How Oatly used the messenger effect to become the world's most successful milk alternative

In this episode, we explore how Oatly became a billion-dollar brand by using behavioral science in clever, unexpected ways. We unpack how the launch of their Barista Edition—crafted specifically for coffee shops—tapped into the Messenger Effect, where who delivers a message matters as much as what is said. Along the way, we break down what makes a messenger truly persuasive—and how your brand can apply the same principles to win trust and grow.

Transcript

MichaelAaron Flicker: [00:00:00] Welcome back to Behavioral Science for
Brands, a podcast where we bridge the gap between academics and marketing.
Every week, Richard and I sit down and go deep behind the science of some
America's most successful brands. I'm MichaelAaron Flicker.
Richard Shotton: And I'm Richard Shotton.
MichaelAaron Flicker: And today we're diving deep on the behavioral science
powering Oatley, part of America's growing trend of non-dairy milk
alternatives.
Let's get into it. So Richard, this is not the first time you and I have sat down
and talked milk before. Back in episode 22, we covered the very famous Got
milk campaign and we looked at some of the behavioral science that the milk
industry has used to turn perception and buying around milk. And Oatley is
maybe what we could say this generation's effort at introducing non-dairy
[00:01:00] milk alternatives to the market.
And this has really become quite big business. Plant-based dairy alternatives are
now big business in America. They account for 15% of all retail milk sales.
Oatley, the brand we're gonna narrow in on today. Launched in 2016 in
America. By 2020 they went public at 421 million in revenue and to, and as of
their last filing at the end of 2024, they had almost doubled their revenue to
$825 million a year.
So this is almost a billion dollar brand and really a very interesting marketing
case study. Very interesting sector of this industry. And of course, some really
cool behavioral science that we'll dive into to talk about. So let's start with the
brand, a little bit of the background for those that may not be as familiar with
the Oatley brand.
And then and then we'll talk about some [00:02:00] behavioral science that that
we were talking about Powering It. Founded in 1994 by two brothers Ricker and

Bjorn Os. They were researching an alternative to cow's milk for people who
were lactose intolerant. Their now CEO, Tony Peterson you know, famously
said, our founders just figured majority of the world's population is intolerant to
milk.
Why don't we make something that's designed for human beings and not for
baby cows? I mean, it's got the brand attitude already showing. So when Tony
Peterson comes in as CEO, he's asking himself, how can we take advantage of
this growing plant-based milk alternative movement that's taking hold across the
world, but particularly in America.
So he sets his focus on rebranding Oatley. To introduce to the American market.
So we're gonna look at two things. One, some [00:03:00] serious rebrand that he
does to the packaging, and two, the way he introduces it to the American
market. In the show notes, we'll drop some pictures of the old packaging and
branding compared to the new that they launched with in 2016.
And what's really interesting is he removes the Swedish language from the label
label. He makes the Oatley logo meaningfully bigger, but then he really starts to
change the ethos behind the brand. As part of his launch in America. He
commissions a environmental study and then he puts the findings all over the
launch material.
On average, a liter of Oatley product consumed in place of cow's milk results in
80% less greenhouse emissions, 79% less land usage, and 60% less energy
consumption. And compared to almond milk, it's a six of the water to grow a
pound of oats compared to a pound of pound. [00:04:00] So he's got this idea
that he can take on the industry and really, really make oatley a alternative to
milk based on the merits of, of the environmental impact. But the brilliance, as
you'll see in the packaging design, see really rates category conventions by
reusing lines like, it's like milk, but made for humans. Or, Hey, food industry,
show us the numbers.
If you look at the packaging, he, he, he uses almost like a newspaper, like
treatment. On the label, he says, we made this product look like a newspaper, so
you would take it more seriously. There's really a lot going on in the packaging
that makes it stand out on the shelf, which we'll talk about. Then number two, as
he launches in America, he knows that there's going to be a challenge to get a
new, to get [00:05:00] US consumers to try a non-dairy base milk.
So he sets his sight on launching specifically with Fine end coffee shops here in
New York City and convincing local baristas that they can recommend oat milk

