Low-Key, Non-Emotional Messges More Memorable?

NIH today released the results of a study that show that low-key, factual anti-smoking messages (rational) are more memorable than attention grabbing messages (emotional). Study was done using MRI and neuroimaging. Details are at http://www.nih.gov/news/health/may2009/nida-15.htm

Training Brain Performance

An interesting article about conditioning related to incentive programs that help train the brain to change behaviors and performance (WSJ 4/28/09, D1,3). It is all about different kinds of incentives, such as lotteries, deposit contracts, and financial incentives.

Key to this article is a report of a GE stop smoking program that offered workers $750 to stop smoking. 847 employees participated.

Customer Education Games

Here's an interesting twist on customer education in terms of enabling customers to recognize that they might potentially have a need for a good or service. ARS Ready Rooter's Energy Challenge game asks questions about various energy efficiency measures related to different parts of a home. See http://www.arsenergychallenge.com/

On the plus side, it help me connect (although not immediately) a need I might have to ARS's services. On the minus side, the feedback I get when I select the wrong answer is condescending and treats a potential customer like they are stupid. From a customer experience standpoing, kind of makes me apprehensive to call them for service -- will their field service techs treat me like I'm an idiot?

The better solution would be to make the feedback initially constructive and helpful. For example, instead of feedback saying, "You can't be serious," a better approach would be something along the lines of, "A lot of people incorrectly think this. ARS can help get you the right answers."

ITunes Gift Card PITA Factor

My son recently purchased an Apple ITouch mp3 player. Today he got a gift card (first one) and came to me trying to figure out how to activate it (he's a smart kid, and had quickly figured out how to use the ITouch when he purchased it). On the back of the card was a set of four steps. The third step was to enter the code shown.

Which code would you enter? Well, there are three "codes" shown on the card - the one below the barcode, one on the lower left, and one on the lower right. Entered them all, none worked. So much for Apple's intuitive user interface and specific instructions.

So we did what any self-service customer would do, which is to find some help online. After exploring a few links, we came across this page and picture:

This solved our problem instantly and my son was able to register his card and start spending. What we can't figure out is why the instruction shown in the above example isn't integrated into the card itself (in our book, we call this an Embedded Tool). If Apple had to devote a page on its website to communicate this simple action (even lottery cards have this instruction), it seems logical that lots of other people are having this problem.

Anyway, we've now passed through the learning curve so usage of future cards will be easy. But the first experience was a pain in the ass (the PITA factor) and is very inconsistent with Apple's easy-of-use experience promise.

Energy Feedback and Value

This past week I attended the Utility Energy Forum conference held at Lake Tahoe. One of the more interesting presentations was by Bruce Ceniceros of the Sacramento Municipal Utilities District (SMUD). SMUD has been testing Positive Energy's paper-based energy feedback product in a controlled experiment. 35,000 randomly assigned customers are receiving the Positive Energy feedback, and 55,000 customers are a control group.

The results Bruce presented indicate that overall reduction in energy usage is about 2% (treatment group compared to control group). Although Bruce didn't present specific facts or numbers, my subsequent discussion with him suggested that the $1 million investment in the Positive Energy solution had a positive benefit of about $2 million (the math formula was a bit fuzzy here for me, so I can't do justice in explaining it -- so for now we'll need to take Bruce's word). Also, no data was presented with regards to overall customer savings on their bills -- which I think is another way of assessing the value of the $1 million investment for 12 months. So, let's try a simple hypothetical: ((35,000 customers x $100 average bill) x 12 months) x 2% = $840,000.

The point I am making is whether enhanced feedback has value. Given the hypothetical illustrated above, the answer is "no" for the first year if customers had to pay for the feedback (which they are not). Yet what we don't know if those savings will persist in subsequent years, and whether if SMUD continues to invest in this feedback whether we'd continue to see reductions year after year (the law of diminishing returns might come into play).

Anyway, it is good to see that feedback has impact, but the program is missing one significant theory-based element that is inconsistent with the Coproduction Experience Model and previous research: that of goals. The PE report doesn't include a goal. It just shows the social norming data (which if you want to stretch things could be considered a goal). Now Bruce did report that a hundred or so postcards with various goals (5%, 10%, 15%) were sent to some subjects (about 200), but the details on this were also fuzzy.

Another interesting fact about the study is that about 3% of customers called, emailed, or wrote to opt-out of the program.

I've emailed Bruce to get some more details, and will update the post as I learn more.

Enabling Annoying Customer Performance

It seems that "hypermilers" - people who drive in such a way to increase MPG, are driving other drivers crazy (WSJ, 4/17/09 A9). The interesting thing about this is that car manufacturers are installing devices in cars that aid this kind of driving, such as Nissan's "eco-pedal", which provides the driver pressure-based feedback when stepping on the gas too hard. Additionally, customer education has sprung up to teach people about "eco-driving."

Smart Meters a Dumb Idea?

I've been working on the customer behavior side of smart meters for a couple of years now, and most of the press has been pretty positive. A 4/27/09 WSJ article (R5,7) by Rebecca Smith questions whether smart meters are a dumb idea. The angle of the article is on the cost of installing the smart meters, and that utilities will charge customers for the meter (guess what, utilities have been charging customers for the mechanical dumb meters for years now).

While colleagues have blasted this article from an economic perspective, I've reflected on it from a behavioral perspective. A speaker at a conference I attended said, "If you think feedback isn't important, just count the number of mirrors you have in your home." People thrive on feedback. It is the primary driver for helping people improve their lives. While the recipe for saving energy is relatively simple -- turning things off -- the question really is when and what we turn off so that we maintain a level of comfort. Energy waste is the villian here, and smart meters, as a core technology for enhancing a coproduction experience of vision, access, incentive, and expertise, is one of the more valuable solutions to come around in a long time to help us be better consumers.