Seven Stones: Older Blog Archive

It’s been hot. As with any extreme weather condition the UK hasn’t coped well. Commuter trains failed - the wrong sort of heat apparently - temperatures on the underground rose to 40c and spectators at Wimbledon dropped like hot cakes. Fortunately the strawberries and cream remained fresh.

Even without a heat wave it can be difficult to keep mentally bright and alert, which is why I so delighted to pick up recently the simple tip "Do one thing new every day". *

By deliberately introducing something different we are more likely to see things differently, think differently and generate new ideas. All of which are highly valuable attributes for communication experts who pride themselves on staying fresh and for researchers who are constantly asked to deliver fresh insights.

No specialized equipment, personal instructor or hefty bank balance is required. Instead you consciously introduce something different every day. It might be a new experience, a meeting with new person, or a small change in your routine it really doesn’t matter. As my teenage daughter would say "whatever".

So far my new things have included:

Cleaning my teeth with the wrong hand
Walking dogs along a new byway
Eating a no bread lunch
Watching Top Gear
Reading an article on economics

Introducing just a few small changes has highlighted how much of each day can be a known entity and how refreshing it can be to focus on something different - even for a short while. Yesterday I hula-hooped. Today I think I’ll eat an ice cream in the office…

Oh, and by the way, the weather is due to break soon!

* Sticky Wisdom, How to Start a Creative Revolution at Work by What If 2002

I have been told that the biggest thing that holds people back creatively is the fear of failure. My own experience tells me this is true. This writing thing can be a tricky business and sometimes, the truth is, I fall at the very first hurdle – I can’t even start.

The fact is that any leap into imagination is a leap without a safety net. The only way to do it is to do it. And the only way to write is to write. It’s incredibly difficult to do without putting pen to paper or finger to key.

It can be tempting to try to write, edit and perfect in your head first before risking creating physical evidence of any potential failure. Sadly, there is a limit to what you can retain in your head at any one time. And if you try to hang on to too much for too long it tends to lose any of the charm that made it worth writing down in the first place.

Maybe the willingness to take risks comes from confidence in your ability to correct them. Or maybe that is the excuse I will grant myself as I make my final grasps for that elusive safety net.

In Dan Ariely’s book “Predictably Irrational” he discusses how easily we are influenced in areas where we lack knowledge.

Choosing wine in a restaurant is a good example.

We scan the prices and wines and form an impression of the range of prices.

The most inexpensive wine at £12 seems ‘cheap’ (and therefore expected to be nasty). The most expensive wine is £56 which seems over priced. And the bottles at £18 to £25 seem altogether more attractive. He calls this phenomena ‘anchoring’. We become confident to purchase because we cast around to get our bearings.

(Indeed the reverse is often true: mid priced wines are often terribly bad value which predatory restaurateurs know all to well.)

Many of our decisions are ruled pragmatically, by eliminating extremes and focussing on the middle ground (is this the lack of ambition in most of us which defines how different we are from a Richard Branson or a Bill Gates?).

But be very careful when selecting your anchor.

I just spent two weeks in Ibiza on holiday (plenty of decisions about wine choices to deal with). The problem was that I was reading Keith Richards’ autobiography – Life.

However excessive my holiday habits, I felt I was being extremely sensible, compared to Keef…

We human beings, like all predatory animals, are good at spotting a meal.

Part instinct, part education, we develop the knack of spotting the edible even if there are lots of things getting in the way.

Take the edible frog. It lives in ponds and on banks, surrounded by green. Most of what’s green is veg. Generally predators don’t do veg.

But despite these barriers, all sorts of animals learn to spot the frogs; catch and eat them.

It’s not that the edible frog is trying to be edible. It’s actually doing the reverse. Through natural selection it’s done all it can to be invisible.

But the thing it can’t control is the mind of the predator. That desire for a tasty green morsel.

And this is the connection with brands.

Brands need to create desirability and that means working on the mind (and in particular the feelings) of potential consumers.

But a curious thing often happens with brands. The packaging is often given attention before anyone’s figured out how to make it desirable.

And this is a problem in a world with too much choice.

Take a stroll in Waitrose and see how many exquisite pieces of packaging there are on offer. Look at any sector, be it premium or ‘essential’. Some of the most beautiful of them are own labels. Far too many to fit in a trolly.

So how do we, the public, deal with it?

We simply choose the things we desire.

So the challenge is to give a brand an advantage in the mind.

Remember, even with the wrong packaging, the edible frog is desirable.

The Fundamental Choice

You name is Miss Ann E. Price. It’s the last Friday of the month. You’ve finished work for the day. And you’ve just been paid. So it’s time to grab your coat and…do what exactly?

Well, in the old days, you would have gone on a splurge before closing time. You would have shopped till you dropped, been drastic with the plastic. But now things are different. Times are hard. The credit crunch has taken its toll. So you have got to start cutting back. Indeed, you’ve just learned today that your pension plan is seriously under-funded. So you’ve got to start putting more money aside.

Accordingly, you’ve made the sensible decision: you are going directly to the bank after work to deposit your wages into a savings account.

But on the way fate intervenes. You happen to pass by your favourite shoe store. In the window, you espy—OMG!—the sexiest pair of high-heeled shoes you have ever seen. They are just begging you to take them home. There is just one small problem: the £400 price tag! That makes you hesitate. Then another passer-by stops to gaze at them too. Danger signal: she going for her wallet! Well, it’s now or never….

So what should you do? Should you save for a rainy day, or shell out for the shoes?

Time Bias and Future Discounting

The fundamental choice that the story illustrates—whether to save or to spend—is one that constantly confronts people. Should I get something I desire now (e.g., a pair of sexy shoes) or should I wait for something even more desirable later (e.g., solvency in my golden years)?

Ultimately, it’s up to each of us to decide. But how we decide reflects our level of time bias—that is, how much we value our present satisfaction over our future satisfaction.

In one sense, we all have a time bias for the present. Specifically, we always prefer something now over something later if it’s the same something. So, if I offered you the choice between receiving £100 now, or £100 a year from now, you would surely take the £100 now. After all, a lot can happen in a year. I might not be around to give you the £100, and you might not be around
to enjoy it!

