MichaelAaron Flicker and Richard Shotton on 100 episodes of behavioral science, brands, and ideas that actually work

In this 100th episode, MichaelAaron and Richard look back on their favorite moments from the podcast so far, including standout brand case studies like Guinness and Aperol, and key behavioral science principles like the generation effect and reverse benchmarking. They also share a preview of what’s ahead.

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 marketing. I'm MichaelAaron Flicker.
Richard Shotton: And I'm Richard Shotton.
MichaelAaron Flicker: And today Richard and I are celebrating our hundredth
episode.
We're gonna use this as a chance to look back, talk about some of our favorite
episodes, and look a little bit forward. Let's get into it. So, Richard, when we
started this activity did you ever think we'd hit a hundred episodes together?
Richard Shotton: No, I did not. I, I, I really didn't, I didn't think there would
be, and necessarily all the brands that we, we could talk about.
But once you start looking into it, there's an amazing variety of brands that I
think have at least on occasion, used some brilliant behavioral science
principles,
MichaelAaron Flicker: and I think I've been surprised by [00:01:00] how
many guests have been so generous to join us and talk so deeply about their
fields? You know, we've had a, a wide variety of guests, but almost universally
they've been generous to say, well, this is what I teach in my lectures.
This is what I do in my consulting. This is what I learned. Behind the doors at
some of the biggest ad agencies. Really a lot of generosity and willingness to
share their experiences when we brought our guests on.
Richard Shotton: Yeah, and from a real mix of backgrounds, as you say,
there's some top glass academics, people like Danley, I Fishback tally, and then
there's some amazing people from the world of advertising.

We have Roy Sutherland, Les Bonnet, so a real nice mix of guests who've given
their time.
MichaelAaron Flicker: And most of all we're gonna go take some of the time
today in this episode to give highlights of your and my favorite episodes Yeah.
Of the, of [00:02:00] the past 100. And we asked ourselves, is it a little bit like.
Choosing your favorite child should you not pull some to the top. But for the
listeners that have joined us along the way, you may not have been along since
episode one. And while all the episodes Richard and I wouldn't post them if we
didn't feel they were great. Some just had some staying power that we thought
felt prescient as we were starting 2026 as we hit a hundred episodes.
And so we were just, we just thought, why, why not take a stroll back through
memory lane and pick some of our favorites?
Richard Shotton: Great idea. Great idea.
MichaelAaron Flicker: So Richard, would you like to go first? Would you like
to maybe tell us a little bit about one or two that stood out in your mind that you
remember fondly from our time?
Richard Shotton: Absolutely. So two of my favorites are I think, first of all the
Economist, [00:03:00] and I absolutely love that. Episode. So we, there was a
brilliant discussion about how they use the Generation Effect. So the Generation
Effect is this idea that if you make the audience put a little bit, and I emphasize
the little there, but if the audience had to put a little bit of effort into
understanding the message, it tends to be much stickier and much more
memorable.
So that idea. Yes, can be applied in a very simplistic way. The original
experiment kind of gave people lists of words where there was a letter missing
and you see occasional creative responses doing that. But what I loved about the
Economist example was this lateral creative application of a behavioral science
princip.
So what they essentially did in the, in the ad that we discussed was run posters
with this brilliant phrase, I don't read The Economist, and then an attribution to
management. Management trainee, age 42, love. That's a lateral application
[00:04:00] of the generation of age. You don't tell people you'll be a failure if
you don't read The Economist.

You set this little puzzle and the act of solving that puzzle that makes the, the,
the audience remember it, that, that, that bit more. So that's actually one of my
favorite episodes
MichaelAaron Flicker: and it's it's fun to laugh as you even start to say the
line. 'cause you can remember these lines. But to me, one of the critical parts of
the Generation Effect is that it requires the reader to participate just a little bit.
They have to do, they have to be a little active in that. Can you just talk for a
minute about that? Because it's, in realizing that I never read The Economist
Management Trae, still at age 42, it's in realizing that that's a little bit of satire,
that the Generation Effect is really cemented. Is that right?
Richard Shotton: That that's right. The idea would be. If you make an easy, so
make a message so easy to consume, what tends to happen is you have this
reduction in memorability, it just washes over [00:05:00] someone. If you
require the audience to actively participate in it in essence to generate the
answer themselves, that effort creates memorability.
So management trainee, age 42, say they don't read it. You have to go through
the kind of logical process of working out. Well, they don't read it. They are a,
you know, not, not progress very far in their, their career. Their lack of
readership has meant that they haven't progressed you. You have to do that little
bit of work yourself, and it's that effort that embeds it in the, in the long term
memory.
MichaelAaron Flicker: That's episode 18, the Economist. I'll remember.
Richard Shotton: Yeah, I,
MichaelAaron Flicker: I I'm gonna bring them to everybody as you go, and
that way we have 'em. So episode 18, the Economist will be linked in the show
notes. Really great. First example.
Richard Shotton: And then the second one that I really like, and, and this one's
for a couple of reasons.
This is the campaign. Don't Mess with Texas. So we discussed a Texan
campaign that was trying to stop [00:06:00] people littering, and it was
phenomenally successful. And I love this for two reasons. Firstly, it really shone
a light on how parochial advertising can be.

