Social Engineering Blogs

An Aggregator for Blogs About Social Engineering and Related Fields

Holden’s Bungle – Brand Smash

Just before Christmas 2013, iconic Australian motoring brand Holden announced that as of 2017 it would stop making cars in Australia.   While possibly a sound business decision due to falling sales and overall profitability the execution of the announcement and the subsequent advertising campaign was Holden’s Bungle!

The history of Holden dates back to 1856 when it started as a saddlery business in South Australia before it moved into the automotive industry in 1908.  In 1931 Holden became a subsidiary of the United States-based General Motors (GM) but the brand has colloquially been known and recognised as Australian.

The Holden departure from Australia wasn’t the first time GM has made an announcement regarding one of their brands that would ultimately trigger loss.  In 2000 GM announced in the United States that they would cease making the Oldsmobile.  As we know the Principle of Scarcity says that things become more valuable when they are less available and this was certainly the case with the Oldsmobile as it broke its own sales records after the announcement – “people had to have one before they were gone”.

In Holden’s case however the brand is not being discontinued like the Oldsmobile.  Instead it is just not being made in Australia any longer.  So the loss is not of the brand itself rather the jobs and the fact the car is no longer being made here.

Holden’s Bungle – “We’re here to stay”

Holden knew the announcement would not be popular so they followed the it with the  “We’re here to stay” advertising campaign that ran for two weeks after the announcement on television, radio and in print.

As a public and active commitment goes many people immediately questioned this statement with a simple response of

“No you’re not!”

Rather than allay the fears of the general public, Holden’s Facebook page received over 1500 comments about the announcement – many negative as did the above video on YouTube.

Some of the unhappy comments included:

Not only did somebody come up with this, it made it through all points of approval and sign off at GM. – the most inappropriate, fake and insulting commercial I’ve ever seen. We all know what has happened. Rubbing salt into the wound by saying you are here to stay, as you just announced you are moving production overseas is a kick in the guts Holden/GM. You had already damaged your brand, this just killed it. Perfect example of the ultimate marketing failure. Will never buy your product again after this. Deplorable.  Bailey Collins

“I had bought 4 new Holden’s and the last 13 years and 1 second  hand VZ SS ute  because it had more grunt then the SV6 Ute I had, I also have a 2004 Monaro  and it’s a nice car but I will never buy another Holden again, also the media adds are  an insult to a person’s intelligence. Barry S

“Disgusted with you Holden. First you destroy families and lives here crying poor and then you spend mega bucks on a radio / advertising campaign assuring us all that your still committed to Australia.” John Brown

“Please stop showing your add about how your here to stay because it’s complete BS!!! It’s not true your going and that’s it no more Australia made cars after 2017!!!!! The add is patronising so stop it because the Australian public are not dumb!!!!!!  Peter Hill

“Utterly disgusting.  I’m here to stay as well but I’m also here to tell you I’ll never buy another Holden vehicle ever again!” David Pearson

Regardless of the intent of the campaign many felt that Holden were behaving Consistently with the message they were putting out.  Even after the conclusion of the campaign Holden maintained the theme saying the ad was produced to clear up ill informed speculation about the future of the brand.

While it is a play on words,

 In the future, we may no longer make cars IN Australia, but we’ll always make cars FOR Australia, because we’re here to stay. Think Holden!

Will people think positively about Holden? Have they cost themselves their unique marketing message based on Liking (i.e. we are all from here so we are more inclined to think positively about them) or will people just not care?  From the comments of those on Social Media, NOT LIKELY!

The Principle of Consistency says that once we make a commitment we feel personal and interpersonal pressure to remain consistent with that commitment.  In this circumstance have Holden made a commitment but due to the circumstance and delivery  the commitment seems false therefore being received negatively by those they have attempted to influence?

My advice is be careful how you convey your message and remember nobody likes a smarty pants.  A play on words could be playing with fire.

 

How do you think Holden could have handled it differently?

 

 

 

The post Holden’s Bungle – Brand Smash appeared first on Social Influence Consulting Group.