Nonetheless, people differ in their degree of time bias. That is, some people discount the future more compared to the present (i.e., they prioritize getting the sexy shoes right now), whereas others discount the future less compared to the present (i.e., they prioritize drawing on the retirement fund later on.) Why should we care about this?

Discounting the Future More Can Be Bad For You

One reason is that scientific research finds that discounting the future more can be bad for you. In one classic study, young children were given a choice: eat one yummy marshmallow right away, or eat two yummy marshmallows after a delay. The choice they made was recorded by the researchers. Many years later, the children were followed up. How were they getting on? Amazingly, those children who chose one marshmallow right away were more likely to have done worse in school and to have had adjustment problems. More recent research finds much the same in adults. People who report having problems resisting temptation—a clear sign of discounting the future more in favour of the present—also have poorer quality relationships and worse mental health. So the lesson is clear: prudence is better than indulgence. Knowing someone’s degree of time bias can enable you to predict how their lives turn out.

Measuring Time Bias

Now, suppose I wanted to measure your degree of time bias: how would I go about it? Well, for convenience, I might present you with a choice between receiving a smaller amount of money now or a larger amount of money later. (This is a realistic scenario. When money is saved a bank, it typically earns interest, so that more money will be available subsequently if the principal is not spent immediately.)

For example, I might ask you which you would prefer: to receive £45 in three days, or £70 in three months? Finding it hard to choose? Don’t be surprised: people split about 50:50 on this one. But if you are the sort of person who discounts the future more, you’ll likely choose the $45 in three days, whereas if you are the sort of person who discounts it less, you’ll likely choose the £70 in three months.

A more complete way to measure your degree of time bias would be to ask a whole series of questions trading off a smaller amount of money now for a larger amount of money in the future. Your personal “tipping point”–that is, where you switched from one option to the other—could then be determined. Indeed, there exists a questionnaire designed for just this purpose called the Monetary Choice Questionnaire.

Predicting Time bias

Okay, so let’s suppose we can accurately measure your time bias. How, then, might we go about predicting it?

One way would simply ask you whether you regard spending as preferable to saving, or saving as preferable to spending. If you picked the first option, you would probably be inclined to discount the future more. If you picked the second, you would probably be inclined to discount the future less. After all, it’s likely you would possess some insight into your own preference and would be able to report it accurately. To provide the most precise information, a researcher might ask to indicate on a rating scale your degree of explicit preference for spending or saving. 

However, your self-report might be misleading for a number of reasons. Maybe you would resent the inquiry, and misreport your preference (i.e., tell a lie). Or maybe you would tell a researcher what you thought he wanted to hear (i.e., succumb to social desirability pressure). Or maybe you would tell yourself what you thought you wanted to hear (i.e., fall prey to self-deception). Or maybe you wouldn’t really have a good sense of your preferences (i.e., suffer from a lack of self-knowledge). For all these reasons, your self-report of your preference for saving versus spending might be misleading. If so, it would fail to predict your time bias.

So, if your self-report might not always be reliable, is there any other way of predicting your time bias? Thanks to the wonders of scientific psychology and modern computing there is. It goes by the name of the Implicit Association Test, or IAT.

The Implicit Association Test

What is the IAT? Basically, it’s a rapid-fire classification task run on computer. Your job is to classify items into categories as quickly as you can without making errors. To do this, you press one key if the items presented fall into one pair of categories, and another key if they fall into another pair of categories. Halfway through the task, the assignment of keys to categories gets switched around. Depending on which half of the task you find easier to do, it is possible to infer how much you automatically associate one pair of categories with another. For example, it can be inferred from how strongly you link the categories Spending and Saving with the categories Good and Bad respectively.

The nitty-gritty details of how the IAT works, and how its data get processed, are complex and need not detain us here. For current purposes it is enough to know that the IAT can gauge your degree of implicit preference for spending versus saving.

Now, implicit preferences have two potential advantages. First, they resist efforts to disguise them. Hence, they will be less vulnerable to problems of outright deception and social desirability. Second, implicit preferences originate at a more primitive level of mental operation—one more unconscious than conscious, more emotional than rational, and more impulsive than reflective. Hence, they can reflect information that would be concealed by motivated self-deception or insufficient self-knowledge.

The Proof of the Pudding

Do implicit preferences really have these advantages? How can we know the claims above are true? The answer is that they have been proven in scientific research. Dozens of studies have tested whether or not the IAT can predict important outcomes. The verdict is that it can—in cases ranging from what people eat, to how people vote. Importantly, the IAT often predicts important outcomes independently of self-report. This means that it can tap into unique aspects of people’s mental and behavioural tendencies. For example, when the IAT and self-report are used to measure people’s social prejudices—ones they might not always wish to reveal or admit—the IAT predicts related behavioural discrimination better than self-report does. This means that, in cases where self-reports might be suspect, the IAT comes into its own.

Another Proof of Concept

One of Strata’s unique selling points is its capacity to use the IAT as an investigative tool. Strata’s resident IT guru, James Klymowsky, has built a powerful, efficient, and user-friendly online system that can deploy customized IATs to large samples. This state-of-the-art system also optimally processes the data collected with confidential algorithms, and can provide individual summary feedback to IAT respondents on request. This system has enabled Strata to apply the IAT profitably to questions raised in healthcare market research. Indeed, one of our recent research projects where the IAT played a key role is in the running for a prestigious EphMRA award.

But we at Strata are always keen to double-check the validity of our tools. We wanted to verify for ourselves that the IAT could reveal something unique about people. Accordingly, we arranged for our consultant psychologist from the University of Southampton, Dr. Aiden P. Gregg, and a psychology undergraduate from the University of Essex, Samir Soormally, to run a little proof-of-concept study for us. This study featured over 250 participants, recruited from around the globe. All participated via our online IAT system.

This study had to do—yes, you’ve guessed it—with predicting people’s degree of time bias. Again, this is a crucial determinant of the financial choices people’s make—whether about shoes, pension plans, or anything else. Specifically, we tested whether and how well people’s degree of time bias would be predicted by two indices: (a) a standard self-report measure of people’s preference for spending versus saving (i.e., their explicit preference); and (b) our special IAT measure of people’s preference for spending versus saving (i.e., their implicit preference).

