Blog Layout


Developing persuasive touchpoints

Or why we need to shift our focus from what we want to say, to how our message motivates users to act

Background

In today's competitive environment, understanding the significance of customer touchpoints – and how to make them more impactful - is crucial for organizations aiming to succeed across whatever industry you are operating in. Whether we are referencing person-to-person interactions, advertising, digital touchpoints or any other type, the effectiveness of these touchpoints is contingent upon their ability to shape customer behaviour and perceptions.

Let’s emphasise that point – touchpoints that don’t shape customer response have failed to work, and are a lost opportunity. 


Well-designed touchpoints can guide and support customers towards specific actions, like making a purchase, recommending a brand, or donating to a favoured charity and can play a substantive role in shaping customer perceptions. But how do we design touchpoints that have the impact intended in a market where every other organisation, both in-category competitors or out of category competitors for customer attention, have the same intention?


The key to success lies in understanding consumer psychology, as it sheds light on the underlying drivers of customer behaviour, and allows psychological principles to be strategically applied to support peoples decisions. Designing touchpoints in a way that work with the way people naturally make decisions in spite of all our gloriously inconsistent foibles allows us increase the chances that customers will follow through on a desired behaviour, rather than become distracted by the myriad of other demands encountered during their day. 


This whitepaper has been prepared to highlight the differences that psychologically-informed touchpoints can have on customer behaviour, in the hope that organisations might think more carefully about how their touchpoints are actually received by their customers. 


Encouraging people to donate blood to the NHS

An excellent example of thinking creatively about your touchpoints, in terms of how they actually motivate people to behave differently comes from Richard Shotton, in his book ‘The Choice Factory’.


We all hope we’ll never be in a situation where we need to use donated blood – that we’ll remain healthy and out of hospital. But many people are put in a situation where they are reliant on the generous donations of others. That is why many countries have invested in nationwide services to encourage and support those of us who are healthy to donate blood.


Unfortunately, blood services are often short on donations, with the need outstripping supply. So how might you encourage more people to donate blood, making a generous and anonymous gift to someone in need?


Shotton, a marketing strategist from the UK, discusses how as a media planner working on the NHS Blood Service account his agency was struggling to encourage enough people to donate blood – with messages such as “Britain is low on blood” failing to get sufficient people through the doors of blood donation centres. 


But Shotton had recently come across a psychological concept called the ‘diffusion of responsibility’. This concept occurs when people believe that others will take action, leading to reduced individual engagement – basically “I’m sure someone else will do something about it”. In this context, the mass appeal for help by donating blood failed because it unintentionally highlighted that others could or might donate blood – and this takes away individual responsibility to act. 


The solution to this challenge was to take away that comfortable idea that someone else will act, and emphasise the specific contribution that you yourself could have. 


What the creative team did next was to directly address the psychological barriers holding people back: they came up with regionally-tailored messages. Rather than showing messages such as “Britain is low on blood”, they changed the message to “Blood stocks are low in Birmingham” or “Blood stocks are low in Brentwood”. As a result blood donations jumped by 10% in the weeks following the change in messaging. 


Lesson? It wasn’t just about putting a relevant message in front of people that mattered, it was putting a message in front of people that motivated them to act.


Getting people to choose the right Kiwisaver plan – not the default Kiwisaver plan

This same insight seems to have been picked up by AMP a number of years ago, in trying to encourage NZ Kiwisaver members to look into whether they are on the appropriate Kiwisaver scheme. The problem being addressed is that in NZ people first entering the workforce are opted into Kiwisaver, unless they specifically opt-out.


That’s a great concept to get people into saving for retirement, but there is a second relevant part to this system: people who default into Kiwisaver were given the chance to choose a provider and scheme, and if they didn’t were allocated to one of a pre-approved group of default Kiwisaver programmes, which follow a ‘balanced’ rather than a more ‘aggressive’ investment scheme. While these schemes might be appropriate for those getting to the end of their working life, this could be the wrong approach for those at the beginning of their working life.



In other words, being defaulted into a more conservative Kiwisaver scheme at the beginning of their working life, was costing young NZ workers a more secure retirement at the end of their working life. So how do you encourage New Zealanders to take action?