Why You Should Include a Useless Option

Dan Ariely author of Predictably Irrational and The Upside of Irrationality is a Professor of Psychology and Behavioural Economics at Duke University and a founding member of the Centre for Advanced Hindsight.  In a TED talk Ariely did a number of years he looked at the way the Economist presented their pricing structure and was puzzled at what he found.  It seemed that the Economist had presented a useless option and in true Ariely style he challenged the rationality of including such an option by calling the Economist and asking them why? 

While he got no joy fom the Economist he did complete his own research on the pricing strategy using MIT student and here is a short excerpt from the talk.  As you watch it think about the Contrast Phenomenon and how you can change the way people experience anything by what they experience first.  After the video I will draw some conclusions of my own for you.

So what Ariely found was that while the middle (print only) option was seemingly useless from a product selection perspective and from an anchoring or Contrast perspective it was vital in framing the third option in its best possible light.

We can only assume that the Economist wanted people to take up the print and on-line option (#3) as it was better for them, otherwise why include option #2.

What they had cleverly done with the inclusion of the seemingly useless option of print only for $125 was draw a contrast for final option (print and internet) presenting it in a much better light so people chose that option based on value.  When the useless option was absent the internet only deal was preferred based on price alone (i.e. it was selected because it was cheaper).

Value vs Price

I get asked all the time how do we compete on value and not price.  This is a valid question regardless of where you work or what you do.  If you are presenting a service or a product it breaks down to how much the person making the decision gets for what it costs them.  If the decision is price alone ultimately someone will always be willing to do what you or sell what you sell for a cheaper price to win the work.  As this research shows however the key is thinking about how you are framing your proposals and showing people that the recommended option is of better value and perhaps you need a useless option to help highlight that for them.

So while on the face of it the Economist’s approach may have seemed wrong-headed, we as persuaders know that the contrast of the second option was critical to presenting the final option (and best one for the Economist).

So think about how you are framing your preferred option and perhaps that useless option is not so useless after all!

 

Are your recommendations presenting your preferred option in the best possible light?

 

 

 

 

 

The post Why You Should Include a Useless Option appeared first on Social Influence Consulting Group.

Wikipedia Donation Blunder

Have a look at the below image (click to enlarge).  It is a Wikipedia Donation request.  As a student of influence what do you think they could have done differently to enhance the donations they received? Note the yellow highlighting on the text is Wikipedia’s. Wikipedia Donation  Source page: https://donate.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:FundraiserLandingPage&country=AU&uselang=en&utm_medium=sidebar&utm_source=donate&utm_campaign=C13_en.wikipedia.org
Some Great Comment Below to challenge we set!
Here are my thoughts!

Text:

What Wikipedia have done in the text is anchor readers to the average amount of $15 and then in an attempt to show how just a little bit will help have drawn reader’s attention to the amount of $3.  Therefore those who would have given more have become subjected to the sticky middle of Consensus (remember those who used less energy and when told the average amount they relaxed their good deeds and fell back to the average). Wikipedia run the risk of taking the larger donations and bringing them back toward the average and even worse to the $3 amount because that is all they need – irrational because they would love more – but as Dan Ariely has shown us people are far from rational.

Some amended text could have made a statement about Wikipedia’s independence and they will never run ads.  Mention they do not take Government funds and survive on donations made by readers just like you.  They could have said if everyone reading this request right now was to make some form of donation (not mentioning the $3) they could raise sufficient money in 1 hour to keep Wikipedia available and ad-free for another.  Then if they listed the donation amounts starting at $100 they would increase the amount people donate using what we know of Contrast and Wikipedia knowing the average is $15.

By starting at $3 they are more likely to get less because of the ordering, anchoring people low and the framing of the request through the text suggests $3 is enough.

So our advice to Wikipedia – flip the order in the donation panel – starting at $100.  In the text remove the amounts and focus the message on Social Proof – where other readers just like you are making donations to keep us ad free.

Finally, Jeremy’s comment below is perfect.  Wikipedia has given so much to the world, mention that for years they have given the framework, kept it one place on the internet that is ad free and now this is the reader’s chance to help keep this valuable resource available for everyone for years to come.

Great work Wikipedia (and for our community I have shared this post with them).

 

The post Wikipedia Donation Blunder appeared first on Social Influence Consulting Group.