The results could have come out in many different ways. Naturally, we expected people’s explicit preferences to predict their degree of time bias. But would people’s implicit preferences do so too? Furthermore, would implicit preferences do so as effectively as explicit preferences? And would implicit preferences predict time bias independently of explicit preferences? If this last result worked out, it would once again confirm that the IAT could reveal information above and beyond self-report. It would show that, here, the IAT could uniquely predict whether people are liable to be either indulgent (e.g., take one marshmallow; shell out for shoes) or prudent (e.g., wait for two marshmallows; put money in the bank). So what happened?

The Results

Before we tell you—we like to build suspense—let us note some preliminary findings. First—and reassuringly—participants showed an overall preference for saving. Moreover, they showed this preference both in self-reports and on the IAT. The fact that explicit and implicit preferences here concurred means that we can have extra confidence about the accuracy and significance of the result. This is a “two thumbs up” situation. We can conclude that our sample were definitely more prudent than indulgent overall.

Nonetheless, when we looked at participants individually, their explicit preference was only a weak guide to their implicit preference (and vice versa). But this is a good thing. This means that, despite pointing in the same direction overall, participants’ explicit and implicit preferences were nonetheless relatively independent—possibly because they were tapping into different aspects of participants’ minds. If so, then maybe they would show different patterns of prediction as regards time bias.

And they did. Explicit preferences for saving versus spending predicted time bias; but implicit preferences also did. Moreover, both types of preference predicted time bias to the same extent. Most interestingly, however, both types of preference predicted it largely independently. That is to say, what self-report predicted about time bias, the IAT did not predict; and what the IAT predicted about time bias, self-report did not predict.

Consequently, this result is a validation of the usefulness of both self-report and the IAT. Each can provide useful predictive information that the other does not. Hence, the IAT should be seen, not as replacing conventional self-report measures but as supplementing them. Our findings illustrate how, with both the self-report measures and the IAT together, one can maximize one’s ability to predict an outcome of interest.

Apply the IAT to Healthcare Market Research

Our successful proof-of-concept illustrates the potential utility of IAT in research of all sorts. This includes healthcare market research.

For example, suppose a healthcare market researcher wanted two things: (a) to determine whether physicians preferred a newly developed drug Avantgardium to an old traditional stand-by Nostalgium; and (b) to predict whether physicians would be more likely to prescribe Avantgardium over Nostalgium.

Extrapolating from our proof-of-concept study, the IAT could perform two valuable services here.

First, the IAT’s results could be compared to those from interviewers or questionnaires. Let’s suppose the latter indicated an explicit preference for Avantgardium. That would be a good
initial sign.

But still, can we be certain that physicians were being fully frank? Or could they have just been pleasing the researcher with their answers? Could they have been flattering themselves about their openness to innovation? Were they coming up with plausible answers on the spot rather than identifying their true inclinations?

Sometimes there is no need to worry. After all, self-reports are often accurate. But where there is money on the line, greater certainty and additional insight may be desired.

Suppose that IAT results also showed that Avantgardium was more associated with the concept Good (or Effective, Safe, Cheap etc.) and that Nostalgium was more associated with the concept Bad (or Ueless, Dangerous, Expensive etc.). Such an implicit preference for Avantgardium over Nostalgium, in conjunction with the explicit preference, would serve to certify physicians’ receptivity towards Avantgardium. Everything would suggest that it was genuine. But suppose, on the other hand, that the IAT results came out the other way around. Suppose they showed that Avantgardium was more associated with negative concepts and Nostalgium with positive concepts. This would be a red flag. Something somewhere would be amiss. Further investigation would be warranted.

The second service that the IAT could provide would be in helping to predict overall levels of Avantgardium versus Nostalgium prescription among physicians, or in helping to predict which physicians would be more likely to prescribe one or the other. As our proof-of-concept study illustrated, and as much prior research proves, the IAT can predict important outcomes above and beyond self-report measures. Such an extra degree of predictive accuracy is useful for anyone who cares about knowing more than the competition does, and about telling as much as possible what the bottom line is going to be.

Summary

People differ in the degree to which they prefer a smaller benefit now over a larger benefit later: their time bias. Self-reports of people’s explicit preference for spending to saving can predict time bias. But, above and beyond such self-reports, an IAT-based index of people’s implicit preference for spending and saving predicts time bias too. This proof-of-concept illustrates what valuable information the IAT can provide, and other scientific research proves it. By extension, the IAT has a useful role to play in healthcare market research too.

References

Frederick, S., & Loewenstein, G., & O'Donoghue, T. (2002). Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. Journal of Economic Literature, 40, 351-401.

Greenwald, A. G., Poehlman, T. A., Uhlmann, E., & Banaji, M. R. (2009). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 17–41.

Shoda, Y., Mischel, W., Peake, P. K. (1990). Predicting adolescent cognitive and self-regulatory competencies from preschool delay of gratification: Identifying diagnostic conditions. Developmental Psychology, 26, 978–986.

Tangney, J.P., Baumeister, R.F., & Boone, A.L. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72, 271-324.

Online link to 50 studies showing real-world validity of the IAT:http://faculty.washington.edu/agg/pdf/Real-world_samples.pdf

As we learn more from neuro-science, sociology and behavioural economics two particular themes keep appearing that have a major impact on the field of communications and building brands.

The first is that we are essentially feelings driven organisms that simply have the gift of intellect and conscious thought which allows us to post rationalise our decisions.

The second is that feelings develop pragmatically, intuitively. The more we do something or experience something that's good for us (nurturing, exciting or pleasurable) the more the associations of that experience strengthen in our minds.

So pink has become the colour that little girls - in general in the Western World - aspire to. 200 years ago pink was not a girl's colour but it now is through association with things designed to make little girls feel good. Think Barbie, think My Little Pony and now, pink Lego.