to customers rather than cow's milk. But as is often the case with marketing, he
had to change the product in order to make the promise true. So in 2017, Oatley.
Releases their barista edition. And the barista edition has 3% milk fat versus one
and a half percent. So it froths more, it has a more neutral taste, so it tastes less
like oat milk. And it works well in both hot and cold beverages. And so he
releases a product that really is designed to meet the barista industry.
It hits a lot of [00:06:00] success. We'll talk more about that but pulling
numbers today in the third quarter of 2024. Oley reported that 38% of its total
revenue came from food service channels. That would include coffee shops and
cafes. Just showing how much that original strategy of launching with baristas
and coffee shops still carries through to the brands $825 million in revenue
success today.
There's a lot going on here in the, in the lead up to understanding oat. Richard,
we, we looked at this as we often do, as what can we learn about the behavioral
science powering this brand? And we saw some really interesting things.
Richard Shotton: Yeah, there's, there's a couple of big things going on here. I
think firstly their distinctiveness, when you talked about how they smashed
category conventions with this now real attitude that they have, but we've talked
about the VREs.
Quite a few times, and I think, you know, there's a great [00:07:00] episode on
Liquid Death that, that, that covers that. So the Von Rest effect being this idea
that if you behave distinctively like Oly do, then you're much more likely to be
noticed. So that's a really interesting strand that they've been undertaking, but
one we've covered before.
The other area that I think is super interesting, we've never really discussed is
this idea of. Getting recommendations from third parties and launching or
getting people's first experience, being in a highend barista coffee shop and
getting the baristas to say how amazing this product is. Now, that definitely taps
into some payroll science tactics.
So the experiment and idea that most relates to the third party recommendation
is an idea called the Messenger Effect, and it's the idea that who says something
can be important as what is said. Original study goes back to 1951, a pair of
Yale psychologists called Hoveland and Vice, and for their experiment,
[00:08:00] they go up to 223 people and they ask their opinion on a topical
matter, 1951.

One of those topical matters was, do you think an atomic power submarine can
be built in the next year? And the people said yes or no? Psychologists then
invite them back to their lab in five days time. And when the participants go to
the lab, they are shown a really tightly argued, a four piece of paper that says
why they are wrong.
So if someone said, yes, a nuclear powers have ring can be built, there would be
a really cogent powerful argument as to why that was just impossible.
Psychologists then ask people to say whether they've changed their mind. The
twist in the experiment is sometimes that argument that they've read.
Sometimes it's positioned as coming from a credible source, like an expert
source like Robert Oppenheimer. [00:09:00] Other times it's positioned as
coming from a low credibility source that just PR at the Russia newspaper Ho
has. I'm persuade our of the argument. So if the argument comes from a low
credibility source, 7% of people change their mind.
If it's come from a high credibility source, it's 23% changing their mind. Wow,
this massive three, three and a half fold difference in persuasive power. And
remember, everyone is seeing exactly the same logical argument. Everyone's
seeing the same fact. All that's changing is supposedly who argument comes
from.
So they call this the messenger effect. It's this idea that who communicates a
message often be as powerful as the content and the logic of the argument itself.
MichaelAaron Flicker: It strikes me that that's a lot of marketing understands
this kind of naturally, and that's why there's key opinion leader marketing.
That's [00:10:00] why celebrity endorsements can carry a lot of weight. You
know, Shaquille O'Neal can go from one category to the next and whatever he
focuses on, raise his sales because it is the messenger that's delivering it.
Richard Shotton: Yeah, a absolutely. I think this is something that is used by
Martis. I think there are opportunities to use it more, but maybe where the
behavioral science bit gets interesting.
He's not just that you should look for someone else to sing your praises. There's
also arguments about what type of messenger worked really well. And there
seemed to be three broad areas. You want your messenger to be credible,
neutral, or relatable. I mean, ideally all three, but that's quite hard. But if your

