We are all Behavioral (part two)

After our last article on this subject, alert reader Liam pointed out that it might be harder to find an example when buyers are NOT behavioral and behave completely rationally during their purchases. This is quite true, so we thought we’d keep this entry short and show a good example of a company who has understood how people act and think. This company is, appropriately, the Economist.

Dan Ariely pointed out that the Economist had an odd pricing structure on its website. Its options were:

- Subscribe to a full year of online access to The Economist  for $59.

- Subscribe to a full year of the print edition of The Economist in print for $125.

- Subscribe to a full year of both the online print editions of The Economist for $125.

Now, if you were to come across this you might think they hadn’t put much thought into it at all, right. More importantly, however, if a magazine you enjoyed had this pricing structure, which option would you choose? Well, since online access costs $59 and the print edition costs $125, the smart money would decide to purchase both, where the entire cost of online access is done away with, right?

Now let’s assume the Economist earns more with the print edition (print always had higher margins than online content, which is why so many magazine and newspaper companies are in trouble now), so they would try to encourage more print subscriptions. Once the fixed costs of writing the article are taken into account, the variable costs of each new subscriber are minimal at best, so the more subscribers paying the most is the most beneficial option to the Economist (or any publication).

The two real options are:
- Online: $59
- Print: $125

But by offering their options the way they do, a majority of users purchase the latter, paying more than double for the same content.

Norman Borlaug

A few people can be happy that they have saved a life. Fewer people can boast having saved more than one. Very few indeed can say they saved not millions, but hundreds of millions of lives. With the rubbish that have become household names these days, it is truly a shame that the name Norman Borlaug isn’t more widely recognized.

In the 1950s and 60s the writings of Thomas Malthus were starting to be very very popular. This is because millions of people, in India, in Africa and in South America, were starving, and crop yields could not keep up with demand. Malthus famously said that “The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man”, and in the late 1960′s people started thinking the unthinkable might be true: people would have to die off so other people could have enough to eat. Mass famines were deemed inevitable in certain parts of the world.

Paul Ehrlich wrote about this in his 1968 book “The population bomb”, wherein he stated that India would never be able to feed itself and: “”The battle to feed all of humanity is over … In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

This is when Norman Borlaug, a scientist from Ohio, developed dwarf wheat.

Wheat is a top-heavy crop, which means it folds on itself and takes up quite a bit of space. The wheat developed by Borlaug’s team had short stalks but huge heads of grain. Suddenly the yield could be tripled and sometimes even quadrupled. Later, this same idea was applied to rice, one of the main staple foods across the world*.

The numbers can obviously never be precisely predicted, but this new form of growing crops saved many millions of lives, with some estimates putting it over one billion.

Norman Borlaug was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970, and would have been 98 years old today. We hope he is remembered for many years to come.



*As a side note, this wheat was obviously genetically modified. This is also why we have no patience for those who want to do away with genetic modification altogether. These people should probably be reminded that wheat itself is a genetic modification that humans developed around 7,000 years ago when they starting being agricultural.

We are all behavioral (part one)

Economists have now discovered (or at least most of them have) that people are not efficiency robots, but they are what economists call “behavioral”, and what non-economists call “human”. What does this mean? Well, it turns out that people have biases, people can be lazy, people sometimes work against themselves and often make detrimental choices.

Before all the “humans” out there choose to laugh at economists, however, it should be pointed out that many people fail to see the behavioral in all of us. We often think we’re being perfectly rational in our decision making, when in reality we’re just being plain old human.

Exhibit A: The Bread Maker
When Williams-Sonoma first released the bread maker in the US, very few customers were interested. No one had felt a particular need to make their own bread before, and merely adding another kitchen appliance seemed like a needless bother, especially at a price tag of $275. Marketing endeavors were made in order to show the fun of bread making, as well as the freshness of bread, but people still preferred to buy their fresh bread, bake it in the oven, or to be happy with their store bought bread. Williams Sonoma was about to ditch the personal bread making idea altogether, but decided to hire a consulting firm as a last ditch attempt to improve sales. The firm suggested they create a second, more expensive model. This model, at $429, was designed to be much too expensive and big for household purposes, but should be placed next to the original model. Suddenly, the choice consumers faced wasn’t whether or not to buy an expensive bread maker, but which bread maker to buy. Since they were “rational” consumers, they of course chose the bargain at $275 rather than the bigger $429 model. This is called Price-Anchoring in economics-speak.