And there’s strong evidence that associations with colour can actually be modified. If you take a random sample of people and ask them to rank colours in order of preference and then repeat this exercise having given them coloured drinks which are flavoured (sweet vs. bitter for example) it is possible to change their preferences. The associations of bitterness can affect one’s liking of blue, a colour that nearly all of us like. The science supports the notion that little girls are conditioned to like pink, just as they are conditioned through play to be more appreciative of ‘softer’ relationship based things whereas boys’ games focus them on problem solving and spatial awareness.

Perhaps we are more impressionable than we like to think.

And this got me to boats.

When I was a boy I was horrified when my father ordered a brand new Rover 2000 (all the rage in the seventies). There were some cool, groovy colours on offer including a dark turquoise blue - very Biba and Mary Quant.

Instead he chose a colour that sat somewhere in the grey-brown spectrum. It was simply the dullest colour I’d ever seen.

I now realise why he chose it. It was the colour of HMS Kenya – a naval cruiser  that he served on in the north Atlantic convoys. In mid life he’d chosen a colour that he associated with the heroism, excitement and testosterone of his late 20’s.

Wish I’d understood that when I was a boy.

Give someone a compliment in private and he will thank you for it. 

Give it in public - and with the world watching -  and it'll mean a whole lot more. 

Same message, different impact. 

The difference between the two has enabled an entire industry to grow up. Experts in media channel planning and buying. 

It affects price. An ad on the Superbowl is not just expensive, it's hugely expensive. Because when a really, really big audience sees something, something magic happens. The content becomes more memorable because the audience has an impact on the message. And that affects the feelings we have for brands that can do such a thing. 

Funny how often this gets forgotten in a world obsessed with setting targets and measuring. We're told that the Internet is killing many conventional media as it can pinpoint and target its prey. 

But many so-called digital campaigns are nothing more than a string of personal (and often unwanted) messages. The direct marketing industry has morphed into the digital media industry and it's making the same mistakes: indiscriminate targeting of individuals presented as intelligent, efficient communication. 

But there is a fight-back. The conventional media are rediscovering their confidence and re-stating what many of us have known for a while. The impact of reaching a big community all at once elevates the message from "ignore" to "watch". 

Interesting also that Facebook, and YouTube are known as social media when all the great media have always been about a social experience.  

From the first centre break on Corrie to the Superbowl, it's a social experience.

I’m well known for being totally oblivious to my surroundings – it was at least two weeks before I noticed the Christmas decorations – but even I couldn’t fail to spot the two shiny fire engines parked outside the office when I ambled back from lunch today.  I have to admit it took a few more moments before I recognised that it was my own colleagues standing on the pavement. And then the penny dropped.  The firemen were running in and out of the Seven Stones office.  

It turned out that in the time it takes to window shop along Regent Street and buy a low–salt, low-fat sandwich, the latest office drama had unfolded in the corridor by the kitchen. A fire! Cue for dramatic music.  

Thankfully, effective team work prevailed.  The creative director took on the role of ‘hero’ by manfully fighting the fire, while the fire marshals donned their very elegant high-viz  jackets and offered the reassurance that this was a real fire so please could everyone exit.  

Once outside, other roles evolved. The company ‘nurturer’ offered to distribute sandwiches (smart move not to leave those behind), while the ‘morale officer’ shared their previous funny-fire stories.  The ‘publicist’ kept everyone informed with regular progress updates from the firemen, while all fussed over the company’s own firefighter worried about the effects of smoke and a somewhat noxious fire extinguisher.  

No crafty cigarettes were involved in the making of our fire, which was in fact caused by an electrical fault.  A friendly electrician located, it wasn’t long before long we were all back at our computers (having made a fresh mental note of the nearest fire extinguisher).  

Anyway, the consequence of this lunch time excitement was one out-of-action corridor, the confirmation that our office procedures do work, and (excuse the pun) one fired up team!  So while I’m not recommending fire fighting as the basis for a team building event  - although I’m now prepared to guess that there is, somewhere, a company offering such a service – our company drama demonstrated how a crisis can bring out the best in a team.

A few weeks ago I started my work experience - or in Dolly Parton's words, "working 9 to 5". (Actually they let me do 10 to 4, but I still have to get up early to catch the train - oh and get ready.)

I was expecting to be well and truly fed up with making tea. But, shockingly, the moment I stepped into the office, I was bombarded with offers of cups of tea.

My placement began with the Strata Research team, who are lovely! It wasn't long before they had given me a long list of jobs to do, starting with some secondary desk research. Using the Internet, I had to find out all that I could about a particular drug and its therapy area and then put together a document with my findings (personally, I don't know how they would have continued with the project without my input).

After that it was some new business activity, creating a spreadsheet of biotechnology companies that Strata might target. Then I was able to witness primary research firsthand. It was very exciting! I got to sit behind a two-way mirror - like on police TV programmes where they interrogate the suspects, except the interviewers from Strata were a bit more polite.

At the end of the first week I found myself exhausted with less of a social life. I couldn't imagine adding those extra two hours of work on and I began dreading the thought of actually having to work for a living. "Why can't mum and dad pay for everything?" And "Maybe I'll just become a WAG?"

Weeks two and three arrived and it was into the creative department. First I had to come-up with an advertising flyer, but one with enough of a twist that it wouldn't go straight in the bin. I got to help on a new campaign idea for a pitch. Oh and then I casually made an iPad game (not as easy as its sounds, with a lot of coding involved).

I really enjoy thinking of ideas and at times thought, "Wow, I'm actually a genius." But when it came to presenting my ideas, I realised that perhaps I needed a couple more days before I was creative director material. Anyway, the environment in the creative zone is completely different to the Strata office - It's more male, which means more banter, and definitely not enough tea!

As the office is in shopper's heaven, my friends come up to have lunch with me. What I hear from those not yet dossing at Uni who are also doing internships, is, "God. I hate working. It's so boring." " Well I'm enjoying work," I say. My friends exchange worried looks. "Good one!" "I'm serious. I really am enjoying work. Why shouldn't I be? I'm in a building surrounded by lovely people and although they're very busy, they have given up their time to help me and show me what to do." Yes, here comes the awkward silence...I'm really enjoying everything and thank you everyone for being so kind (so far anyway)!

Will keep you updated with the rest of my experience.

