists, Professor Dilip Soman at Toronto tells a story about a piece of research that was done in a Canadian airport and it was basically the idea that, how do you reduce queuing at check-in? Because people have to have their passports out and they have to have the codes or even to get their tickets. And people are unfamiliar travelers. They're there and they're basically trying to not lose their passports. So they keep it deep with inside the bag. So the queue is long because if only you could get people to walk to that desk with everything ready, process would happen a lot quicker.
(28:29):
They tried all the things, paying multilingual people to walk down the line to say, "Get your documents ready." Nobody does it because everyone's worried about losing their passport. Sometimes you get that small piece of carpet by the check-in desk. They found out that if you extend that about six feet into the queue, so the first two or three people who are just about to go to the counter feel like they're next, they automatically take-
Richard Campbell (28:54):
They get ready?
Daniel Bennett (28:56):
Yeah.
Richard Campbell (28:56):
That's brilliant.
Daniel Bennett (28:56):
And so carpets change behavior.
Richard Campbell (28:58):
Yeah, a little bit of carpet change. I remember a similar story that was about complaints about baggage delivery, that it took too long for the bags to come off. And the answer was to make the path to the baggage room longer because as long as you were walking, you didn't care that it took longer. But if we kept you walking, that gave them enough time to unload the bags so that when you arrived, the bags were already there. You were happier.
Daniel Bennett (29:19):
Yeah, the psychology of occupied time. We'll be covering it at this year's Nudgestock, because the theme's time.
Richard Campbell (29:24):
Yes. Keep them occupied. Don't let them stand.
Daniel Bennett (29:28):
Don't let them stand. They'll get cranky.
Richard Campbell (29:30):
That's true. Daniel Bennett, so much fun to talk to you. Thanks so much for coming on the show.
Daniel Bennett (29:34):
Pleasure. Lovely to see you.
Richard Campbell (29:35):
And we'll talk to you next time on Understanding Consumer Neuroscience.