Image of Auckland bus shelter designed to encourage switching of retirement savings plan

In a similar approach taken in Shotton’s NHS Blood Service campaign, AMP presented regionally specific messages to people via bus stop shelters, telling people: “XX people in SUBURB are missing out – are you one of them?”. While they also used an element of FOMO (or loss aversion) and appealed to people’s curiosity as well, they were able to address a similar barrier to getting people to act due to diffusion of responsibility.


[Note this campaign also had a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority upheld, due to a misleading claim in the messaging. Despite this, the point still remains – reframing the message will have made it more impactful and motivated behaviour.]


What’s interesting here, is that this simple approach was baked into campaign messaging without changing the visual creative elements or the general intention of getting people to think about what they are missing out on. For example, in Figure 1 we’ve shown three different forms of the same message that could be utilised – they all present the same message at a surface level, but Option B and C have baked in different motivational drivers. 


This is a really interesting example of considering not just what the organisation wanted to say to customers (or prospective customers) but also how the message would be received by customers. And this same thinking can be easily applied across a range of touchpoints - not just marketing.





Bringing this together:  Creating touchpoints that make a difference

What this paper is trying to highlight is that we have options in how we frame touchpoints, whether that be the phrasing of calls to action, the images we use, or the proof points we reference. And some of our choices will be more effective than others at encouraging action, even if the intent behind these options is essentially the same.


Whether we are looking at how touchpoints are presented instore, how a website is designed, how an email is crafted or any other type of touchpoint, it is designed to have an impact. But that impact is mediated by how it is received by your customer – something that is viewed but doesn’t instigate any response (now or in the future) is not impact.


Fortunately the world of psychology (and behavioural science more generally) has much to say about how to support and motivate people to follow through on an intended action. So when designing a touchpoint it’s important that we think not just about what message we want to convey, but also how the message will motivate the viewer.


And that can help us to deliver more effective programmes of work, for both our users and the organisation. 



Key take home points
  1. It’s not just about putting a message in front of a customer, nor educating them about a course of action. What we should be judging our effectiveness upon, is how we support and motivate our users to respond and take action.
  2. Similarly, while our messaging should support and encourage an intention amongst our users to act (whether that be in terms of products to buy, our choices to act sustainably, etc.), intent to act is not enough. There is a well-known phenomenon called the intention-action gap, highlighting how what people want to do and what they actually do differ. 
  3. Instead there are a range of strategies that we can employ to encourage a greater likelihood of our users responding differently. We can bake in more motivation, into our messaging. To do this, we need to think through how the reader is likely to engage with your touchpoint, and then how they will come to process the message in front of them. 
  4. This type of thinking can be applied to a range of channels and industries. For recent case studies of this thinking being applied in the not-for-profit, e-commerce, insurance or utility sectors, click on the links or visit www.neurospot.co.nz/case-studies


