How indulgence brands can benefit from moral licensing

In this episode, we explore how indulgence brands like soft drinks and ice creams can use behavioral science principles. We discuss moral licensing, where people overcompensate in one area after behaving virtuously in another, and how brands like Miller and L'Oreal have applied this insight. Lastly, we examine a study by Read, showing how shoppers make different choices when picking for their current versus future selves.

Transcript

MAF: [00:00:00] Welcome to Behavioral Science for Brands, a podcast where
we connect academics and marketing. Every other week we sit down and we
look at some of the country's best brands and campaigns and the behavioral
science that powers them. I'm MichaelAaron Flicker.
RS: And I’m Richard Shotton.
MAF: And today, Richard, we're doing a fun topic: ice cream, cookies, cakes,
indulgent foods, and the behavioral science that might be behind why we
choose what we choose.
Let's get into it. So, Richard, when you think about the ways that behavioral
science can help all types of industries, indulgent foods, cookies, snacks, maybe
the things that you give yourself a little extra permission to eat, it's just such a
great topic for us in the behavioral science space, because we've got to think
about how you think about the decisions you make, how you form the beliefs
that you have.
And for me, it's always been a passion of [00:01:00] mine to not just promote
people to engage in consuming indulgent food, but to do it responsibly and
healthy, so to have a little bit of something, a little bit of something that might
be sweet and delicious, but not too much of it. And that's an interesting space to
play and to think about.
So we're talking specifically about foods and drinks that bring pleasure,
comfort, a break from the ordinary. Global size of this category is a 1 trillion
dollars. That's all desserts, snacks, confectionery, beverage. And if you look just
at the confectionery market, It's 200 billion a year globally. So this is, as we say,
big business.
There's lots going on in this space. And, you know, one of the things that I've
always thought about for indulgent brands, you have to do more than just the
practical side of the marketing. There's [00:02:00] emotional connections that
have to be made. There's a reward center in the brain that often gets hit on when
you're talking about indulgent marketing and you're really thinking about how it
has to live in a world of responsible, healthy advertising.
We want people to be making healthy choices as well. So it's a complex
category to market and build brands in. And so that's kind of the kickoff point to

how we set up this episode. We want to start with the first the first bias that we
were thinking about.
RS: Yeah, absolutely. You mentioned earlier a sense of permission, and there's
certainly some psychological evidence that supports that.
The principle from behavioral science is called moral licensing, and it's
essentially the idea that if we have behaved virtuously, we tend to
overcompensate later. So the study in question is a 2011 study by Chu, and it
was run on a group of [00:03:00] smokers. So he brings this group into his lab,
and he gives them all a series of sugar pills.
So they're to take one of these pills every day, and then come back to his lab
two weeks later. Now some of the group are told they are sugar pills, others are
told they are multivitamins.
MAF: Got it. Sugar pills are placebos. They do nothing. Got it.
RS: Come back two weeks later, and he gives them a really long survey about
their behaviors over the last two weeks.
And he finds that the group who were given the multivitamins, or at least the
group who thought they had multivitamins, because everyone gets the same
sugar pill, they have exercised less, they've smoked more, they've more likely to
have binged drinks. All of these negative behaviors have increased. And his
argument is, if we think we've done something virtuous, we tend to
overcompensate in other areas of our [00:04:00] life.
MAF: We give ourselves a little slack.
RS: Yes. Moral license, as he says. Absolutely, a bit of slack. The interesting
thing is, he doesn't just rely on peoples’ claims. I mentioned that the survey was
very, very long. And he'd made it ridiculously long for a good reason. What he
wanted to see was how quickly those smokers lit up and he found the people
who had undergone the supposed vitamin pill treatment, they were more likely
to smoke and they started smoking earlier than the group who thought they'd
been on the placebo.
MAF: He's literally watching for when they light a cigarette during the taking
of the, of the questionnaire. Got it.

RS: Exactly. So he's matching the health behaviors they claim to have
undertaken or the unhealthy behaviors they claim to have undertaken, but also
he monitors what they actually do during the survey filling.
So he calls this moral licensing. And in his case, it's if a group of people think
they've [00:05:00] behaved virtuously in one area, what they tend to do is
overcompensate elsewhere. So if you're an indulgent brand, what you might
want to think is, well, a good time to reach people would be just after they've
behaved virtuously.
If someone has just gone to the, the gym, you know, that's a good moment to
sell them your indulgent ice cream or your lovely bag of crisps.
MAF: Yeah, it, it's really interesting because you can see that. Media planning
happens through a lot of different lenses, demographically, geographically, but
adding this, would you call it a psychographic layer or a, uh, an activity layer of
‘can we base it based on what we know they've just done’ and they're more
susceptible psychologically, pretty powerful way to reach them.
RS: And as ever, one of the themes from these behavioral science [00:06:00]
experiments is different brands can apply them in different ways. So yes, if
you're an indulgence brand, you can take this principle and reach people after
moments of virtue. But if you're a charity brand or a vegetable brand or
whatever it is, you could apply this, but in reverse. You could think, well, where
are the moments people have, uh, indulge themselves just afterwards is a good
time to try and persuade them to behave more charitable.
MAF: The reverse of the idea, yea. And if it seems a little wishy washy, you
only need to go as far as your Sunday paper, Wall Street Journal, Financial
Times, and open it up, and they have a whole section dedicated to how to spend
all the wealth you just made, right?
They have areas that they're saying ‘Congratulations, you've done well in the
stock market, you're successful, and here's all the ways you can spend your
money.’ They're reaching them right after the moment that they're being
successful [00:07:00] in making money.
RS: Yeah. So you've got - that would be your media placement argument.
The other way that people can apply it is in their copy, drawing a link between
virtuous behavior during the day, and now is the moment to reward yourself. So
in Britain, there is a cider called Strongbow, and their ads were all about ‘earn

