How Halloween candy can teach marketers about choice, memory, and reward

In this special Halloween-themed episode, we explore three behavioral science principles with surprising brand applications: how variety bias can help challenger brands, why ending on a high note matters, and how uncertain rewards can drive more excitement and engagement—without costing more.

Transcript

MichaelAaron Flicker: [00:00:00] Welcome back to Behavioral Science
for Brands, a podcast where we bridge the gap between academics and
practical marketing. Every week we sit down and go deep behind the
science of some of America's most successful brands. I'm MichaelAaron
Flicker.
Richard Shotton: And I'm Richard Shotton.
MichaelAaron Flicker: And today we're talking the holiday of
Halloween.
Spooky scary candy filled sugar highs. We're very excited to get into our
extra special holiday episode. Let's get into it. So, Richard, we chose
Halloween because this is a major American cultural moment. It's also
now extended to the United Kingdom and is much more popular than
when you were a kid. Is that right?
Richard Shotton: Do you know what I, I think it's certainly much more
popular when I was a kid than when my parents was a kid. Okay.
[00:01:00] I, I've always got very kind of happy memories of Halloween
with, with my family, so yeah, it, it's quite, it's getting quite embedded
now.
MichaelAaron Flicker: There you go. And and it's really an interesting
story of where it comes from and an interesting commercial case study
for today.
So as we like to do, I'll give a little bit of background and then we'll get
into, we'll get into it. Halloween goes back over 2000 years to originally
Celtic roots, but as it evolves, it blends in Roman and Christian traditions
until it gets to the version we know today. So what originally started as
this Celtic belief that there was a time of year where there was a thin veil
between the living and the dead.
Has now evolved 2000 years later into kids in costumes, going house to
house, and knocking on the door to get candy. And in the us. 2023,
[00:02:00] Halloween spending hit $12.2 billion. The average American
family spends $108. On candy costumes and decor. So this is a big
cultural moment. It's a big business moment.

And there was this amazing study I found 72% of US consumers
participate in Halloween, 67% handout candy, 50%, 52% decorate their
homes, and about 49% actually wear costumes and the UK. Halloween
spending has passed over a billion dollars in 2023. Average spending of
about 45 pounds. By millennials and Gen Zers.
So really it's a, it's, it's a moment in the year that gets a lot of commercial
attention. You know, that the retail stores will be will be [00:03:00]
getting the decorations out. You know, that a lot of candy purchases
happened in the lead up to it. And so we said. Ah, theming it with the
holidays. Why don't we look at some Halloween and Halloween adjacent
behavioral science insights that we could pluck out of our bucket of
treats, if you will, in order to have some fun today.
So Richard, what's the first treat that you might share with our listeners
about Halloween and behavioral science?
Richard Shotton: The first treat is what's called the diversification bias.
Now, that might not sound very Halloween, tasty to, to begin with, but,
but bear with me. And bear with me. So this is the idea that people
behave quite differently if they are making multiple decisions in one go,
or if those decisions are split up over time.
So the initial study was done in 1995 by Reed and Lowenstein, and they
[00:04:00] ran this study with Trick or Treaters. And what they did is they
get a first group of people together and they go and visit a house where
they can pick one candy, and it's either a Milky Way. Or a three
Musketeer. Now I've never heard of a three Musketeer.
Is this a chocolate bar or? It's a chocolate bar. Okay.
MichaelAaron Flicker: It's a chocolate bar. Very similar to a Milky Way,
but Milky Way. Okay. Yeah, yeah.
Richard Shotton: So they have their choice. They can pick one, one of
these two, two candies. They then go to another house where it's the
same chocolate mix and they can pick one again.
Now what they found was the when people are picking separately. The
majority make the same choice at both houses.
MichaelAaron Flicker: Got it.