messenger can have one of those attributes, it tends to make what they say more
persuasive.
So in the holding of voice experiment, it was really about credibility. If you got
an expert, someone who had knowledge about a [00:11:00] particular area to
make an argument, the same facts would be given more weight. There are other
tactics that that can be used to get to get as much input.
MichaelAaron Flicker: Remind everybody again, the three areas. It was
Richard Shotton: credibility. So this is, you are an expert in that area.
Relatability. The messenger is someone like me and neutrality. You know, in
the case of Oatley, it's not only saying they're amazing, it's a barista. It's not oly
saying that they taste wonderful. It's someone who doesn't have a financial gain.
Be pushing that point.
MichaelAaron Flicker: So Richard, between those three different areas, is
there any one that is more important? Any connection between the, the, those
three that we can really learn more about?
Richard Shotton: Yeah. The, the, the ideal would be to cover off the three
attributes, but there is evidence behind each one of the, the attributes.
So there's an amazing academic writer called Steve Martin. And in 2019 he
came out with a, a book called [00:12:00] Messengers. It's all about the
messenger effect. And in that he talks a lot about neutrality. The, if oly say
they're amazing, people will discount their argument very strongly
MichaelAaron Flicker: because they have a perception that of course they
would say they're great. It' s to their benefit.
Richard Shotton: Yeah. Yeah. We, they're gonna say, this stuff tastes amazing.
It's healthy, it's good for the environment because they're, they're proper.
Depends on it. People aren't stupid. I mean, consumers know this and therefore
they are, they are skeptical. So Martin looked at neutrality as, as one of the
attributes that makes for strong messenger.
So he talks about an experiment he did in Britain with some real estate agents.
And what those real estate agents used to do is the receptionist would get a call
from a potential customer, the receptionist would put them through to a.
Salesperson and then the salesperson would say, hi, my name's Peter.

I've got 20 years experience and I'm brilliant. What [00:13:00] Martin suggested
they do to tarnish the messenger effect is to get the receptionist to give the
initial spiel about the salesperson. So the receptionist would say, okay, I'm
gonna put you through to Peter. He's got 20 years experience. He's brilliant for
these reasons.
Now, the information that the caller was receiving did not change. It came from
someone who was one step removed from self-interest. And what they found is
the conversion rate. So people actually going out to see houses wanna buy 20%
with this new tactic and actual contracts. And so of houses went up by 15%.
So there I think is a fascinating area. One because it proves this value of
neutrality. Maybe secondly. It shows you how low the benchmark is to
neutrality. Remember, this was still a receptionist employed by the real estate
agency who was giving praise for the [00:14:00] salesperson. They still have a
vested interest.
It's just a little bit removed from being completely self-interested, and I think
that should give brands a lot of hope because it suggests that. If you get an
influencer to sing your praises, even if people kind of know they're probably
being paid money, it's still a little bit of distance from the brand, sing its own
praises.
Even that small amount of neutrality, even that step towards independence, that
gives it more credibility.
MichaelAaron Flicker: To me what we're showing is that this messenger effect
can be coordinated. You give the example of using a influencer. Even in
customer service or even in a brand communications, one step removed can be
coordinated and can help.
It feels like, to me, this is why social proof is so powerful. Like, to me, this feels
very much [00:15:00] like the messenger effect is leveraging some of the same
insights as why social proof, works so well.
Richard Shotton: Yeah, I, I think you're right. So social proof. Argument going
back to the 1930s, hundreds of studies showing if a product appears popular,
then it becomes more appealing and people are more likely to buy it.
One of the reasons that might be powerful is the neutrality of the crown. You
know, if only say there are amazing skepticism, if hundreds of people are
buying oatley, well, all those drinkers are trying to get the tastiest best value