it’. So they emphasize the great lengths people have been to during the day, that
they'd worked hard, they've achieved things.
And now the reward for that was the cider. So creating your product or position
your product as a response to efforts through the day would be an example of
tapping into moral licensing.
MAF: Miller time in America is a beer that says, you know, you've earned it.
You deserve it. Now it's time for Miller time.
And now you can get, you've worked hard and now you deserve a [00:08:00]
break.
RS: Yeah. I think though Miller time and Strongbow seem like, you know,
exactly the same, uh, principle being applied.
MAF: Absolutely. Absolutely. Other indulgent brands that lean on this. Did we
do an episode on KitKat?
RS: We, we did. Yeah.
MAF: Yeah. And KitKat has, you know, give me a break.
You've working hard in the, in the workday. You deserve a break. This is your
indulgent brand to take a break with.
RS: Absolutely. The other one that we've done an episode on would be L'Oreal.
Yeah, Because you're worth it. Interestingly, develops the idea that Strongbow
and Miller Time have done, but rather than talk about the day's activity, it's
more about, you know, because you're a fantastic person, you deserve this treat
for your makeup or for your hair products.
But it's essentially the same point - setting up your product as a deserved reward
for either the person you are or the, or the efforts that you've put in.
MAF: Yea. So that [00:09:00] really gives us a good idea, both creatively and
in media, how to use this idea of moral licensing to position an indulgent
product in the right moment and the right way to buyers.
So let's go to a break and when we come back, let's look at another bias that
could help indulgent brands in their sales.

Auto: Behavioral Science for Brands is brought to you by Method1. Method1 is
a team of modern marketers that practices the art and science of behavior
change to fuel growth for indulgence brands.
We do this by building interconnected marketing ecosystems that place the
human experience at the center of brand building strategies across owned,
earned, and paid media. To learn how to leverage behavioral science in your
marketing or advertising, visit us at www.method1.com.
MAF: Welcome back to Behavioral Science for Brands, a podcast where we
connect academics and marketing.
Today [00:10:00] Richard and I are talking indulgence brands, delicious,
delectable, different treats. And we're thinking about ways that you make an
emotional connection, give people a reason at the right moment to maybe have a
snack or a drink or an indulgence that they might not do all day long. We have a
second study that we think will reveal bias of interest to folks.
RS: Yeah, so this is, this is one of my favorite studies. It's a brilliant study,
slightly old, about 25 years old now. It's by Daniel Reid, who was at Leeds
University at the time, ran this study in 1998 in Denmark. Recruits 200 people,
and he offers them a choice of two snacks. So do they want to have an apple or
a chocolate bar?
Now for the first half of people, he offers the snacks, and they are to take that
snack and have it then and there. And when he does that, 30 percent of people
pick the apple. [00:11:00] 70 percent pick the chocolate bar. Next group of
participants, same snack selection, chocolate bar and apple, but this time he says
pick which one of the two you want and I will bring it to you in a week's time
when you can eat it.
MAF: A little delayed gratification.
RS: Exactly. And what happens is the preference for the items flips. You now
have 75 percent of people picking the apple, 25 percent chocolate bar. So if
you're picking now, most people want the chocolate. If you're picking for your
future self, most people want the apple. Reid's argument is there are very
different reactions if we're picking for our current self or our future self.
If we're picking for our current self, we behave in the manner that we want to,
that will indulge us. But if we're picking for our future self, we pick in the
manner that we think we should do what we ought to do.