Richard Shotton: So 52% of people get two Milky Ways at the end, or
two, three Musketeers. Only 48% of people pick one of each. Now, the
second group, they have a slightly adjusted setup. They [00:05:00] now
go to, this is a fresh group of people.
They go to a house where, yet again, the choice is Milky Whale or Three
Musketeers, but they get to pick two bars. Now what happens is a
hundred percent of people, every single person who takes part, picks
one of each. So if you get people picking separately, they're much more
likely to go with their favorite.
If you get people making this multiple decisions at the same time, they
end up diversifying. So even though logically. People should behave the
same way. You know, you can't, they couldn't eat their candy bars till the
end of the, the session, even though logically this small nuance shouldn't
make any difference when it comes to the practical behavior.
You see this very marked changing behavior.
MichaelAaron Flicker: It is a fascinating study because as you say, as
we often talk about in behavioral science, claim data is very different
than [00:06:00] actual behaviors that people exhibit. So as you said, you
would not think that this would have such a big difference, but, but it, but,
but the observe, the ob the ober observation of the behavior really does.
Richard Shotton: Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. And I think that's the theme
of behavioral science that. What people say is of some interest, but
actually observing their behavior is much more powerful. You might think
if people ask, well, you know what candy bars you pick? They just talk
about their preferences as if their preferences were, were stable and
fixed things.
But what this shows is if people are making, you know, multiple choices
in one city, they aren't just interested in preference. They're not
interested in the best candy bar. They recognize they want. Variety, you
know, it their choices as much about how those choices are structured
as their underlying preference of the candy.
MichaelAaron Flicker: And so if we want to apply this [00:07:00]
commercially, we can think about how brands choose to show up in
retail. And there's, and there could be a big difference between if you,
you're a market leader. Or if you're a small brand and how you might

show up. So let me set the stage and Richard, why don't you knock it
down with how brands may apply this.
So if you think about a third party retail experience, you are a brand and
you're deciding what type of third party retailer you would go to if you
were a, based on this study. How would it look differently if you were
like, let's say, the market leader in a category versus if you were a small
brand in the category?
Richard Shotton: Yeah, so let's imagine there's two different scenarios.
Some people go to Walmart once a week, they spend $200. Other
people are going to do you call it a corner shop? Like a small kind of
mom and dad store. You know, smaller mom. Yeah, we, yeah, we could
call it a corner store. Corner shop. Yeah. And they would do across the
week, you know, a $50 shop, two days later, another $50 shop.
Another [00:08:00] $50. They do four 50 shops over the week. What this
study would suggest is if you are a a challenger brand, you know, you've
just launched and you want to get on people's shopping list, it is much
easier to do it at the $200 Walmart shop than when people are doing
four. $50 shops spread across the week because if they're doing four
$50 shops at separate times, what they'll end up buying is the same
thing again and again.
You know it, it's very hard to get 'em to move away from what is their
favorite brand, but if people are buying exactly the same. Dollar value of
items in one go, then they're prepared, you know, to, or, or they see the
benefit of diversity much more. So I think there's this really subtle
nuance between where you wanna be placed, if you are a, a challenger
brand that might be someone's second or third or fourth favorite versus if
you are the, the, you know, the leading brand in the category.
MichaelAaron Flicker: Yeah. And I think, I think that nuance is really
critical because it has [00:09:00] as much to do with the behavior. Of the
shopper, even more so than the location we've set it up, corner store or
Walmart. But wherever someone's going to have a bigger check size
and they're going to do more buying at once.
There's more of a chance to have diversification is really the point we're
making it that. That's just more likely at a Walmart versus a corner store.
But the real point is where they're going. And they're doing a, a long

shop that's gonna give a brand that may be less known, more chance to,
to get itself in.
Richard Shotton: Yeah. And this insight extends beyond. Commercial
purchasing decisions. It also extends to recruitment. So we have Rory
settled on the show a few months ago, probably now. Did a
MichaelAaron Flicker: episode 72.
Richard Shotton: Very good memory. Episode 72, I pleased you on
that one. A GOG anum three hour episode. And Rory always has this
amazingly, you know creative take on, on, on [00:10:00] events.
And one of the things he points out, which I think draws in this study is if
you want a more. Diverse workforce and there are many, many benefits
to doing so. What you wanna be doing is hiring in batches rather than
letting people hire one or two people, one individually. When we hire in
batches or when we buy in batches, we instinctively know the benefits of
diversity that we don't want the.
10 cookie cart of people who all do the same thing. But if you allow
people to split out that hiring process into 10 individual choices spread
over time, the danger is you end up with that repeated type of person,
whether it, you know, it's their mindset, their ethnicity, or, or their gender.
MichaelAaron Flicker: It's a fascinating connection that you make
because not until we talked about hiring diversity.
Do you think about, oh, well this would cause me to want to have. More
gender racial diversity, but also more types of thinker like extroverts,
[00:11:00] introverts, you know, all different types of external processors,
internal processors, all that range. I wonder how that affects at the
grocery store. Do you pick some healthier products and some less
healthy products?
I wonder, did, does it affect. The, the spread. You know, I don't think we
have any data on that, but that's it. You know what I mean? It didn't, I
didn't think about that until
Richard Shotton: No, no, no. Nor me. So, I mean, the problem with
doing a a Halloween themed experiment is you've got two candies that
are equally bad for you.