Anyone who saw Brian Cox' magnificent programme on the BBC last night will have been struck by the bleakness of the future for the cosmos.

If you accept what Cox and other theoretical physicists say, the Big Bang was a one-off event that not only created all matter but is part of a process where, eventually, in trillions of years, the last star will fade, collapse and all matter will disappear as the universe cools to absolute zero. At this point nothing is happening so time ceases to exist.

But as bleak as it sounds, the boyish Cox reassures us that to be human – and to be able to appreciate beauty and the wonder of it all (the cosmos is still pristine in relative terms) - is amazingly exciting. A privilege to be alive and in an age when we know so much and where curiosity won't get you burnt at the stake.

The King's Speech - an excellent film if you haven't seen it already - is a good Sunday afternoon pick-me-up that leaves you feeling uplifted and skipping out of the cinema in blissful contentment. While he might never shake off Mr D'Arcy, Colin Firth has come a long way since Pride and Prejudice. He also does a pretty good acceptance speech.

In true Oscar-winning style, if I won an award, I (with tears in my eyes) "...would like to thank my Mum, my Dad and all those that have supported me..." However, I have not won an award but, as a representative of Strata Research, I have been shortlisted for a BHBIA BOBI industry award for 'Best Innovative Approach' this year. The BOBI is the market research equivalent of an Oscar bestowed upon us by the British Intelligence Business Association. If we win and I could accept the award looking as glamorous (but less pregnant) than the wonderful Natalie Portman, that would be a bonus.

So how important are industry awards? Is being nominated or shortlisted for an award on par with actually winning? When it comes to the crunch, is it really just "the taking part" that is important? Most of us would probably agree that while a nomination is good, winning is even better!

But there is some evidence to suggest that losing – or perhaps 'not being perfect' – may not do you any harm either. Helena Bonham Carter didn't win an Oscar last week but was quick to say that she didn't mind too much. This was partly because she perceived herself to be in an elite losers club, and partly because she recognised that people like you more if you lose.

That is an interesting concept, and one with scientific evidence to support it. We call it the 'Pratfall Effect' in social psychology - a phenomenon that causes us to perceive someone whom we already consider competent as even more attractive if they exhibit a blunder or are the underdog.

This surely cannot be rational? But then people are not rational and emotions influence us more than we like to think. Interestingly, our BOBI nomination was actually for a market research technique designed to uncover the emotional reactions of doctors, a professional group who otherwise like to present as very logical, very rational.

So I'm off now to pick my outfit for the big event. And while I feel over-the-moon about the team being shortlisted and would love to shake someone's hand, I can also truthfully say that losing might not be so bad after all!

Can you measure a smile, a laugh or a kiss?

"Can't buy me love", John Lennon said, and it's true of most of the greatest things we value in life.

But in a metrics driven world we're so used to measuring, ranking and pricing, that it's easy to lose the importance of what can't be pinned down; what can't be put onto a five point scale.

"What you can't measure doesn't get done" says the management mantra.

But this is very dangerous. We can actually forget what's important in striving
for a measurable result.

Raymond Tallis - a professor of geriatric medicine - wrote an extraordinarily moving piece in today's Times. He pointed out that in the metrics obsessed NHS a shameful disregard for the dignity of life for the elderly had been allowed to develop.

While the change in focus has resulted in hospitals becoming more efficient and effective places for most of us, there is a corresponding loss for the elderly.

He makes the point - fairly I think - that it's a bigger, societal problem.

We should all think about it.

The measurable has eclipsed the valuable.

Whether from working, stealing, inheriting or inventing, the need to obtain credit (money) is a requirement of living in a modern industrialised society. It's a way of life we signed up to 10,000 years ago after farmers in Mesopotamia created static settlements, surplus goods and sedentary people.

Since then, the need to 'earn' a living in society, rather than just exist day-to-day has created a competitive culture common to all corners of the globe. A basic rule of life that was founded 530 million years ago still holds true: from African mountain gorillas to London city bankers, those who collect the most credit get the most 'stuff'.

The generation X'ers (born between 1960 and 1980) were the first generation to 'have it all', to reap the rewards of long hours and high-blood pressure, only later asking what it was they had got. I can see now that X'ers, like me, were subconsciously haunted by the prospect of unemployment, and we fully signed up to a Thatcherite 'survival of the fittest' (e.g. hardest-working) mentality. As an X'er leaving school in the 80s I knew I had to have a career, a role, a reason to pay taxes. It was expected, and none of us questioned the expectation. I think I just felt grateful for being given the opportunity of full employment.

In some generations though, a quiet revolution occurs in attitudes to work and reward. Generation Y'ers (born between 1980 and 2000) are not signing up to their parents' work ethic. Thatcherism, dole queues and black-outs offer no lesson or warning. Their hard-working parents have taught or bought them the confidence and optimism that they never had themselves. With this secure confidence comes a lack of fear and a belief that tomorrow will take care of itself. No worries, something will turn up.

Maybe they've got it right, maybe they'll pull it off. Maybe this generation will live in peace and harmony and get 8 hours sleep a night. If they do, the culture of rampant consumerism, honed to perfection over 10,000 years will have to give way. But let's face it, that's not going to happen is it? A rising population accompanied by diminishing natural resources means working harder for less stuff. In our well-funded welfare economy living isn't difficult, but for the majority, living well means competing with your peers.

An old joke: Two friends in the woods happen upon a bear that starts to chase them. The first friend starts to run, but the second shouts, "It's no good, you can't out-run a bear!" The first friend replies, "I don't have to out-run the bear, I just have to out-run you."

Basic rule of life.

Louise Tamblin has recently  joined the Seven Stones group as head of Strata Research.  Louise brings 20 years of experience in healthcare research having worked in the NHS, academia and agency side. 

She joins from Kantar Health where, as Group Director, she worked on both domestic and international projects.  Her experience spans most therapy areas and business issues, although she has particular interest in communications research, market access and patient research. 

Louise has presented at at both UK and international conferences and has also published regularly in the pharma press.  She is currently a member of the BHBIA committee.  She is also known for her calmness, creativity and love of chocolate!

100 years ago, only the rich and successful had multiple addresses. Most of us had one – our home.