MAF: Rational?
RS: Yeah, also maybe the moral, ethical, [00:12:00] sensible thing to do. So
you have this same person, but depending on the time scale that they're
choosing on. Very, very different decisions.
MAF: Fascinating. So if we apply this commercially, to take ice cream as an
example, if you want someone to walk into a ice cream parlor and choose the
ice cream they're going to eat right now, then a high-fat high- delicious option
may be an easier sell because they know it's going to be delicious.
They're going to get the reward right now.
RS: Yes.
MAF: Versus if I order delivery to be delivered at the end of the week in a
basket with lots of other items, maybe your low-fat ice cream where you know
you're making the healthier, more, uh, you use the word, morally conscious,
ethical choice for yourself, which is a healthier option.
Maybe that's going to do better in a delivery scenario.
RS: Absolutely. And even you could [00:13:00] think, you might have the same
product, but you would emphasize different aspects dependent on the timescales
involved. So if someone's ordering immediately, they're at point of purchase,
emphasize taste, indulgence, you know, the creamy milky taste.
If they are ordering for a week's time on their online shop, you could, for the
same product, emphasize the calcium that comes with it, the milky goodness.
Different aspects or different products could apply the principle.
MAF: What I love about Bold Biases today is it really encourages us to think
about the state of mind of the buyer and ask, what do we know about the
decision-making process at that state of mind.
If I'm purchasing for consumption in the moment, my decision-making
processes or my, the things that most influence my decision-making process is
very different than if I'm making a considered purchase in the [00:14:00] future
and adapting the marketing for the brand to either case can really unlock a lot
for the brand.

RS: Absolutely. A big thing with behavioral science is the idea that we
overestimate consistency of personality. We tend as people marketers to have a
model in which people behave the same way in all situations. But the
experimental evidence suggests that's wrong. And actually people's attitudes
and preferences vary markedly from context to context.
One of those contexts is where they're picking for the now or picking for the
future.
MAF: Yeah, you know, when you think about even the way retail has adapted
the where they sell indulgent products, you know, a lot of candy bars and snack
food is on the aisle at checkout where you can make a quick decision, a quick
purchase and eat it on the way home.
Whereas, you know, other items are pushed to other areas of the store where it's
a more [00:15:00] considered walk, a more considered purchase, I mean, I think
one of the most famous examples is milk and eggs, which are a requirement of
almost every trip to the grocery store, is in the far back. So you have to walk by
all the other stuff on the way to get the staples that you need.
Encourage, you know, you're going to make that considered purchase. What can
we get you to buy as you're moving through the store? Okay, Richard, why
don't we bring the episode full circle? Can you give us the big summaries, uh,
from the episode so far?
RS: We've covered two big things so far. The first one is this idea of moral
licensing, that if people have behaved virtuously, they tend to overcompensate
and treat themselves.
So if you are looking to promote an indulgence item, you might want either to
target people after moments of virtue, as they're leaving the gym, or you might
want to directly and explicitly reference the hard work that those [00:16:00]
people have gone to during the day creatively and that your product is there, the
reward for that.
Think ‘Miller Time’, think ‘Earn It’ by Strongbow. That was the first area we
discussed. And then the second principle was that brilliant study from Daniel
Reid at Leeds around how we pick very differently depending on whether we
are picking for our future self or our current self. And sometimes people are
skeptical of studies like Reid’s or choose.

So it's often useful to talk about an example of it occurring in our own personal
life. And if everyone's ever been in a situation where they've gone to a wedding,
or they have gone to a work do where they've had to make their menu choice a
long time beforehand. The insight in Reid’s study will become apparent. The
amount of times I've sat down at a dinner table and regretted that I've picked the
healthy salad when I then sit, [00:17:00] but I picked that a week before now on
the day I sit down and look, the guy next to me or the woman next to me has
had a lovely steak. That's the problem with, uh, yeah, future versus, uh, current
picking. So those are the two big, big principles.
MAF: Brilliant. Brilliant. So as we come to a close, Richard, let's share with the
audience. your favorite indulgence, treat, your snack, the thing you'll give
yourself as a, as a little escape?
RS: Oh, uh, uh, pickled onion disco. I think would probably be my favorite
snack.
MAF: And would you, uh, describe that for those of us who may not know
what that is?
RS: So, It looks a bit like a flat Pringle, so it's a crisp, uh, but it is very, very,
very strongly flavored. The crisps are my indulgent weakness.
MAF: And that would be a potato chip in America.
Yeah. And pickled onion.
RS: Pickled onion, yeah.
MAF: We will have to try them.

RS: I'll get you a pack before you go home.

MAF: I don't, I don't believe that they have those in America.
RS: No, it's not the most common flavor. I mean, the other one they have is a
very vinegary salt [00:18:00] vinegar.

MAF: We have like a salt and vinegar chip.
RS: Yeah, that's a good chip as well.
MAF: Very cool.
RS: And yourself, what would your weakness be?
MAF: Uh, that would be Oreo cookies in milk. Okay. You have to dunk them
or you have to separate them and dunk. And that would be
RS: And you have to have them with milk.
MAF: You have to have them with milk.That would be a requirement in order
to get to that right moment.
Thanks Richard for talking indulgence brands today. We've referenced a
number of older podcasts that we've recorded before. We'll drop them in the
show notes for everybody to take a listen and go back and hear, because I think
they have a lot of connective tissue to the topic we're talking about today.
And otherwise, we always invite the audience to reach out. Let us know if they
have a topic of behavioral science they have an interest in that we can talk
about. And until next time, I'm Michael Aaron Flicker.
RS: And I'm Richard [00:19:00] Shotton.