So, so Reid Lowenstein didn't have any take on that, but yeah. That to
me is capturing the spirit of the study. Absolutely. I think that's a, I think
that's a very fair extrapolation.
MichaelAaron Flicker: So big first takeaway for our, for our listeners is
think about what the buying experience is of the, of the, of the consumer.
And then think about how you can get your, your product snapped in
and, and, and more, A more diversified choice. Yep. [00:12:00] Next
study we're gonna talk about is the peak end rule. And this is one that
we have talked about before, but we said Halloween style. We're gonna
bring up something a little different.
Is that right?
Richard Shotton: Yeah, absolutely. So, so firstly it's a study based
around trick or treating again, and there is a bit of a, a nuance to this one
as well. So it's an Amy dose study 2008 study where she works with.
Trick or treaters and they get a various selection of, of, of treats when
they arrive at a house.
And what she essentially does is have a mix of treats. So she has
Hershey's bars that people really like, and a single piece of chewing gum
that people quite like. And she uses this this variance to test two things.
So firstly, she tests a kind of order effect. You know, what's better?
Giving people gum first and then ending on the preferred [00:13:00]
Hershey's, or starting with the best thing and ending with the weaker, but
still pleasant gum.
And what she finds is that the ratings of people's treats they will be
higher. If people end on a high, so gum, then candy, beets, candy, then
gum, even though people have got the same items, by ending on a high,
you create a a better experience because it's the, it's the end thing that
you do that loses largest in people's minds.
So that's the kind of classic. Peak end part of the experiment. But the
other part of the experiment that's not known very well is a really
interesting variant because some people, she gives gum and candy and
remember, these are both pleasant experiences. You know, everyone
says they do like the gum, they quite like it.

They really like the the candy, the Hershey's bar. But once you find it, if
you just give people a Hershey's bar. They [00:14:00] prefer that to
being given the Hershey's bar and the candy. Now, at first glance, that
seems completely illogical. Why wouldn't you want the amazing candy
bar and then the quite good piece of gum?
But the argument from. And there's other people that have come up with
similar arguments and, and I think a iLet Fishback episode was
interesting in, in this area. It seems that people's experience when
they're getting multiple items is not additive, but averaging. So very
good. Plus good doesn't make absolutely amazing.
It makes quite good, you know, people essentially, you know, blend
these two qualitative ratings, so I think that's worth considering as a
brand. The. If you have a very strong maybe promotional offering, if you
add on extra nice to haves, you can actually make the experience
worse. You know, value is often conceived in this kind of averaging way
rather than an [00:15:00] additive way.
MichaelAaron Flicker: It's a, it's an interesting point you raise because
when we talk about the peak end rule, we are really focused on what's
the peak moment that happens during the experience and what's, how
do you end. But what you are raising here is, well, everything gets
averaged together. And so even though the peak and the end are the
most important, don't miss the point that you, that adding more too many
things can have an averaging effect.
Richard Shotton: Yeah. Yeah. So I mean, let's say you had this
theoretical world where you had hundreds of absolutely equal, amazing
gifts to give people. It's expensive, but you wouldn't detract from the
experience if you gave them all away. But generally in life, that's not how
it works. You know, there's normally a hierarchy of items that we have to
give away, and what this suggests is if you have one brilliant item, you
will maximize the experience just by handing that over.
You can actually detract by additionally [00:16:00] giving quite nice.
Goods into the mix. So, so I think there's a, you, there's a lovely situation
for brands where if you think about, you know, promotional incentives,
you can actually save money and have a better experience by just giving
people the, the headline prize or promotional item rather than the kinda
secondary tier items.