In those days, even if it was a slow process, sending and receiving messages was a certain process. Send them a letter and they will surely know.


Such was the certainty that you could expect a reply unless your message was a postcard: “Skegness is so bracing”, needed no response.


When the telephone arrived it took decades for the answerphone to emerge. Again, certainty in the delivery of your message and an expectation of a return call.


But how does this work in the ‘connected’ world of 2011? We might still only have one home but we’ve an address at work, a private and a business email, a mobile or two for email and text and a Facebook and a Linkedin account and possibly an MSN.


Which one of these is important? Which one do you check first? Which one do you select when you really want to reach someone?


My hunch is that we are all feeling our way. I text my son because he doesn’t take email seriously. His friends MSN him as – so long as he’s online, that’s the fastest way to provoke a response.  But there’s no clear-cut answer for people I know less well.


And that’s most people I know.


Perhaps this multiplication of addresses is becoming a problem. It’s certainly creating work for you might try and try to reach someone only to find that they only ‘log in’ at the weekend or ‘never check my Gmail’.


And partly I fear it’s just giving rude people an opportunity to ignore what they don’t know how to deal with.


Multiple addresses are killing courtesy and that’s a loss to us all.?

This week on BBC Radio 4, Jonah Lehrer of Wired magazine was interviewed about research from Princeton University which says that ugly and difficult to read typefaces improve content recall.


It seems that the higher cognitive engagement required to read something that’s difficult embeds the information more securely in our memory.


Taken out of context agencies and clients might make some disastrous decisions that would not only have Eric Gill turning in his grave but also reduce the effectiveness of
their communication.


Don’t be tempted to go ugly.


For a start the Princeton research (like a lot of research) paid the respondents – university students - to take part. This immediately changes the relationship between the author and the audience. Second they were asked to read something that they were subsequently tested on. So there was a fear of failure; they were motivated to read carefully, despite the traps that the academics had set.  Students at Princeton (given the fees) don’t like
to look stupid.


In “The hidden power of advertising” Robert Heath – an ex ad man and now academic – discusses the fact that the vast majority of advertising is absorbed impressionistically with little conscious activity. He calls this ‘low involvement processing’. To many people’s amazement he shows that advertising can be highly effective when it is not consciously processed because it makes impressions without the conscious part of the brain switching on. Even in cases where people claim to have no awareness whatsoever of any advertising, and only been minimally exposed to it, Heath’s paper shows that it can make a positive contribution. The brand becomes more desirable.


This poses two key challenges to the Princeton research in the context of paid for communication. The first is that the form/attractiveness of a piece of communication is probably more important than its content in as much as the form has the potential to reach all who can glance it where the content will only ever be read by a minority.


The second is that the only reason why someone would ever read an ad is because they want to, not because they’re paid to.  In order to want to read it, it needs to be relevant, fresh, and inviting.


While ugly and difficult typefaces may work in an academic study, ads have to be attractive. If you design them for the majority who might see them not the minority who might read them you won’t go far wrong.


Please click the link below if you would like to read the original paper in Cognition
http://web.princeton.edu/sites/opplab/papers/Diemand-Yauman_Oppenheimer_2010.pdf

 I recently saw an HSBC ad which carried the headline "never let emotions cloud your judgement".

It made me chuckle as it's completely the wrong way round. Emotions are the basis of all decisions, and have been since the emergence of single celled life on earth.

Take the humble paramecium. It feels its way out of danger but only has a nucleus,
much less a brain.

Dawkins tells us in The Blind Watchmaker that all animal life developed from structures such as these with feelings emerging to protect life. They remain the most important guidance system we, even as a highly developed form of life, have.

We post rationalise our feelings with logic - something that a paramecium cannot do. But make no mistake. Thinking and reason are slaves to the master of feelings.

Two countries - Japan and Great Britain - I was taught at school had much in common:
war making imperialists; island dwellers; suspicious of foreigners...

But I was always struck by how different we seem to be, until today.

Order curry sauce in a sushi bar and it tastes remarkably like the curry
you get in a British greasy spoon.

Two nations with a common curry. 

If an idea is the combination of two familiar things in an unfamiliar way then what about two unfamiliar things?

Radio 4 this morning got me thinking.

The first is the story of Procrustes- a figure in Greek antiquity - who either stretched or cut off the legs of visitors to his inn to make sure they fitted his bed. Such was his obsession with forcing the reality into his theory.

The second was a piece of research which calculated that the time wasted by people in business waiting for the kettle to boil accounts for billions of pounds of lost productivity.

It made me think that we often make the wrong assumptions that we then test in research (and get cross when the results don’t prove us right).

Waiting for the kettle to boil is a small freedom that’s invaluable in creating the productivity that will follow. It’s not wasted time; it’s a springboard or a stepping stone to the next thing. Like good punctuation.

The mistake was the assumption that this time – waiting for the kettle to boil – was not appreciated by the person doing the waiting.

We should respect individuals - not expect them to comply with our ignorant assumptions.

By Dr. Aiden P. Gregg, School of Psychology, University of Southampton

Do you have a left-leaning bias? Actually, we are not talking here of a political preference for ethnic diversity, progressive taxation, and state intervention. Rather, we are talking here of a perceptual preference. Indeed, this preference can increase buyers’ willingness to part with their hard-earned cash. So, what is it? Well, prepare to be illuminated...

In an online article published in the new journal Laterality, Jennifer Hutchinson and her colleagues (2010) report a study where participants were presented with an assortment of advertisements. These advertisements were adapted from popular magazines. Each featured the image of a product, together with a fictitious brand name.

The study had two parts. In the first part, participants were shown two versions of each advertisement, one above the other. The two versions were identical except for the following difference. In one version, the apparent light source illuminated the product from the left. In the other version, the apparent light source illuminated the product from the right. Participants had to indicate which version they found more “aesthetically pleasing”.

In the second part, participants were shown each of the advertisements one by one. They indicated both how much they liked each product and its brand name, and how willing they were to buy each product.

The researchers made two predictions. First, they predicted that participants would show an aesthetic preference for the leftward-lit advertisements over the rightward-lit advertisements. Second, they predicted that this aesthetic preference would translate into stronger liking for the product and brand name, and a stronger intention to purchase it.

