The rule of 7 is an idea in marketing that it can take hearing a message 7 times before we might take action.

Apparently the rule is from early movie marketing and while I don't know if I'd rely on the number it certainly seems a sensible idea to keep in mind that you can't expect people to take action the first time they hear your message — if you're trying to get people to try something new be it buying food, downloading your app, watching a movie, or a choosing an electric car, it takes a while and repeated exposure before you can expect it to pay off.

I can't remember where I heard it, but some advice I keep in mind when communicating is that by the time you're tired of saying it, others are just starting to hear it. It's not a bad thing to repeat your main message.

I learned about the Rule of 7 from the recent book Human Powered by Trenton Moss.

When putting an apple in the adverts on this sketch I was reminded that so often it's the things in the supermarket that are most healthy for us that don't get anyone shouting about them at all.

The rule of 7

If you wanted to know who would win an election, then the only reliable (most of the time) way to do that is to ask everyone to vote for real and count them all. Short of doing that, if you want to get an idea who would win you can pick a group that you hope is representative of the whole of the voting population, ask them what they plan to vote instead, and then multiply up to the full group. But it turns out, whenever you ask people things, it's jolly hard to really have confidence in what you're extrapolating up to as all sorts of bias can creep into your sample.

If you ask people what they plan to vote they may lie, they may tell you what they plan to do then change their mind, they may tell you what they think you want to hear depending on who's asking, they may say the first option because it's easiest, and you may ask in the places where it's easy or cheap to do so, or hear from only the people who are happy and not too busy to talk with you.

In the example in the sketch, if you hope to receive responses to your questions by surveys then you get responses from people who happen to not mind doing surveys — from anyone who throws them in the bin you won't receive a single data point.

All of these, and others, can lead to a bias in your sample and, at times, to drawing wholly inaccurate conclusions.

Extreme example from How to Lie with Statistics by Darrell Huff.

Sampling bias

Intuitively, we can relate to this: as we get closer to completing a goal we can feel more motivation to complete it. Getting close to the last piece of a puzzle, the last clue of a murder mystery or escape room, the final chapter of your book (perhaps), the final kilometre of a marathon, or as you find you need just one more stamp to get a free coffee, being so close to our goal can give us a motivation lift to get to the end. It has a name:  the goal-gradient effect*.

In the example in the sketch, Oleg Urminksy and coauthors found that as people approached the final stamp towards a free coffee they were more likely to pick up the rate of buying coffees. And when issued with the new card, the coffee buying rate went back down again. They also found that it wasn't so much the absolute 'distance' from a goal, but the perception of distance. So, people who started out on a 12 stamp card with 2 stamps already complete tended to complete the card faster than the people who had a 10 stamp card starting empty even though it was the same number of stamps to the goal.

Read more in Katy Milkman and Kassie Brabaw's Scientific American article, Why Feeling Close to the Finish Line Makes You Push Harder.

Katy Milkman also educated me about the fresh start effect.

*The goal-gradient effect is also known as the goal-gradient hypothesis

The goal-gradient effect

Sexy Value is what you get when someone can launch something that is not only cheaper but also better. It’s a near irresistible proposition.

Most new things that are better don’t tend to also be cheaper—increased quality usually has a corresponding increase in cost. So Sexy Value is often made possible through a new technology or approach. It’s like when the first taxi apps started appearing. To me, the first experience was just so much better than what I was used to—no trying to catch a taxi in the rain, seeing when the cab would arrive and simple, non-awkward, no swinging by the ATM payments—and yet at the same time, it was also cheaper.

Sexy Value is not the only way to compete. If you make something better, people will pay for the value it provides them. But you’re on to a winner if you can also do it cheaper.

Sexy Value is a name, I believe, from Ogilvy and Mather.

You might also like another model of theirs: The Big Ideal.

Sexy value

Perhaps, like me, you’re used to thinking about bringing customers onboard as a funnel. It’s a very natural metaphor for thinking about customer acquisition. For example, you market to 10,000 people, 500 people visit your website, 50 of them put something in the basket and 10 of them buy. If you draw it out it looks like a funnel. And the next time you market you start fresh with a new 10,000. But the real world isn’t like that. Delivering a good service to your customers helps the next customers come in. Hence the flywheel model.

A flywheel is typically a big heavy wheel that stores and releases energy from an engine or vehicle. The flywheel metaphor is about happy customers driving your growth. And when you think about your business this way it can cause you to make different decisions. Having more customers is like a bigger, heavier flywheel containing more energy. Happy customers speed you up, unhappy customers slow you down. Making it easier for customers to try your product reduces friction, as does making it easier for for customers to talk about and share your product. Get your flywheel big, heavy and spinning like crazy and your business is doing well.

The flywheel model is from Brian Halligan at Hubspot. I’ve thought about customer funnels for literally years and I wish I’d known about the flywheel long ago. Check out Hubspot’s flywheel intro for more.

The business flywheel

It’s named Streisand after Barbara Streisand tried to have an aerial photo of her house removed from a set of California coastline photos intended to document coastal erosion. Views of the photo apparently went from 6 to 420,000.

The Effect Effect

A model from Ogilvy and Mather that’s a really interesting way to get to the heart of what could make your brand thrive. The intersection between what people care about (a cultural tension) and what you could be famous as a business (your brand’s best self) is a recipe for doing something good that matters.

Try starting from a question: “The world would be a better place if…” and see where you get to.

Check out The Big IdeaL on Ogilvy and Mather for more.

The Big Ideal ™

The technique of adding a significantly more expensive option in order to instantly make the other options look reasonable by comparison. These kinds of manipulations have been shown to be scarily effective.

Pricing decoys are another way retailers get you to part with more money than you planned on. In his book Predictably Irrational, behavioural economist and professor Dan Ariely demonstrates how a large magazine successfully employed a strategy called the “decoy effect” to increase revenue from subscription sales. Prospective subscribers were given three choices:

1.       Web-only subscription for $59
2.       Print-only subscription for $125
3.       Web + print subscription for $125

At first glance, the middle price point appears to be superfluous. Why would anyone buy a print-only subscription for $125 if they could get a web and print for the same price? Ariely tested the price points with MIT students and found that 16% of students chose option 1 and 84% chose option 3; not surprisingly, none chose option 2.

Then Ariely did something really interesting; on the assumption that having a decoy price (option 2) was influencing people’s choices, he removed the decoy and retested the price points. This time, the subscription choices were as follows:

1.       Web-only subscription for $59
2.       Web + print subscription for $125

With the decoy removed, the option that had previously been the most popular – the more expensive print + online access subscription – suddenly became the least popular choice. Only 32% of those surveyed chose the more expensive option, with 68% selecting the online-only subscription. Clearly the middle price point wasn’t superfluous; it was smart marketing that made option 3 look more attractive to subscribers.

Avraham Byers, Here’s why you should always pay full retail price, Financial Post, April 22nd 2014

The decoy price

Mnemonic from the entertaining and informative book Made to Stick.

Sketchplanations tagged with marketing