By Cole Armstrong 19 Jul, 2023
If I asked you to think back about an event, maybe a holiday or your last plane trip, your last dinner out, or a shopping experience, what would you remember? If I asked you to describe the experience, chances are you’d feel pretty confident about your memory, or at least some of the key elements. It turns out though, that confidence you’re feeling - it doesn’t relate to the accuracy of your memory. Faulty memories You’re not losing your mind, it’s just that your mind is playing tricks... sort of. We’ve spent quite a bit of time using eye tracking technology through our client projects. It enables us to see a participant’s behaviour – what they actually see and engage with - and the journeys people take through a physical environment, like a mall or retail setting. One project saw participants navigating a store with eye tracking glasses, getting items off a shopping list. As soon as they’d completed their journey, we asked which way they’d walked. Participants confidently recounted their route, and yet despite having literally just finished their journey, consistently missed out details. In another project we asked focus group participants about an image we’d shown them 20 minutes earlier. This elicited quite a spirited conversation about skin colour and how the illustrator’s choice of using a dark skin colour for all of the characters pointed to the racism of the illustrator and client. The thing was though, the characters weren’t dark skinned. Not one of them. And yet all of the participants convinced themselves this was the case. We’re certainly not the first to have encountered this phenomenon. There’s quite an active scene looking into issues with eyewitness testimony, and under which conditions our memory maybe unduly swayed or prone to errors. As you can imagine, the consequences of this could be huge. How can we stop getting it wrong? We’re not saying that our memories are always wrong – clearly that’s not the case! But there’s a rhyme and reason behind how our memory operates – both for good and bad. Our brains are BUSY. It’s like a hamster wheel going full on 24/7. Even when sleeping our brain is taking stock of the day, filing away moments into short and long-term memory. In order to look after us, our brains have to prioritise its resources, and it essentially takes shortcuts wherever possible, driving the same way to work each day, ordering the same coffee and so on. Imagine the fatigue we would face if we had to make every decision and action consciously, rather than letting our brains run the show. Which moments matter? So when our brain – a lazy but efficient workaholic – is sorting through events and the happenings of our day, it throws out the mundane, peripheral information it deems unimportant. It instead focuses on creating a highlight reel, and takes the moment of the events and experiences that were the most emotionally intensive, and the final moment. The concept is known as The Peak-End rule, and comes from Daniel Kahneman and his colleague Donald Redelmeier. Their 1996 study, which I am very pleased to not have been a participant in, involved 154 colonoscopy patients rating their level of discomfort at 60-second intervals throughout the procedure, as well as being asked to retrospectively describe how uncomfortable the procedure was. The level of discomfort during the procedure had no correlation to the discomfort they reported retrospectively. As an aside, they followed-up this study with yet more colonoscopy patients, who were split into two groups. One group had the standard procedure and experience of the camera being somewhat painfully removed, and the other had an amended experience that lasted three minutes longer, but which the camera removal was more uncomfortable than painful. The second group – with a longer procedure but less discomfort in the final moments – rated the procedure as less painful than the first group and were more likely to return for subsequent procedures. What was relevant was the peak level of discomfort experienced, as well as the level of discomfort in the final, end moments of the procedure. So what does this tell us? Firstly, that our memory is more fallible than we’d like to realise, more often made up of a series of stitched together moments and thoughts that can be revised and reinterpreted after the fact. Here’s an example - one of the best flights I’ve had was on Air New Zealand to Sydney – the first time we’d flown with my then-infant daughter (you can imagine our nerves!). At the end of the flight we apologised to the man next to us who’d (somehow) been working the whole 3.5 hours. We were suitably self-conscious at the amount of screaming he’d been subjected to but were greatly surprised at how nice he was – telling us that she’d been great, and how his (now teenage) children had subjected him through worse. Then some of the other passengers near us congratulated us on surviving a flight with an infant and how good a flyer she’d been – alongside the cabin staff who were making faces at our daughter to get her to laugh. It's honestly one of the best flights I remember – but clearly it wasn’t that pleasant at the time! The Peak-End rule in action – our actual and remembered experiences diverting wildly. How to apply these learnings to your work Don’t rely on people providing an accurate testimony of their experience. It’s more important to look at what a customer does vs what they say they do. When reviewing a process, journey or customer experience, focus on the moments that matter – the peak emotional moment and the final moment. This provides direction, stopping you from spreading your resources too thin and helping concentrate efforts on the moments most likely to have an impact. Be creative when designing experiences. Because our remembered experience is more important than our actual experience, you have a unique opportunity where you can creatively leave customers with an experience perhaps better than what they had… If you know there’s a frustration or issue during a process, while working on a fix for that, make sure your final moment knocks their socks off.
08 Nov, 2022
JCDecaux is one of the largest Out-of-Home businesses worldwide; in New Zealand it specialises in high quality Large Format and Airport touchpoints. JCDecaux is committed to delivering research-led validation to its partners regarding Out-of-Home effectiveness and looks for partners who can deliver neuro or behavioural methodologies that can deliver on this objective.
07 Jul, 2022
In 2014, staff working on London’s underground network went on strike causing massive disruption to millions of commuter trips. For a city so heavily reliant on the tube network this was a disaster that interfered with the habitual travel routines that the city used to get to work and play. While all commuters would’ve been aware of the disruption, and to some degree would have felt it’s effects, some were more affected then others. Strikes resulted in some, but not all, of the networks underground stations to be closed, meaning some commuters were forced to look for new routes while others were able to continue with existing routes. After strikes finished, 5% of disrupted commuters continued with their new routines – suggesting that they’d optimised and improved their travel to work.
Show More
Share by: