The Planning Lab

The lifecycle stages of singlehood

Fredrik Lindström, a famous Swedish linguist and comedian, takes note in how the Swedish language semantically expresses singlehood. For example, it's far more common to use the expression 'live by oneself' (att bo själv) rather than 'living alone' (att bo ensam). To live by oneself marks individualism and freedom, while "living alone" expresses shame and failure.

Singlehood has thus become the societal norm, especially in Stockholm, where certain districts like Kungsholmen or Sundbyberg are known for having a high density of single households (singeltät).

Yet, anyone that has been single for a longer period of time knows that being alone isn't always a picnic. Sometimes it's great, sometimes it sucks.

So, my idea here is that singles go through various stages of singlehood, in which the level of hope varies, and that the distinction of these states are defined by certain critical points. In good old planning fashion I have also defined eight segments: dumpers, dumpees, hoppers, happy-go-lucky, relationship seekers, self actualizers, strugglers and survivors. You probably know at least one person for each type.

I've mapped this in a graph here. It's just for fun, so please take it lightly.

View full size | Download PDF

The lifecycle stages of singlehood

Fredrik Lindström, a famous Swedish linguist and comedian, takes note in how the Swedish language semantically expresses singlehood. For example, it's far more common to use the expression 'live by oneself' (att bo själv) rather than 'living alone' (att bo ensam). To live by oneself marks individualism and freedom, while "living alone" expresses shame and failure.

Singlehood has thus become the societal norm, especially in Stockholm, where certain districts like Kungsholmen or Sundbyberg are known for having a high density of single households (singeltät).

Yet, anyone that has been single for a longer period of time knows that being alone isn't always a picnic. Sometimes it's great, sometimes it sucks.

So, my idea here is that singles go through various stages of singlehood, in which the level of hope varies, and that the distinction of these states are defined by certain critical points. In good old planning fashion I have also defined eight segments: dumpers, dumpees, hoppers, happy-go-lucky, relationship seekers, self actualizers, strugglers and survivors. You probably know at least one person for each type.

I've mapped this in a graph here. It's just for fun, so please take it lightly.

View full size | Download PDF

What planning can learn from behaviourism

I've been having nightmares about our latest advertising campaign.

An old friend of mine, Samuel, is a cognitive behavioural psychologist and a goldmine for insights into human behaviour. As a planner I have been compelled to learn about the key principles of cognitive behavioural psychology or CBT.

The interesting part about CBT practioners is that they treat the human mind as a black box, downplaying the analysis of feelings or thoughts. The logic here is that the mind is so dynamic that trying to predict behaviour through attitude change is meaningless. Instead, the focus is on analysing inputs and outputs: if we change A in the environment of the subject, what will be the resulting behaviour B?

In short, a persons behaviour sequence looks something like this:

1. Antecedents (something that triggers behaviour) > 2. Behaviour (the action itself) > 3. Consequence (the reward).

I have tried to make sense of this from a branding and communications perspective. Here’s a summary of my findings.

Modify or die
According to the behavioural line of thought, the core principle of branding and communications should always be about modifying or reinforcing behaviour. Thoughts and feelings are nice to change, but when it comes to business, action speaks louder than words.

Hasn’t advertising always been about stimulating behaviour?
Both yes and no. Advertising, in its broadest definition, stimulates feelings or thoughts which in turn might (or might not) change behaviour. Since seeing a newspaper ad or watching a TV ad is quite far from the actual behaviour (e.g. the buying), its role can not be any other than generating positive thoughts about a brand or product. But nobody runs down to the store to try a new product straight away after watching an ad.

Following this argument, there some implications for how we design branding and communications:

1. Communications should guide behaviour by rewarding it. The best example of behaviour-guiding communications are in-store promotions or coupons where the behaviour is directly rewarded through a monetary incentive.

2. Communications should make sure the consequences of the behaviour at hand are clear. Trial marketing is an example of this, as it lets people experience the consequence of the product for free. Experience marketing takes this one step further by incorporating the promise with the actual delivery.

One could argue that there’s nothing new here. Companies like Procter & Gamble have been practising this for decades. Yet, if advertising ultimately is about stimulating behaviour, why does it focus so much on stimulating the black box, the thoughts and feelings? Maybe because most advertising and consumer behaviour theories and models taught at business schools are over 50 years old.

Solution: be more precise about examining the consumer behaviour in each specific case and be more flexible about the design of integrated communications and the role of each media. Channels should be seen as complements rather than substitutes. Ideally, this should result in a smart combination of highly creative and inspiring “above-the-line” ads with effective point-of-purchase comms in one integrated package. More Gorillas and less tactical advertising (“cheap bananas”) on TV!

