Blog Layout


Don’t think COVID-19 impacted everyone equally: The K-shaped recovery

While the narrative about NZ’s post-COVID recovery has been largely positive, there are still significant numbers of the population who continue to struggle. What does this mean for your organisation, and what strategies need to be developed to respond both compassionately and pragmatically for long-term value?

Amongst my circle of friends and work colleagues, there has been almost a sense of buoyancy about how well NZ has rebounded from the impact of COVID-19. The economy is doing well, unemployment figures aren’t as bad as we once thought they were going to be, and the housing market is increasing at astronomical rates. After a fantastic Kiwi summer, where we’ve congregated with friends and families at the beach, it’s hard not to feel good about things. This shows as well in consumer confidence (up +2 points according to ANZ Consumer Confidence Survey) and retail spending data (+3.5% according to recent electronic transaction figures released by Stats NZ).



But not everyone has come through 2020 and COVID-19 equally, and recent research from The 2020 Vision Project has highlighted the scale of the issue.

 

Winners and losers from COVID-19


At the end of 2020, The 2020 Vision Project wanted to get a sense of scale of the lasting impact that COVID-19 left on NZ. Interviews throughout the year had captured the general sense of recovery as we moved from first shock as COVID-19 and lockdown first entered our consciousness, and later recovery as we adapted to the new landscape. In partnership with survey firm Dynata, we conducted a survey with 1000 New Zealanders in December 2020, to see how people felt they’d personally been impacted.


The responses were divided.


First of all, the majority of New Zealanders felt their life hadn’t changed much relative to other NZers. 50% said their life hadn’t changed, 51% said they were still earning the same income.


There was a second group, whose life had gotten better – 28% of people in fact, who believed their situation had improved relative to the rest of New Zealand. Only 16% said they were earning more, and our figures support some of the recent commentary around increased house prices – you don’t need to earn more income, if your house is earning it for you.


But there was also a sizeable minority who felt their situation had gotten worse – 22% of people in fact. Similar numbers said they were earning less than the same time in 2019 (29%), or weren’t feeling secure about their employment (21%). These might be the hospitality or tourism workers who lost income, the solo parents who struggled through lockdown without an income, or even the pilots who are grounded and working in other industries.


Throughout 2020, we heard the tales of some of these people, how they viewed the behaviours of other NZers, and how they responded to some of the actions of well-known NZ businesses. This provided the human voice to what many economic commentators have described as our K-shaped recovery: some are seeing life getting better at the same time as others see it getting worse.


We've been quite fortunate to keep our jobs and we have a house ... so we were lucky I think … some of our friends did lose jobs or had financial struggles.

 

Why does this matter?


In short, this matters because of how humans are hardwired to respond to fairness. We’re willing to accept much worse outcomes, as long as we can explain it as being fair relative to others, and importantly, are willing to give up much better outcomes if it seems out of whack with what others are getting.


So, we know that right now there could be 22% of the population who see their place in the world getting worse, as others are getting better.


This matters. From a moral perspective and from a consumer confidence perspective, with research showing that those who are perceived to have been dealt with unfairly, disposed towards a negativity bias of the world around them. This showed up in our research: those who felt they were doing worse relative to 2019 held more pessimistic views on how their fellow citizens treat each other and whether the economy will bounce back in 2021.


Could this impact the social bonds that hold our society together? Could this add another level of fragility to our economic recovery? These are important questions with both societal and commercial implications.

 

Unequally impacted: “It’s just not fair”


The impact that this can have shows up in terms of public sentiment, and how people responded to several brands seen to take advantage of the situation during 2020. Those who felt most aggrieved with how their life had changed, were also those that held the most negative sentiments towards key brands who were seen to have taken advantage of the wage subsidy.


One of our participants captures this sentiment perfectly: “They can’t take advantage of the situation, like try to exploit it. That would be real poor form”. Could some of the social media furor have been exacerbated by the perceived ‘unfairness’ of the situation?

 

What this means


While brands and organisations are at the mercy of customer sentiment, there are opportunities to ensure that you capture the current mood of the population and take steps to ensure you don’t inadvertently upset a large minority of people.


This might include concrete steps built around a longer-term relationship with a customer (e.g. extended interest free terms, down sizing customer plans, holding back increases in insurance premiums). It’s also how we present ourselves as a brand, or how we interact with our customers – given a fifth of customers might feel life has gone backwards over the past 12 months.


If you want to find out what else is likely to change or how to deal with these impacts, please get in touch with Cole Armstrong at NeuroSpot (cole@neurospot.co.nz) or Mark Finnegan at Clarity Insight (mark@clarityinsight.co.nz).


By Cole Armstrong 15 Mar, 2024
How do we create persuasive touchpoints that make a difference? By considering how simple ways of reframing our messages, using insights from psychology and behavioural science, can create greater motivation to act.
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.
Show More
Share by: