Is Rory Sutherland right about behavioural economics?
Two weeks ago in Campaign, Rory Sutherland argued that the marketing industry “could do with a bit more hard science” to generate consumer insights. He contested: “we are light on hard findings. Most other businesses are allied to an academic discipline of some kind. Marketing isn't.”
But is behavioural economics the answer – the opportunity, as Rory puts it, “for the industry to regain some of the influence it has lost, and to raise our game”?
My colleagues Paul Kitcatt, Richard Madden and I put our heads together to explore the argument. In a letter published in Campaign this week, we explore what philosophy has to teach us about the dangers of constraining creativity within the rules of science.
Dear Campaign,
Rory Sutherland is quite right to say 'we could do with a bit more hard science' (‘Exploring the Science of Persuasion’, 14 January 2011.) But before we decide Behavioural Economics is the answer to every problem, a cautionary tale.
John Stuart Mill's dad was a right bastard. He brought his kid up on a diet of pure utilitarianism (it’s what happens if you go drinking with Jeremy Bentham too much).
JSM was forced to think through a Benthamite prism from an early age. In other words, try to solve every problem by calculating which course of action will create the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. This drove him mad by the age of 25.
This reminds me of BE. In fleeing from the 'rules' of classical economics, we have found sanctuary in another set of so-called universal behaviourist principles (social proof, expert endorsement, reciprocity, consistency, middle-menu rule and so on). If we're not careful, this set of rules will become our intellectual prison, just as utilitarianism was to Mill.
In his autobiography, Mill relates that he recovered from his depression on hearing an overture by Weber. This work of art followed no utilitarian principles. But he found himself becoming irrationally happy.
What's our Weber overture? ‘Think small.’ ‘We try harder.’ ‘Happiness is a cigar called Hamlet.’
None of these use any BE 'rules'. Instead, they rely on the intelligent juxtaposition of ideas, something Steve Harrison calls 'creative abruption', and simple likeability.
BE has its uses. Goodness knows, it's driven the less respectable parts of the fundraising industry for the last 30 years (free pens = reciprocity etc.). And it's invaluable in informing choice architecture (range structuring, pricing etc.)
But it's no substitute for creativity. Nor will it ever be.
Just remember JSM. He founded liberalism and is still read today.
And Bentham got stuffed and put in a box at University College London.
That’s our two penneth. What do you think?
Marc Nohr
Chief Executive Officer
Comments
15 February 11
By: Simon
Mind the gap
Human behaviour is too complex to conform to any single set of rules. That is why economics isn't really a science, and nor is behaviourism.
Humans are irrational; rules cannot be, otherwise they wouldn't be rules. There will always be a gap between where rules end and where behaviour begins. In that gap, creativity flourishes.
Long may it remain so.
18 February 11
By: Rory Sutherland
I always thought that.....
....JSM went mad because he realised that there was a theoretically finite limit to the amount of music that could be composed. And Benthamism isn't a bad rough approach to life, for all its imperfections. The fact is that "all models are wrong, but some of them are useful".
But there is an important distinction to be made here.
BE generates insights. It does not generate ideas. Therefore you are creating a false dichotomy if you suggest that the science of BE is or can be be a substitute for creativity. It isn't. It simply provides a platform that helps support the generation of more and better creative ideas. Just as the harmonic scale is a platform which allows for the composition of better music.
19 February 11
By: John kenny
Some of the best have always used behavioral economics
When I pitch behavioral economics to other planners, my pitch isn't that it will change their world, but that the best creatives have always used it, albeit intuitively, and if we're at least aware of it, we have a better chance of getting to better work: Examples:
How Listerine in 1920s got people to focus on bad breath "the invisible gorilla" by making it part of the game "getting married"
Google: Overcoming our addiction to now by making the first step fun: Making installing chrome less a chore and more a media event with Arcade Fire
Allstate's Mayhem campaign: If we all think we're above average drivers, make the threat someone else
28 October 11
By: Simon Foster
A small addendum to this tale
"Just remember JSM. He founded liberalism and is still read today.....And Bentham got stuffed and put in a box at University College London."
A small addendum to this tale; Benthan also had a pub named in his honour. Statistically speaking, having a pub named after you in person is a rare accolade. Other luminaries who's names have shed light on cold nights include Eva Hart, a survivor of the Titanic, Sir Robert Peel, Sir Colin Campbell who commanded the "thin red line" at Balaklava, George Canning, our shortest serving Prime Minister, Herbet Chapman, the manager who helped Arsenal win their first FA cup and lat but not least, Charlie Chaplin.
I'm yet to find the John Stuart Mill, but I'll keep my eyes open and report back if I do.