Branded action, not branded words
3. Employer branding should be behaviour-driven, not value-driven. A large Swedish bank boats core values like Commitment, Continuity, Mutual respect and Professionalism. From a behaviour perspective, abstract words like these are hard to decode into action and therefore rather useless. What does “professionalism” imply for the day-to-day behaviour of most employees? Probably not a lot.

Solution: break every brand principle down to tangible instructions for action.

What do you think about this?

What planning can learn from behaviourism

I've been having nightmares about our latest advertising campaign.

An old friend of mine, Samuel, is a cognitive behavioural psychologist and a goldmine for insights into human behaviour. As a planner I have been compelled to learn about the key principles of cognitive behavioural psychology or CBT.

The interesting part about CBT practioners is that they treat the human mind as a black box, downplaying the analysis of feelings or thoughts. The logic here is that the mind is so dynamic that trying to predict behaviour through attitude change is meaningless. Instead, the focus is on analysing inputs and outputs: if we change A in the environment of the subject, what will be the resulting behaviour B?

In short, a persons behaviour sequence looks something like this:

1. Antecedents (something that triggers behaviour) > 2. Behaviour (the action itself) > 3. Consequence (the reward).

I have tried to make sense of this from a branding and communications perspective. Here’s a summary of my findings.

Modify or die
According to the behavioural line of thought, the core principle of branding and communications should always be about modifying or reinforcing behaviour. Thoughts and feelings are nice to change, but when it comes to business, action speaks louder than words.

Hasn’t advertising always been about stimulating behaviour?
Both yes and no. Advertising, in its broadest definition, stimulates feelings or thoughts which in turn might (or might not) change behaviour. Since seeing a newspaper ad or watching a TV ad is quite far from the actual behaviour (e.g. the buying), its role can not be any other than generating positive thoughts about a brand or product. But nobody runs down to the store to try a new product straight away after watching an ad.

Following this argument, there some implications for how we design branding and communications:

1. Communications should guide behaviour by rewarding it. The best example of behaviour-guiding communications are in-store promotions or coupons where the behaviour is directly rewarded through a monetary incentive.

2. Communications should make sure the consequences of the behaviour at hand are clear. Trial marketing is an example of this, as it lets people experience the consequence of the product for free. Experience marketing takes this one step further by incorporating the promise with the actual delivery.

One could argue that there’s nothing new here. Companies like Procter & Gamble have been practising this for decades. Yet, if advertising ultimately is about stimulating behaviour, why does it focus so much on stimulating the black box, the thoughts and feelings? Maybe because most advertising and consumer behaviour theories and models taught at business schools are over 50 years old.

Solution: be more precise about examining the consumer behaviour in each specific case and be more flexible about the design of integrated communications and the role of each media. Channels should be seen as complements rather than substitutes. Ideally, this should result in a smart combination of highly creative and inspiring “above-the-line” ads with effective point-of-purchase comms in one integrated package. More Gorillas and less tactical advertising (“cheap bananas”) on TV!

Branded action, not branded words
3. Employer branding should be behaviour-driven, not value-driven. A large Swedish bank boats core values like Commitment, Continuity, Mutual respect and Professionalism. From a behaviour perspective, abstract words like these are hard to decode into action and therefore rather useless. What does “professionalism” imply for the day-to-day behaviour of most employees? Probably not a lot.

Solution: break every brand principle down to tangible instructions for action.

What do you think about this?

The Sustainability Lab: the bottled water story continues

Fast Company, a business magazine, writes about the economics and psychology of the bottled water industry in this article. Some interesting facts about bottled water:

* Americans spent $15 billion on bottled water last year.

* 24% of the bottled water American consumers buy is tap water repackaged by Coke and Pepsi.

* Americans produce waste from plastic bottles worth $1 billion.

* For the price of one Evian bottle, you can fill the same bottle every day for 10 years, 5 months and 21 days with tap water.

* Half of the price of a typical bottle goes to the retailer, a third goes to distributor and transportation, a tenth is the cost of the water, another tenth is the profit.

* Water-drinker segments include: the "water pure-fectionist", the "water explorer", the "image seeker" and the "struggler".

* The CO2 bubbles in SanPellegrino water are extracted from vulcanic springwaters in Tuscany and trucked the Pellegrino plant in northern Italy.

* Worldwide, 1 billion people have no reliable source of drinking water. 3 000 children die every day from diseases caught from tainted water.