Why did the researchers make these seemingly strange predictions? Well, there are already several signs that people generally prefer leftward-lit images. For example, more master paintings are leftward-lit than rightward-lit, possibly contributing to their aesthetic superiority. In addition, people are better able to identify and distinguish shapes when they are leftward-lit as opposed to rightward-lit, possibly because they find such lighting more pleasant.

As it turned out, Hutchinson and colleagues obtained mixed findings. Their first prediction was not confirmed. Their participants did not identify leftward-lit images as being preferable to rightward-lit ones. Instead, they unexpectedly identified the advertisements that appeared higher up on the screen as preferable to those lower down.

But the researchers’ second prediction was confirmed. Participants reported liking leftward-lit products, and their associated brand names, better. They also reported having stronger intentions to buy the products.

Arguably, the confirmation of the second prediction was more important than the confirmation of the first. After all, stronger purchase intentions necessarily imply some sort of underlying preference. The first part of the study may have malfunctioned for one or another reason, so that the underlying preference of leftward-lit images was not detected.

One post hoc explanation for the malfunction is this: the effect of leftward or rightward lighting of the advertisements was overwhelmed by the effect of their upward or downward position. In this regard, research reviewed by Brian Meier and Michael Robinson (2005) demonstrates that people metaphorically link “up” with “better”, and “down” with “worse”. For example, in experiments, people are faster at classifying positive words, and better at recalling positive images, when they are shown higher up on a computer screen, rather than lower down. Accordingly, the “unexpected” finding obtained in the first part, that advertisement appearing higher up were preferred to those appearing lower down, makes some sense. It confirms a different, but equally interesting, influence on advertisement evaluation: the vertical position of that advertisement.

But, getting back to the leftward lighting bias, why might it exist in the first place? The researchers did not suggest any ultimate explanation. Admittedly, it is very hard to come up with one. For example, it is unlikely that leftward lighting is preferred because we encounter examples of it more often in everyday life. A turn of the head, or a repositioning of one’s body, would suffice to switch the direction of illumination. Similarly, it is unlikely that leftward lighting is preferred because it is more adaptive to favor objects that are so lit. It might be more adaptive to be able to see objects, but the direction they are lit from should hardly make a difference.

However, having put on my psychological thinking cap, I have come up with a possible explanation. Even better, the explanation is readily testable.

Here it is. People prefer leftward lighting because they have a general cultural preference for stuff that begins on the left and ends on the right; and the reason they have this general cultural preference is that they read and write from left to right as a matter of cultural convention. Otherwise put, after years of reading and writing every day from left to right, people inevitably come to see it as more natural for anything, including the light that illuminates images, to have its origin on the left and its destination on the right.

How could this hypothesis be tested? Well, not all people have the same cultural conventions when it comes to reading and writing. And here lies the key to testing the explanation. If it is true, then monoglot Chinese speakers should show no leftward lighting preference, as they read and write primarily from top to bottom. Alternatively, they may show a small rightward lighting preference, as they also read and write from right to left in terms of columns and pages. However, for monoglot Hebrew speakers, the prediction is entirely straightforward. As they read and write primarily from right to left, they should show a rightward lighting preference.

Put perhaps readers have other explanations. If so, we invite you to illuminate us, by adding a comment below!

References:

Hutchinson, J, Thomas, N. A., & Elias, L. (2010). Leftward lighting in advertisements increases advertisement ratings and purchase intention. Laterality. (Online Pre-print)

Meier, B.P., & Robinson, M. D. (2005). The metaphorical representation of affect. Metaphor and Symbol, 20, 239–257.

For those who were unaware (where have you been?), we held our highly anticipated ‘Music for Pakistan’ event on Thursday 4th November at The Miller pub in London Bridge. It kicked off with the mellow music of Daniel Patrick, followed on stage by a one-man-down yet brilliant Life Thru Iris. Several encores later, Bop Social closed the night in energetic style.

The event proved to be a huge success. Not only did we manage to raise lots of dough for the Disaster Emergency Committee (DEC) to help towards rebuilding the flood-devastated Pakistan, we also managed to have a jolly good, fun-filled night of bands, beer and raffle prizes. Watch this space for a final tally on the amount raised and some photos of the night.

We would like to take this opportunity to thank all that were involved and supported the event - from the bands to the venue, the raffle donators to the ticket buyers. Without their kind support it would not have been possible.

The day is done and I’m running home through the city jungle. To my mind I have gazelle-like grace and a swift turn of speed akin to a hyena chasing down a zebra. This could be positive thinking or it could be a slight delusional disorder, states of mind separated by the thinnest of lines. Nevertheless, running makes me feel invulnerable, in spite of the doubtful glances from the bus-stoppers as they regard a middle-aged man in tights. I feel active, awake, clear of thought and full of energy (at least to begin with). Everything seems possible. A long run raises the serotonin levels and gets the endorphins flowing in a way that only chocolate and sex can match.

There’s no doubt that running becomes addictive soon after the revelation that old and under-used muscles respond encouragingly to the stress and do not, as you might first imagine, snap, rip themselves from their anchors. Running is a natural activity to which we are perfectly designed following eons of evolutionary pressure from predators and hunger. Age is no barrier, muscles and tendons quickly adapt to their intrinsic function. The enjoyment that results from achievement is the goal, not speed.

But there’s a dark side. From patient first steps to the finishing line of a first 5K, the need to push further and faster quickly leads to a consumerist frenzy of muscle-enhancing lycra, heart-rate monitors, glycogen recovery shakes and Runners World training programmes that require a degree in mathematics to decode. A bit of light jogging soon turns into half-marathons in £150 running shoes which, being half a gram lighter, become an absolute requirement. Unless you have ambitions to compete in the 2012 Olympics then you should resist the dark side. Get up, get out and run for fun.

Patrick is a painter of portraits. He has an amazing talent for capturing the character of his subjects. He also has motor neurone disease – and is gradually losing the ability to walk, talk, eat, breathe.