MichaelAaron Flicker: Am I jumping too much to too much here to say
that then Really it's the end. Experience it from this study that's even
more important than the peak. In so far as, or maybe let me say it
differently. One experience is going to be better than multiple. And so
just focusing on one, whether it's the peak or the end, it really matters
that you just have one experience.
Am am I extrapolating that
Richard Shotton: Well, that is a very good question. I can't remember
on the scale of changes between them, so I've always thought of them
as too slightly. [00:17:00] Separate findings. Because the comp, the
easy thing to compare is essentially, you know, A plus B versus B plus
A, and that gives you a very clear argument that ending with your best
item creates the most positive experience.
And then I've compared a, which is the Hershey's bar versus A plus B.
So I think it's clear that. The last thing you do matters more than the first.
And a lower value item added to a real hero item can detract from its
strengths. Which of those two arguments is the most powerful? I think
the jury's out in them.
MichaelAaron Flicker: Well, and, and, and that gives everyone a
framework to start with. Yeah. So now we have two clear. Academically
proven ideas that you could take to your promotions and try either one
and see what works best for your business.
Richard Shotton: I, I like that. I think, I think there's a lot to [00:18:00]
be said for that because most people are listening.
Unless we have a kind of deluge of candy brands. 'cause how long we,
an episode most people are probably not in the candy business. So with
all these experiments, I always think focus on that core insight, the
specifics and the. Absolute percentage change. When you go from
candy to beer or from candy to the holiday, you might start seeing some
variation, but the core insights, they generally hold cross castle.
MichaelAaron Flicker: Yeah, and as we say, as many times as we can,
really, the power of behavioral science gets you to higher confidence
that the work could be effective. And then it's about real testing in
situation testing where you can see if you get the results that you want.

Richard Shotton: Yeah, I think you're right. There's a boost in
confidence.
There's also, it suggests what to test. 'cause if you're just staring at a
blank piece of paper, thinking about what are all the things we could test,
that's quite a. Tricky ask, but if, if you can draw all [00:19:00] these
academic studies, it gives you, I think, material to test. And then as you
say, you can also focus on the things that are most likely to work
because they've been proved to work in other circumstances.
MichaelAaron Flicker: Lovely, lovely. Okay, so we, we have finished
our second behavioral insight as, as we stretch the definition of a
Halloween, a Halloween theme. Yeah. Yes. We've kind of, we've kind of
tricked you all into, into, into the Halloween episode. But third one,
uncertain rewards.
Richard Shotton: Yes. So the theme here is really candy but it wasn't
an experiment done at Halloween, but it did involve candy.
So this is a, a, a study that we cover in hacking the human mind in the
in, in the Facebook chapter. And it's all about uncertain rewards and how
they can often be more motivating than fixed or certain rewards. So we
have in the past talked about [00:20:00] BF Skinner's work showing this
with animals. We've talked about, I think it was L Shen and Fishback,
where they did some slightly strange experiments with trying to get
people to drink as much water as possible in a very short amount of
time.
But all those studies have always felt a little bit. Abstract or they, they're
quite a long way from the commercial world. But when we were
researching Hack The Human Mind, we came across this amazing study
from Nina Maan at the University of Toronto, where she runs some
beautiful experiments on Candace.
So 2015, she set up this vending machine, and when people go up to it,
they have a choice of all these different snacks. Each of the snacks can
be purchased at one of two rates. Either people can purchase the snack
at 50 cents down from the standard price of 75 cents, or people can
choose to pay [00:21:00] 75 cents, but they have a one in three chance
of getting that item completely free.

So the money will come back out again with the with the snack. Now,
mathematically, those. Basically the same things. You've got an
expected price of 50 cents on, on average in both situations. It's just that
the, in the uncertain reward, some people will pay for whack, others will
get it completely free.
What they find is that people far prefer the uncertain rewards. So they
sell 120 snacks at the uncertain rewards, but only 84 snacks with that
certain fixed discount. So there's 43% more snacks sold. In this
uncertain saying. Now that's interesting because what this is suggesting
is the, if you want to give discounts, it is obviously very costly to keep on
reducing the price.
But what you can do [00:22:00] is in effect, maximize the perceived
discount by adding in this element of variability. Now, the argument here
would be. Part of the reason we take part in a deal is because of the
cash savings. But some of the reason we take part is the excitement of
the gamble. We all wanna feel like we're, we are winners.
So. For no extra cost, you can make your promotion more effective by
introducing this element of variability.
MichaelAaron Flicker: Well, I it's a, it's a great way to look at it because
what we're challenging marketers and brand owners to do is say, think
about the dollar value of the promotion you want to give. If the, if we are
willing to do a 10% off coupon for everybody that is mathematically the
same as.
No 10% off coupon, but one out of every 10 people get their order for
free. So same offer [00:23:00] phrased two different ways. One's a fixed
reward, one's an uncertain reward, and the academics would tell us the
uncertain word. Much more enticing, much more engaging, much more
interesting to the buyers. And it costs us as brand owners, as marketers,
not one penny more.
Richard Shotton: Yeah. The monetary discount required is the same in
both settings, but the psychological value that people attribute to what
you're offering, that varies massively. And far too many brands jump
straight to the fix reward, and they don't even consider this element of, of
adding in uncertainty. And I think that's something that far more brands
could apply.