thing they can. They are neutral, they're independent, they are in the pre, they're
disinterested, and therefore the behavior of the crowd has that neutrality.
So I think you're right. There are reasons why the messenger effect and why
social proof. There are similar reasons about why both are powerful
MichaelAaron Flicker: and, and in the Steve Martin experiment, the
receptionist connects to lots of real estate agents. So [00:16:00] there is a
perception that she would likely not say that about every.
Person she connects to. And that's why it's more believable because she's
choosing to say it about some and not others. And of course, as a brand we can
control that message.
Richard Shotton: Yeah. And, and maybe it's people have a simple rule of
thumb of praise from another person is more valuable than someone giving
themselves praise.
What they're probably not doing once they've got the rule in Thunderhead is not
calibrating that exactly to what is the relationship between the two parties who
are, are praising each other. Maybe we've got this rule of thumb of give greater
value to praise people and then we don't calibrate that perhaps as accurately as
we should.
And therefore, as you say, an organization has a real opportunity here. If you
have layers of different staff, make sure they are. Praising each other. You
know, if you're an ad agency, make sure the planner is [00:17:00] talking up the
creative, the creative is talking up the account manager. The account manager is
talking up the, the strategist.
There are real simple applications here, but perhaps we don't do them enough
because we think, well, we're not completely neutral. Why would anyone listen
to us? But Martin gives experiments, suggest otherwise.
MichaelAaron Flicker: And if it's feeling a little bit like social engineering or
maybe if it's edging on dishonesty, I think the rule still applies.
If you view it as a, through a lens of culture, you should say something positive
about the person that you are passing off to, and let it be honest. This person is,
is more trustworthy. This person's more innovative. That person's a great
communicator. You can choose a positive attribute as part of the
recommendation that is built in truth.

And so now it's not a force. Talking point. It's a true, it's a truism that you are
making sure gets added to [00:18:00] increase the the, the, to increase the effect.
Richard Shotton: I, I think that's a very good build. This is not recommending
you make stuff up, okay? That is a short term tactic. You can get caught out.
You're gonna damage your reputation in the long term.
But presumably if you have a colleague, there's something about them that you
can say that's positive. If there isn't, then there are much, much bigger problems
than behavioral sites can solve. But you should not have that person working
there. You know, maybe it's their experience level, maybe it's their knowledge
of the local area.
Maybe it's their friendliness. It's got to be something from all the different
characteristics the person has that you could, you can focus on. It's about
picking that positive, genuine, truthful insight, not making one up.
MichaelAaron Flicker: Mm.
And as you jump to brand marketing, it seems so often brands make the mistake
of we're gonna get 10 influencers and they're all going to feature how great
tasting product X is, versus letting the influencer [00:19:00] choose their
authentic attribute that really connects with them.
It will be much more believable and much more effective if they choose the
positive attribute to call out. Amongst a list of approved brand attributes should
you so choose or to give them free reign one way or another? It, I think it would
be the studies show. As long as you get that positive attribute, that positive
attribute, the messenger effect is working.
But if you can give them that honesty it will only be that much better and more
believable. Yeah, I think it's a great idea. Great idea. So what other elements.
Exists that would make a really powerful messenger effect.
Richard Shotton: It talks about credibility with the Hoffman Study neutrality
with the Steve Martin study.
The third one is similarity. So relatability. I am most influenced by people like
myself. That's the argument. So born in Essex, now live in South London.
[00:20:00] I am more likely to be influenced by seeing what. other South
Londoners do or other people from message what they do and the populations

