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.

Justification and Fanatical Fans

The college football season is now behind us and the last national champion of the BCS (Bowl Championship Series) era has been crowned. Congratulations to the Florida State Seminoles. While the BCS format was better than relying on multiple human polls (AP, UPI, coaches, etc.) each crowning it’s own national champion, the BCS was not without controversy. Continual controversy about which teams were the top two at year-end is a big reason fans are eagerly awaiting next season because the national champion will be determined in a four-team playoff system.While a playoff might be better than the current format, you can imagine the 5th, 6th and perhaps 7th teams will all believe they have a strong case for being one of the top four. Perhaps the controversy will only expand and maybe the additional intrigue will make the season even more exciting.What’s interesting about fans is their fanaticism. If you watch a game with diehard fans from opposing teams, a game where you have no stake in the outcome, you’ll see and hear interesting things.Each fan will believe the referees are against their team and favoring the opposing team. They’ll be quick to point out every infraction the referees missed that would have benefitted their team and they’ll argue most of the calls made against their team. Each fan will also think the television commentators are pulling for the other team and you might even hear them say ESPN or other media outlets are against their team. It’s almost an “us against the world” mentality. Fans are also an interesting bunch when it comes to admitting defeat or when another team might just be better. This came to light more than a month ago when my favorite college team (not my alma mater) – The Ohio State Buckeyes – lost their conference championship game. After 24 straight wins, that one loss dashed their hopes of playing for the national championship. A relative who is a big Michigan Wolverines (OSU’s big rival) fan took particular joy in telling me how Ohio State just can’t run with “the big dogs.” It didn’t matter to him that Ohio State had beaten his team 10 of 12 years, won the Big 10 championship six years in a row during one recent stretch, had won 24 straight games, made more BSC bowl game appearances than any other team, won as many BSC bowl games as any other team, played in three national championships and won the big game once. Pretty compelling resume for someone to conclude Ohio State has been much better than Michigan for the past 10-12 years. If it sounds like I’m bragging, I am a bit, but truthfully it was to point out how irrational fans can be. Under no circumstance would my relative ever admit the Buckeyes are better than the Wolverines, even over the past dozen years despite the clear evidence. Why do we irrationally hold on to certain beliefs in spite of the evidence against us, and continue to justify our beliefs? I believe it has to do with the principle of consistency. This principle of influence alerts us to the reality that people feel internal psychological pressure and external social pressure to remain consistent with what they’ve said, done or believed in the past.In his book Influence Science and Practice, Robert Cialdini shares a story about people going to a transcendental meditation workshop that promoted flying and walking through walls among other things. Despite the clear evidence against these practices people desperate for change went to the introductory session then justified their investment of time and money.It’s psychologically hard on us to admit that perhaps we were wrong about something and to stop justifying it. We see this phenomenon in more than sports. Take politics for example. We were led to believe if Obama was re-elected over Romney that our economy would suffer immensely. A gauge that’s often used to see how the economy is doing is the Dow Jones Industrial average. The Dow was around 13,000 before the election and despite a 300-point drop in the days immediately after the election it now hovers at record levels between 16,400 and 16,500. Democrats will say it is evidence their policies work while Republicans will give reasons for the rise other than government policy. Had the scenario been reversed and it was Romney that was elected, Republicans would gloat and Democrats would say the Dow increase is due to unethical business practices that really hurt most Americans. One thing is for sure; neither side would ever concede and say, “Perhaps we were wrong and they were right.” They will come up with reasons to justify their position.When my team lost that conference championship, as hard as it was, I acknowledged Michigan State deserved to win. Then Michigan State showed more metal beating a very good Stanford team in The Rose Bowl. Meanwhile my team was again outplayed in The Orange Bowl and lost, despite having opportunities to win. Ohio State was very good but not one of the elite teams this year and I’m okay admitting that.So what does all this mean for you in terms of influence? The next time you get into a debate about which people have a very personal stake – sports, politics, religion, certain social issues, etc. – recognize first of all, no matter what you say or do some people will refuse to change their point of view. But at least you know that now and perhaps it will lessen your frustration. If you want to dislodge people from irrational consistency here are five tips that might help: Don’t allow your emotions to get the best of you.Don’t argue your point because that will cause defensiveness.Ask questions that might get the other person to acknowledge small points where you might be correct.When the other person has a valid point acknowledge it.Exhibit patience because it might take several communications to gain ground. Brian Ahearn, CMCT® Chief Influence Officer influencePEOPLE Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.