MichaelAaron Flicker: Yeah. And, and, and depending on where you
sit in the marketing spectrum, if you are a finance led marketeer in a
brand, you may start with the math. And if you would, let's say a creative
[00:24:00] agency you know, coming up with promotions, not tied to any
math. You sit at two extremes of this. Pretend spectrum.
Bringing those disciplines together allows us to ideate more in a, in a
narrow box, but making sure that we're getting good value for every
promotion we run. That's a certainly a way to do this.
Richard Shotton: Absolutely. Absolutely.
MichaelAaron Flicker: So let's continue this conversation and dig a little
deeper. So there's the mathematical certainty that we just talked about.
But there's also something very human about getting a reward from an
uncertain gamble that's going on here.
Richard Shotton: Yeah. I, I think that's it. The, the, you know, you've
got two ways of driving behavior change. You've got the cash incentive
and then maybe the psychological benefit and. People, you know,
[00:25:00] are partly motivated by the excitement of that, that small
gamble.
That's, I think the, almost the free benefit that you as a brand are
catalyzing on. Once you've introduced this element of, of uncertainty,
MichaelAaron Flicker: and we talked about in our Facebook episode,
episode 17, that. BF Skinner did a study that shows that this finding
occurs even in animals. So this is more basic than rational humans.
And actually it was, it was Michael Zeller that in 1972 that did this work
at Emory University. Is that right?
Richard Shotton: Yes. So, so they, well, so voted it, so Skinner did it
kind of back in the 1930s, bit of Skinner when he came up with this idea
of the Skinner box. Zella, Isla did it later on in the, in the seventies, but
essentially across lots of different animals, rats or pigeons.
What they showed is if you want to embed a habit, you shouldn't give
that animal a fixed reward. Let's say you want to get [00:26:00] your dog
to roll over. If you give it a single treat, every time you do it, the habit will

only be partially formed. But if you. Introduce an element of uncertainty,
of variability.
Sometimes give the dog one treat, sometimes two, sometimes three,
sometimes none. It, it, it, it's shown again and again that that behavior
becomes far more deeply wired. And I find that fascinating because if
you ever see biases that are working both in the animal kingdom and in
the human kingdom, you know, you realize you're onto something very
fundamental.
Very, very powerful.
MichaelAaron Flicker: Yeah, it, it kind of speaks to so often when we
have our guests on and we go deeper behind. The experiments to ask
the why. So much of what's powering these behavioral insights are more
evolutionary in nature. They come from something beyond the rational
brain to things that happen because of the way humans developed.
[00:27:00] You know, thousands and tens of thousands of years ago,
and the way animals will even act today. So the, you, you say it's
fascinating and it's proof that there are some things that drive our
behavior that are more base than just the rational layer that a lot of times
marketers stay focused on now.
And so we think about this as it relates to promotions. There's lots of
other places brands can think about bringing this in. Loyalty programs
are a great area where uncertain rewards can work better than fixed
rewards, e-commerce experience. Where can an uncertain reward? And
of course, you and I have a famous.
Uncertain reward that we experienced together when we went to a
Indian restaurant in London called Dishoom. And there you have the
option to just as we [00:28:00] said, roll a dice, roll a dye in order to get a
free lunch. And same amount of percent off, but a lot more fun, a lot
more news and noteworthy.
And and a lot more effective than, yeah.
Richard Shotton: Yeah, absolutely. I, I, I love the Dishoom example. So
you, if you go off peak times at the end of the meal, you can ask them
spring out the Macca, which is their name for this brass dice. And you