Although he has an incurable, fatal illness, Patrick is a self-proclaimed ‘incurable optimist’. Determined to use what’s left of his life and diminishing artistic skill, he has set about on an impressive, humbling task – to paint 100 portraits, before losing the ability to hold a paintbrush at all. The paintings are of those that have supported him, cared for him, and of other incurable optimists. He has a website – www.patricktheoptimist.org – to help tell his story, raise awareness of motor neurone disease, and encourage optimism in others. And show his paintings, of course. They really are good, very good, and the website is well worth a visit. (A great mix of storytelling, online gallery and social media platform, it was made by pals of Julian, our new Development Director – www.babycreative.com)

One in 50,000 people are diagnosed with motor neurone disease each year, and those that are usually die within five years. Although there’s currently no cure, the last couple of years have seen some exciting scientific discoveries that may lead to the development of effective treatments.

To find out more, visit the Motor Neurone Disease Association at www.mndassociation.org

James, Head of Digital at Seven Stones, featured in last week’s Pharmafocus discussing the increased use of digital creativity in healthcare communications and how best to make it work. The article highlights the importance of careful planning and how media neutral ideas are necessary to create a successful digital campaign.

If you’d like to read the full article, please click here.

“I don’t want to go to work,” I’d wail. “I love the job but some of those I work with just infuriate me. They’re so demanding and don’t understand what I do.” It was a diatribe of mine heard around the breakfast table most mornings and my wife had little time for it. “What are you, a man or a mouse?” she’d bark.
 
“Why, man of course,” I’d reply.
 
“Good. I’ve made your favourite sandwiches for lunch – cheese. Now dry your eyes and off you go.”
 
As the saying goes, you can choose your friends but you can’t choose your workmates. Too true. Although I didn’t dislike anyone at work, the non-appreciation of my specific strand in the Seven Stones DNA was proving too much. Any successful group environment needs team spirit and respect for each other among its members. A them and us attitude is to be avoided at all costs. But with the pressure-cooker, deadline-strewn world of advertising allied to the fact that an agency consists of individuals with contrasting skills, characteristics and temperaments all having input into every job, there’s a grave danger of disunity, tears and in extreme cases, vigorous foot-stamping.
 
It only needs an account handler to maybe voice a design criticism or a creative to remark on the shabbiness of an account handler’s stapling technique for all hell to break loose. To be hit over the head with a Pantone book is no joke. Many employers advocate an: ‘It’s life, get on with it’ policy. But three years ago, Seven Stones composed an entirely different songsheet and my life changed for the good. The only thing missing was a shaft of light accompanied by a heavenly choir.
 
“So what did Seven Stones do to address the problem?” I hear you think. Well, it was decided that all employees would be placed into one of four houses. Now that doesn’t mean that we all had to live together, in a Big Brother-type scenario, but that we were in metaphorical houses, the kind familiar for most of us from school. Each house was formed with people from different sections of the agency, the aim being to generate inter-departmental bonhomie with a better appreciation of each other in both work and personal senses. Bearing in mind the company name, it was decreed the houses should be titled after stones and four gems were chosen: Diamond, Emerald, Ruby and Sapphire. There was an initial suggestion of a medical/stones theme but houses called Gall and Kidney didn’t quite have the same pzazz.
 
The houses built, their purpose became clear with the announcement that each had to organise one or two agency social events per year which we would all attend. Now please don’t form the impression that life at Seven Stones is one long round of whoopee cushions and party hats. For one thing, all the events are generally evening affairs so as to not to clash with work commitments. Furthermore, while they are fun and intended to improve relationships, total relaxation is a no-no for a competitive element is included to encourage teamwork.
 
We’ve played rounders, played croquet, played boules. We’ve been on dodgems, on boats, on ice skates. We’ve been to the dogs, to a pantomime, to Bruges. We’ve made masks, made videos, and generally made merry.

Since their inception, the events have proved immensely popular and have been a considerable benefit to the agency and, in turn, our clients – a more unified and harmonious approach leads to better quality work. Copywriters now appreciate that an account handler’s life is not all meetings and biscuits, account handlers understand why some artworkers are grumpy, creatives now see the beauty in a spreadsheet, and production realises that creatives are actually from the same planet. And, while all of us are aware that although accountants are good at figures, that doesn’t necessarily mean they are good at counting rounders.
 
And me? Well it’s goodbye to the early morning jitters and hello to enthusiastic house leaving – life at Seven Stones is all high fives and yeehaas these days. All I’ve got do now is confess to my wife that I don’t actually like cheese. How best to go about that is a tricky one.

As preparations get well underway for the much-anticipated Music for Pakistan, some of our dedicated staff have been trawling the streets of London to gather kindly-donated raffle prizes
from local businesses.

All is going well, although we are still in need of more raffle prizes, should any of the generous-spirited business-owners among you be willing to donate something. From a bottle of Merlot to
a Mercedes Benz, all donations will be very, very welcome. As a sign of our appreciation we’ll print your company name on our promotional posters, which will be put up around the venue on
the night.

Remember, it’s all going towards a great cause – helping us with prizes will enable us to raise even more money for the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC). To find out about them and their endeavours, please go to www.dec.org.uk.

So, if you’d like to donate a prize, please contact Lorna on 020 7851 7500 or lorna@sevenstones.co.uk.

For more information on the event click here. 

How sweet should a successful healthcare agency smell?

Surely a fusion of surgical spirit, iodine and chloroform, is the correct answer?

But no – in the heart of Mayfair – Seven Stones rubs shoulders with some of the West End’s finest perfumiers, art galleries and fashion houses. As many of our clients have remarked, we smell decidedly more like Abercrombie & Fitch (it’s sprayed into the air) than Boots & Superdrug.

But today all that changed. Today an unusually bucolic aroma dominated the airwaves from Savile Row to our native Cork Street.

Complete with genuine turf from one end to the other and a sheep pen with over a hundred animals, it was the first time livestock have been seen in these parts for over 400 years.

It was a marvelous celebration of wool – one of the most natural materials on Earth – and an unusual meeting between suppliers and end consumers (with the tailors in the middle, rubbing

their hands).

As ever, the best-dressed individuals in Savile Row were wearing new wool.