The Sustainability Lab: the bottled water story continues

Fast Company, a business magazine, writes about the economics and psychology of the bottled water industry in this article. Some interesting facts about bottled water:

* Americans spent $15 billion on bottled water last year.

* 24% of the bottled water American consumers buy is tap water repackaged by Coke and Pepsi.

* Americans produce waste from plastic bottles worth $1 billion.

* For the price of one Evian bottle, you can fill the same bottle every day for 10 years, 5 months and 21 days with tap water.

* Half of the price of a typical bottle goes to the retailer, a third goes to distributor and transportation, a tenth is the cost of the water, another tenth is the profit.

* Water-drinker segments include: the "water pure-fectionist", the "water explorer", the "image seeker" and the "struggler".

* The CO2 bubbles in SanPellegrino water are extracted from vulcanic springwaters in Tuscany and trucked the Pellegrino plant in northern Italy.

* Worldwide, 1 billion people have no reliable source of drinking water. 3 000 children die every day from diseases caught from tainted water.

Loneliness is bad for you

Lonely people are more chronically stressed, appear more helpless and threatened, and their sleep is of poorer quality. This according to a study by psychologists Louise Hawkley and John Cacioppo at University of Chicago. Their findings are published in the latest journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

Science Blog

Loneliness is bad for you

Lonely people are more chronically stressed, appear more helpless and threatened, and their sleep is of poorer quality. This according to a study by psychologists Louise Hawkley and John Cacioppo at University of Chicago. Their findings are published in the latest journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

Science Blog

Give me one good reason to sleep with you. I'll give you 237.

Why do people have sex? To experience sexual pleasure or to reproduce, according to many scientists today. But new research reveals that people have sex for many other reasons. Psychology researchers David Buss and Cindy Meston at The University of Texas have unvealed no less than 237 motivations for sex.

Two studies were conducted. In the first one, 400 men and women were asked to identify reasons for sex. In the second study, 1,500 undergraduate students were asked about their experiences and attitudes. The research by Buss and Meston is thus one of the most extensive studies about why people have sex.

Four major factors and 13 sub-factors for why people have sex were identified:

1. Physical reasons such as to reduce stress ("It seemed like good exercise"), feel pleasure ("It’s exciting"), improve or expand experiences ("I was curious about sex"), and the physical desirability of their partner ("The person was a good dancer").

2. Goal-based reasons, including utilitarian or practical considerations ("I wanted to have a baby"), social status ("I wanted to be popular") and revenge ("I wanted to give someone else a sexually transmitted disease").

3. Emotional reasons such as love and commitment ("I wanted to feel connected") and expression ("I wanted to say ‘thank you’").

4. Insecurity-based reasons, including self-esteem ("I wanted the attention"), a feeling of duty or pressure ("My partner kept insisting") and to guard a mate ("I wanted to keep my partner from straying").

Lesson learned? "People have different reasons for having sex, some of which are rather complex" says David Buss.

Needs rethinking?

Knowing that things are not as simple as we might think, it might be a good idea to rethink the use of sex in advertising.

University of Texas [via Science Blog]

Give me one good reason to sleep with you. I ' ll give you 237.

Why do people have sex? To experience sexual pleasure or to reproduce, according to many scientists today. But new research reveals that people have sex for many other reasons. Psychology researchers David Buss and Cindy Meston at The University of Texas have unvealed no less than 237 motivations for sex.

Two studies were conducted. In the first one, 400 men and women were asked to identify reasons for sex. In the second study, 1,500 undergraduate students were asked about their experiences and attitudes. The research by Buss and Meston is thus one of the most extensive studies about why people have sex.

Four major factors and 13 sub-factors for why people have sex were identified:

1. Physical reasons such as to reduce stress ("It seemed like good exercise"), feel pleasure ("It’s exciting"), improve or expand experiences ("I was curious about sex"), and the physical desirability of their partner ("The person was a good dancer").

2. Goal-based reasons, including utilitarian or practical considerations ("I wanted to have a baby"), social status ("I wanted to be popular") and revenge ("I wanted to give someone else a sexually transmitted disease").

3. Emotional reasons such as love and commitment ("I wanted to feel connected") and expression ("I wanted to say ‘thank you’").

4. Insecurity-based reasons, including self-esteem ("I wanted the attention"), a feeling of duty or pressure ("My partner kept insisting") and to guard a mate ("I wanted to keep my partner from straying").

Lesson learned? "People have different reasons for having sex, some of which are rather complex" says David Buss.

Needs rethinking?

Knowing that things are not as simple as we might think, it might be a good idea to rethink the use of sex in advertising.

University of Texas [via Science Blog]