six sided. You roll it on this big board. If it comes up a six, you get
everything you've bought completely free.
And as you say, mathematically, the cost of business is the same as
giving everyone a 16 point. Six, 6% discount. But if you gave everyone a
16 point 0.66, six discount, they'd be reasonably happy. I don't think
they'd even internalize it. But you give some people their meal for
completely free and you think they're want the lottery.
I mean, people, you know, shrieking, when it come comes off, [00:29:00]
it completely changes the the impact of that promotion. And the
argument from Mazar, from BF Skinner is that. It is more effective to
have that element of uncertainty because you have both the upside, the
monetary upside, and this additional excitement of the gamble on.
Lovely,
MichaelAaron Flicker: lovely. So that brings us to the end of today's
episode, Richard. High Level Three things that we talked about today.
Richard Shotton: We've talked about three areas. So we talked about
diversification bias. If you get people to make multiple decisions at once,
they're much more likely to pick diversely, whether it's in terms of
employing people or buying products, than if you split those choices out
and you get them picking at set the same amount of things, but at
separate times.
So depending on whether you want diversity or not, you know, move
people towards picking multiple things at exactly the same time. The
second principle we talked about was the [00:30:00] Amy do do
experiment, which covered two broad areas. It covered the peak end
rule. This idea that it's the final moments of an experience that are most
important.
So if you are gonna give people a quite good prize and a good prize,
make sure you do it in that order. Make sure you end with the best of
those elements. Put that at the end, and it will shape people's
experience. More powerfully. And then the other part that she looked at
was how giving people. Two benefits.
You can actually detract from the experience rather than just giving
them one super standout benefit. So she argued that these benefits can

often be averaging rather than additive. And then the third and final
study we talked about was this wonderful experiment, very realistic study
by Nina Mazar at the University of Toronto, in which she demonstrated
that uncertain wards tend to be more powerful than the mathematical
equivalent.
Certain [00:31:00] rewards. So I think there are three things that brands
could apply there, whether they are in the business of candy or anything
else.
MichaelAaron Flicker: Perfectly said, perfectly said. To bring it back to
Halloween as we wish people a very happy Halloween and lots of sugar
dreams. Your best Halloween costume, Mr. Shotton, the, the one that
you're most proud of or the one that you most remember? Well,
Richard Shotton: this is gonna be a shameful one. I think. I have never
strayed beyond a ghost. I think as far as I ever got is dressing up in a
white sheet. So, but any pretensive creativity has now now fallen. It's
gone. It's gone.
Yeah. And what about you? Hopefully you've done better than a white
sheet.
MichaelAaron Flicker: I have I would say my most effective Halloween
costume. I was Ernie from Sesame Street and that and that won me a
long-term girlfriend at one point, much earlier in my life. [00:32:00] But
but my favorite probably bacon and I went with a friend and they were
eggs.
So we, we went as a pair, a pair together.
Richard Shotton: Does that count as a halloween costume, bacon,
eggs, or is this some kind of
MichaelAaron Flicker: well, you dressed in a, in a life-sized piece of
bacon.
Richard Shotton: Oh, okay. Well, I mean, it sounds, it sounds fun.
MichaelAaron Flicker: Well, it doesn't, it doesn't meet the standard of
goul or scary more just dressed up, I suppose.

Richard Shotton: Well, it's pretty scary for the pig involved or the Yeah,
yeah.
MichaelAaron Flicker: For the poor chicken.
Richard Shotton: Yeah.
MichaelAaron Flicker: Yes, yes, yes. Well, lovely. Thank you
everybody for listening today, bearing with us as we had some fun with
Halloween as our theme. As always, if you like the episode, please like,
or comment, share it with somebody who would find these this
conversation helpful.
All of our show notes today links to the studies will be available at the
consumer behavior lab.com. And please remember to follow us on your
favorite streaming [00:33:00] channel. Until next time, I'm MichaelAaron
Flicker.
Richard Shotton: And I'm Richard Shotton.
MichaelAaron Flicker: Thanks for listening.
Advertisement: Behavioral Science for Brands is brought to you by
Method1, recognized as one of the fastest growing companies in
America for the third year in a row. Featured on Ink's, 5,000 list.
Method1 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 Method1
creates emotional connections that drive true brand value for their
clients.
Focusing primarily with indulgence brands in the CPG space. Find out
more@method1.com.