hold. That would be the, the argument here messenger, who I can relate to is
gonna be more powerful.
And what's interesting is the relatability of someone is a, a, a kind of malleable
attribute. So talk about a study that shows the power of similarity and then how
that. What we associate with changes. There's a wonderful 2005 study from
Levine who's at the University of Lancaster. And this is a very British study.
It's about soccer or as we we say, football. Yeah. He gets a group of Manu
Night fans. So this is not into football, they, or soccer. It's just a massive club.
The most famous club in Britain. It's a group of man fans, talks them and says,
look. Taking part in [00:21:00] experiment the experiment's gonna be conducted
in a whole other side of the campus, and you're gonna be watching Manu United
Games and looking for the number of fouls.
With something like that, people then sent on their way towards the, the hall
where this supposed experiment's gonna take part take place. And then as
they're on their way, a jogger runs past falls over. Key of the experiment is does
the Manon United fan go and help that jogger? Now, sometimes the jogger is
dressed in a man united soccer shirt.
Sometimes they're wearing a Liverpool shirt, so Liverpool of the art rival Max
Knight. And what they find is that if the joggers in a Menonite shirt, 92%, the
participants help. If they're in a Liverpool shirt, that number drops to 30%.
Shocking. Yeah. They are deeply influenced by whether or [00:22:00] not they
think people are in the same ingroup as themselves.
The interesting bit though is they then do a follow-up study. Psychologists, so
Levine gets another group of Menonite fans it, but when he's talking to them in
his original discussion. He says loads of studies into football are about the
negatives, hooliganism, all the problems that come with being a football fan.
But what we wanna do is do a study about the positive aspect. Being a, a
football fan, everything he's talking about, it's not club related, it's about this
broader identity being a, a soccer fan. So that group that then head off towards
the supposed venue where they're gonna take part in the experiment.
They then see this jogger fall over sometimes wearing a man united top,
sometimes wearing a Liverpool top. Now we get quite a different pattern of
helping. 80% of joggers wearing a man united top are helped. [00:23:00] 70%
of Liverpool fans are helped to suddenly the, what people are relating to is no
longer this really tiny identity piece of club.

Now it's about, we have a shared sporting interest. So where we see relatability
and similarity can be changed, we all have multiple aspects to our identity. And
British, I'm also a lover of behavioral science. I fear I'm a lover of running. We
all have to have different aspects, and I guess what you need to do, if you want
to persuade people, is identify.
If you're in a one-to-one situation where some of those identity attributes
overlap, making sure you're focusing on those areas of similarity, not the things
that, that divide us.
MichaelAaron Flicker: This is why in the opening you said it's so malleable
because it can change so easily from, from seeing myself [00:24:00] as just a
man united fan and not a livable fan to, we are all football fans, soccer fans or,
or not.
I. What's, what's impactful to me, Richard, is how recency changes the action. I
mean, so quickly. They go from hearing talks about either they're only about
Man United versus it's about all of us as football fans. To, to that then changing
and action. So quickly. Any thoughts on like, how, how, how that, how the
recency of the message changes the action?
Richard Shotton: Yeah. I think it's this element of. We all contain multitudes
and where we choose to what, what aspect of ourselves we choose to pay
attention to. That changes. Now, you can't tell me I'm French, right, or 25 or a
lover of Russian poetry, but. Of all those things that I said I'm interested in,
they're not all [00:25:00] equally salient.
At the same time, you can, you can move where I'm paying attention for to the
existing attributes and I think that's the, that's the opportunity. You can't create a
new fashion at Thin Air, but you can change where I pay attention.
MichaelAaron Flicker: It makes you think the application in brand marketing
is using a 32nd commercial.
To bring the saliency of that part of your identity and then, and then, and then
activating on it or using contextual marketing to have people thinking about
being a good parent and then activating the, activating against that. It, it gives
you a pretty wide creative birth to say, how can we bring the saliency of that
identity to the forefront of the mind, and then how can we get an action?
To get a behavior because of that identity. Saliency.

Richard Shotton: Yeah. The, the, the other one that springed to mind is, I think
earlier on in the podcast you talked about some of the pharma [00:26:00]
advertising. They will build associations with key opinion leaders. So yeah, a
giant pharma company, they will think, well, who is the most influential key
opinion leader in, let's say, the world of kidney?
And they'll put money, get that association.
A relatability and similarity would be, well actually there's a different angle you
could take. Rather than having one world renowned experts, what you might
wanna do is have a roster of 10 less well-known key opinion leaders, but maybe
one is from Arizona, one's Washington. They use the Arizona ones talk people
in Arizona, the Washington one talk people in Washington or, or they have
different sub areas within.
The kind of kidney field of which they are experts, and then you match the
opinion leader to the, to the, the, the target that you are talking to. So, so, so it's
a, it's a different angle to try and build up that persuasive power for your, for
your messenger
MichaelAaron Flicker: and, and you, what you [00:27:00] choose to do may
be based in what your brand realities are.
You may simply not be able to afford the leading key opinion leader in your
field. And so this is a way to use key opinion leaders. For less cost or for
different effect if you're targeting. You know, let's say one type of racial group
or one type of of interest group and your key pen line leader does not have any
relevancy to them other than being an expert in kidney function.
There may be a better way to reach them with more, with, with more connection
by using by using a leaders thought leaders that better match your audience that
you're going after.
Richard Shotton: Yeah. Yeah. A a, absolutely. And I think often when we are
thinking, I. Who could be the messenger for our brand? People gravitate
towards credibility.
First of all, what's interesting about how relatability is it gives you yes, this
completely different set of tactics to get a very powerful messenger. Absolutely.
[00:28:00]