Exhibit B: Cheerios
When one shops at a store like Safeway, they have a choice between the Cheerios brand and the store brand (in this case, Safeway). The Cheerios brand will often cost twice as much as the store brand, yet many people prefer to buy it regardless. Why is this? Well, most will answer it is quality. Would you rather buy cereal from a company that specializes in quality cereal or from one that just makes it on the side on the cheap to make extra sales? But wait a minute, does this mean that Safeway has a factory making its own Cheerios brands and, if so, does it also make its own milk, coffee, frozen chicken and everything else that is a store brand? If so, where are all its factories and why is it spreading itself so thin? Is this really a viable business model?
The answer, of course, is no. Safeway doesn’t produce any of its own food, they merely distribute. So what are you buying when you buy the Safeway brand? Usually you’re buying Cheerios, or another expensive brand. The reasoning is that the cheapest and most expensive brands will not cannibalize each other, since they cater to different markets. This means it is profitable for Cheerios to sell a portion of its product on the cheap to Safeway and sell the rest at a high mark-up to consumers. Safeway, in the meantime, repackages the Cheerios and can sell them at a lower mark-up. Both firms end up making money, since they can use one product to cater to two very different consumer groups. The consumers, on the other hand, are being quite behavioral in their decision making when they buy cheerios.
Interestingly, even after knowing (and acknowledging) this fact many consumers will opt for the Cheerios brand. This is due to “signaling”, which is another topic for another post.

In what other ways do consumers behave irrationally?

Get Ready for our New Book!

Yes that’s right! Our book, both new and improved at the same time, will finally be released (soon)!

Yes that’s right! Our new book still hasn’t been released!

So anyway, we figured the best way to keep every up to date would be to just shoot you an email once it is out. Then we thought, hey, if they’re really interested, we’ll let them know ahead of time so they can buy the book at a discount!

So that’s what we’re doing. Just go to www.BringingSexy.com and enter your email address, and we’ll give you early notice so you can buy our new book at a heavy discount*.

www.BringingSexy.com

* Selling or sharing email addresses is definitely NOT sexy, so we won’t engage in any of that sort of behavior.

Enough with the Farmers’ Markets?

At latest count, there are around 7,200 Farmers’ markets in the United States. Of these, over 1,000 were established in this last year alone. Back in 2005 there were only 4,093 markets in the country.

What does this mean? Well, no one can deny the rise of the farmers’ market. From coast to coast and city to suburb, the farmers’ market is a phenomenon which has been attracting all walks of life in this country. After all, the food is local, fresh, from a friendly quasi-neighbor rather than a corporate logo, and the profits go back into the community. All of this, as anyone who has seen one too many Supply and Demand graphs can attest, will create a glut. Supply outstrips demand and the farmers earn less.

Taking Oregon as an example (avant guarde in the farmers’ market arena, as well as my new home): between 1998 and 2005 62 farmers’ markets opened and 32 of them failed. In Massachusetts, the opening of one farmers’ market caused profits at an established one just two miles away to drop 30%.

“So what?” You could say, “These are the laws of supply and demand that all economists talk about. Once the supply of farmer’s markets outstrips demand their profits will decrease and we’ll go back to equilibrium, right?” Well, yes, that’s how markets work. Except, of course, with Tulips in 17th century Holland, or the South Sea Bubble, or the British railway in the 1840′s, or the dotcom boom, or the housing mortgage crisis. Could Farmers’ markets be bubbles in the making?

Actually, probably not. While some local communities have a “Farmers’ market or bust” mentality (and this is quite literally what they might get if they do), most of the country enjoys them but not yet in an exaggerated manner. There are several reasons, however, for keeping a close eye on the rise of these markets:

1) Farms use 40% of our country’s water and have the worst reutilization rate (much worse than industry or households) of any category.
2) Along these lines, the water we divert and make available to these farms, especially in states like Arizona and Nevada, could go to other uses, like bringing water to the world.
3) Local farmers pollute. There is no getting around the fact that keeping production, distribution and operations local is worse for the environment than using economies of scale. Here, quite literally, costs tend to follow resources, so the fact that corporations find it cheaper to ship from other places is due to their using fewer resources (for more about this read Reason number 4 here).

So maybe, as unpopular as this may make us, we should be the first to say “Enough with the Farmers’ Markets!”. Both for their sake and for ours.