Just as I was getting ready to revive the Solutions for Sustainable Consumption series with a post about offering consumers a third choice (think “paper or plastic or…”), two developments forced me to reconsider.
Claude Lévi-Strauss died on October 30th. The founder of structuralism in anthropology had discovered that all narratives are built around binary oppositions.- Writing in the Financial Times, Tim Harford has reported on recent studies, which contradict the paradox-of-choice and less-is-more arguments by finding that more choice doesn’t hamper decision-making.
What role does choice play in sustainable marketing? Should you offer more or fewer choices to your customers?
In the post on third choice I planned to argue that either-or choices can be false and unconducive to sustainable consumption. For example, in the paper or plastic scenario, bringing your own bag is better and not buying what you don’t really need even more so.
Two is the magic number
Extrapolating from Lévi-Strauss, you psychologically prefer an either-or choice between two alternatives. It’s deeply embedded in your thinking patterns and it’s simple. Paper or plastic, domestic or import, Democrat or Republican, black or white – the binary choices reflect your natural inclination toward two alternatives.
The choice between plain (”white”) and fruit-flavored (”red”) yogurt of my childhood in socialist Czechoslovakia seemed natural – the possibility of having more choices hadn’t occurred to me. I was happy with the two available two alternatives.
The landscape of plenty
Freedom of choice is the hallmark of capitalism. Offering a third choice boosts sales. Offering a large number of choices, may have a detrimental effect, however. Or so goes the conventional wisdom: the paradox of choice holds that having to select among more alternatives creates anxiety for consumers, yields suboptimal choices, and can reduce sales.
According to new research, having more choices matters little, however. The paradox of choice appears to be a myth.
When the market opened up after the Velvet Revolution, the white and red yogurts disappeared, giving way to an array of imports and yogurts made by new domestic companies. The choice seemed overwhelming until I realized that sampling allowed me to explore and discover, by myself, what I liked. Eventually I tasted my way to a few favorite yogurts. I was happy with the available choices.
Choice or no choice?
So which is it? What is better for the consumer and more sustainable: two alternatives, three, or a large number of choices?
Fast food to the rescue. Do people prefer all the choices and combinations offered at Burgerville or the limited choice at In-N-Out Burger?
I believe the question is flawed. Both small fast-food chains serve different geographic markets and both differentiate themselves in different areas.
Burgerville is the Oregon-Washington local sustainable business darling: it sources all food from local and sustainable sources; it uses renewable power; recycles and composts; pays living wages and cares for its employees… In-N-Out Burger is a Southwest — mainly California — family-owned business that prides itself on tradition and retro flair: the menu and practices are the same as in 1948.
You can choose to go to either fast-food restaurant. You can go to a different one altogether, though I wouldn’t recommend it. You can also choose to not eat any fast food. Or, you can refuse to choose, though know that, as the old Rush song goes, “If you choose not to decide / You still have made a choice.”
Ultimately, though, it doesn’t matter. Choice or no choice is a false choice. Two or three or seven or fifty-seven is irrelevant, as long as some choice exists, including the choice not to choose.
The only meaningful choice is doing whatever it takes to satisfy your customers, however many and whatever choices they want, and doing it in a sustainable way.
***
Image credit: bitterlysweet and david.nikonvscanon
{ 1 trackback }
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
I tend to agree with most all of your points, although it is somewhat counter-intuitive to me.
The research seems to be particularly practical in the arena of market entry for a firm. I think using this analysis for brand extension could be dangerous because it leaves out two key pieces:
1) Positioning – Would a new choice to the consumer disrupt the position the incumbent brand has in his mind? We’ve seen countless examples of a brand destroying its positioning by introducing an extension.
2) Cannibalization – Would a new choice take value away from an existing portfolio product rather than from a competitive product? Again, many examples of that.
But as far as using this new research to consider entering a crowded space, I think it’s very interesting.
I even think this research has implications for design, be it digital design, store design, etc. It may well be that our discomfort with choice was a largely a function of un-scalable design.
@Matt: You can certainly apply the findings of this research in many areas where choice among alternatives plays a role. Thanks for pointing out the application in market entry.