MichaelAaron Flicker: So Richard, this gives us a lot to think about in these
three areas of how to choose the right messenger. But maybe there's some
elements that people are less willing to admit to themselves, and maybe we're
less willing to think about as marketers that will affect the effectiveness of the
messengers we choose.
Richard Shotton: So I think you're absolutely right. There are certain aspects
of a messenger people will not admit influences them. So there's a famous study
brilliantly, an Arctic study from 1968 by Dubin Gross, and for their study, they
drive a car to a traffic light. When that traffic light turns green, they purposely
store the car for a few seconds and they wait to see whether or not the car
behind them starts honking the horn.
The twist of the experiment is sometimes they're driving a, a super high-end car.
I was gonna say a [00:29:00] MW. They probably have BMWs in the 1968, but
sometimes it's a super high-end car, other tires. It's a barely road-worthy car. It
looks like a real beat up car. Junker.
MichaelAaron Flicker: Yeah.
Richard Shotton: Yeah. And what they find is if they are driving a cheap, low
stateless car, they get beat Hal 84% of the time.
Whereas if it's a high status car, they're only bent beat 50% of the time. Now
what's then interesting is they go and get a new group of people. They tell them
out of the experiment and they say to them, what do you change whether you
beat a stall car based on the, the expense of that car? Everyone, virtually
everyone denies that status wealth has any effect on them all, but of course we
know psychologists and behavioral scientists, what people say influences them.
What actually influences them. Completely different things. And unfortunately,
status is an area where people are [00:30:00] loathed to admit it influences
them. But studies like Dubin Gross and many others completely sing suggest
that can be a big influence as well.
MichaelAaron Flicker: And so as we think about this study, it reveals a few
things that we've talked about in multiple episodes.
One thing for sure is we cannot ask. Buyers. We cannot ask customers what it is
that they will do and assume that that is what they're actually going to do,
because they either don't know or they're loath to admit their real motivation. So

that's kind of number one. But number two, that we can use studies like this to
really directly influence the way we do brand marketing.
So we know that people not only. Are going to have something like status affect
their actions, but they're also going to not admit that that's what, that's the driver
of their actions. And when you and I were talking in the pre-show, we were
talking a little bit about how [00:31:00] brands can choose different types of key
opinion leaders with different types of famous folks to represent them.
You can almost make the choice of a celebrity or a key opinion leader based on
status neutrality and relatability. And you and I were saying, yo, should you
choose a musician? Should you choose a sports star, or should you choose an
actor? And how do they, how do you make that decision of a celebrity
endorsement based on status neutrality and relatability?
Through a lot of Endor celebrity end endorsement deals that I've done, we've
found that actors almost always are more effective. And I wonder if it's not
because they are eminently more relatable because of their roles as actors. They
take on [00:32:00] different personalities to be more relatable and generally
they are not a part of a.
Winning team or a losing team, a Manchester United versus a Liverpool. So
they just naturally appear more rel more neutral. You know, we would, I
wonder w what, what comes to mind as we talk about choosing celebrities and
potentially deciding them based on these three factors?
Richard Shotton: I think you're right. 'cause there is a real problem of how'd
you get status and relatability.
They're kind of in, in, in conviction. If you are a. Super famous musician,
you've got status, but it's hard to relate to Jay-Z or Coldplay or whoever. The
amazing thing with actor is they have status. Tom Hanks has status because he
is one of the world's most famous actors. He's Hollywood success. There's also,
I think, relatability because of the parts, the hair docs, and sometimes we
conflate Tom Hanks and the [00:33:00] characters that he, he plays.
I think with an actor or actress to get both status and relatability. So I think that
absolutely backs up your point about maybe they are the ideal vehicle to be a
messenger for brand.

MichaelAaron Flicker: So kind of two points here. One, if you're choosing a
celebrity endorsement or a key opinion leader, think about the how the
messenger effect affects relatability, neutrality, and status.
That's number one. And number two. Just as we're riffing, potentially actors are
better messengers, are better able to take advantage of the benefits of the
messenger effect than let's say musicians or sports stars because they better
match those three those three standards.
Richard Shotton: Yeah. Yeah, absolutely.
Absolutely.
MichaelAaron Flicker: So as we come to a close today, Richard, would you
mind doing a recap of the big topics we've [00:34:00] discussed?
Richard Shotton: Yep. Yeah. So probably three key points. We've talked about
the messenger effect in general, this is the idea that who says something can be
as important as what is said. Remember that hobbling device study with the
questions about the nuclear powered submarine.
So brands should be thinking not just what they say, but who can articulate the
argument for why they're amazing. That's the first point. Then the second point
is that there are predictable characteristics that make for a persuasive
messenger. And actually I think we've covered four neutrality, credibility,
relatability, and status.
And then our third and final point was if you are trying to work out which of
these attributes is right, view as a brand, be very careful about how you do your
research. People will not be open about what genuinely motivates them.
Sometimes they lie, sometimes they just don't know. So direct [00:35:00]
questioning can send you off in the wrong, wrong direct people will explain
their behavior as if they were fully considered rational decision makers.
They will downplay some of these simple shortcuts that we've been discussing,
which are actually very influential in decision making.
MichaelAaron Flicker: Thank you for wrapping on on today's episode.
Richard, as we come to a close, we always have a fun question. What is the way
Richard Shotton takes his caffeine? Is it coffee, is it tea?

If it is one of those, how do you make it? What's your caffeine, caffeinated
beverage of choice.
Richard Shotton: Definitely preference for a coffee, and there's no way I'm
going near oat milk or soy milk. So. Sorry, Oatley. Yeah, yeah, yeah. A little bit
of skim milk and a, and a coffee. What about, what about you?
MichaelAaron Flicker: I went through, maybe I was just inspired by the
British.
I went through a phase of black tea with milk and honey, but I am now back to
more American roots. That would be [00:36:00] a skim milk latte. With no
sugar and you know, you can really it when it's made well, it can be really be
quite delicious.
Richard Shotton: Well, I'm very glad that you're doing some tea drink and then
of course, as a Brit in the evenings when I don't wanna be having a, a caffeine
injection, then I'll, I'll turn to, to tea.
Bit of Earl gray lapse on strong. All very nice. This is of course, what we would
expect.
MichaelAaron Flicker: And there you have it everyone. If today's episode
sparked a new idea for you, do us a favor. Hit the follow button, leave us a
review or share this with someone who loves marketing just as much as we all
do. And if you have a favorite behavioral science principle or example of
something that you see working well in the market, let us know and we might
feature it in an upcoming episode.
Until next time, I'm MichaelAaron Flicker.
Richard Shotton: And I'm Richard Shotton.
Ad: Behavioral Science for brands is [00:37:00] brought to you by Method
One, recognized as one of the fastest growing companies in America for the
third year in a row. Featured on Ink's, 5,000 list. Method One is a proudly
independent, creative, and media agency grounded in behavioral science. They
exist to make brands irresistible, helping people discover products, services, and
experiences that bring moments of joy to their lives As behavior change experts
Method one creates emotional connections that drive true brand value for their
clients.

Focusing primarily with indulgence brands in the CPG space. Find out
more@methodone.com.