MichaelAaron Flicker: Mm-hmm.
Richard Shotton: Mm-hmm. In Britain, if I was to talk about that campaign, I
would've to give people lots of details.
No one knows about it. That is insane when you think about it. We have the
same problem of littering in Britain, yet we don't know about a campaign in in
America that really powerfully resolved that problem. So I think bringing.
Campaigns from other countries to to light is, is a very valuable thing.
Now, I know that's of less interest to American listeners, but for me, that was
one reason I loved it. And then the second thing about the campaign was there's
a wonderful, there's humility at the heart of it.
MichaelAaron Flicker: Mm.
Richard Shotton: The standard thing with advertising is to think, how do I
change. In a, in a case of an anti-littering campaign, how would I change the
worldview of the audience?
So I [00:07:00] get them to care about littering, to see it as a, as a, you know,
damaging thing for the environment. That though is a really tough task.
MichaelAaron Flicker: Mm-hmm.
Richard Shotton: And what I think don't mess with Texas did so brilliantly
was they, rather than try and change people's worldview, instead they try to
change what. Littering meant, so they aligned littering with a lack of state pride.
The audience already had that state pride, you know, but associating, littering
with something that might be done with some intera from Louisiana or
Mississippi, that was the genius. Change how people frame the behavior, not
change the audience's worldview. If we talk about this principle of make it easy
as we so often do, I think sometimes we need to apply it to our tasks a little bit
more.
So I think those two are my, my real favorites.
MichaelAaron Flicker: Don't Mess with [00:08:00] Texas. Episode 20. I've got
it there for everyone here at home. Teaches us that you can use the principles in
the way that you talk to your clients or in the way that you build the campaign,

but it, it also teaches us maybe there's an easier task to be done first, rather than
changing the entire worldview.
Is there an easier task of, can we use something that everyone in America
knows Texans have a lot of state pride and attach it? It, it, it's about reframing
what the actual job to be done is. I think that's, that's one of the things I took
away from that episode. Yeah.
Richard Shotton: Yeah. So the, so yeah, those, those are, those are my two
favorites.
So over to you. What which ones, which ones did you enjoy most? Which one
do you think were most useful for the listener?
MichaelAaron Flicker: The first one I chose was an episode we did a long
time ago called 11 Madison Park. And for those that don't know this.
Restaurant. It's a restaurant in New York City that at the [00:09:00] height of
the restaurant's fame became one of the world's top 50 restaurants.
And they used the behavioral science insight of the peak end rule. And without
going through the whole study about the peak end rule, here's what they did at
11 Madison Park. Normally when you would be at a fine dining restaurant and
you would choose a wine pairing, let's say for $115, you would give five equal.
Priced glasses of wine so that you have pretty good wines to go along with each
meal. What 11 Madison Park did differently is that they lowered those prices of
wines, let's say instead of it being $20 a piece, they made it $15 a piece so that
they could push the last wine that you got with your dessert to be something
truly special and will guera.
Who was in charge of the front of house at times said, this was his quote, if you
love wine. It's always [00:10:00] exciting to drink a grand crew burgundy, but
the chance to do so almost never happens during an ordinary wine pairing. So
imagine how excited our guests were when we did it. Our approach gave us the
ability to surprise and delight everyone who ordered those pairings, making it
an experience.
They would never. And to me that's the gem of the insight. It's about creating an
unforgettable moment, even if you have to sacrifice elsewhere. And so Will just
kind of naturally had this instinct of the peak end rule, and he applies it
beautifully at 11 Madison Park. Okay.

Richard Shotton: I think that's really nice.
That's really nice. And he's doing both parts of the peak end rule there, isn't he?
He's not split. The sommelier is not splitting, splitting the budget evenly.
They're choosing one wine to be standout and sacrificing the other four, but also
they're putting at the very end. So, you know, these are the two things that carne
and Rader.
Are disproportionately likely to be remembered from an, from an experience,
the peak [00:11:00] event and the, the final event. So yeah, I love that as an
idea. And it was a great episode. I think that's you know, his book, unreasonable
Hospitality is a, he is a wonderful book. And lots of,
MichaelAaron Flicker: look, you know what, we should put that, we'll put that
in the show notes so that everybody can see his book and now he does a lot of
speaking, so you could find clips of him talking online.
That was episode 56, 11 Madison Park.
Richard Shotton: Yeah. Keep
MichaelAaron Flicker: tagging those on at the end. Yeah.
Richard Shotton: How about the next one?
MichaelAaron Flicker: The second? Yeah, the second one I was thinking
about, funny that I chose two. I chose two food and beverage drink ones. I'm not
sure why, but I chose Aperol and we, when we first started working together,
you and I talked about Aperol as one of these amazing examples of social proof.
I love it for a number of reasons. So here's what Aperol did. It has in its nature a
very distinct orange color, and you see it in the Aperol bottle when you buy
Aperol. But their on-premise [00:12:00] approach when you go to a bar is they
provided all the bars, balloon glasses. And so when you make an Aperol spritz,
you see this big bubble full of.
Aperol colored liquid. Then they gave the bartenders aall umbrellas, these little
drink umbrellas that they pop up and put right into the drink. And then like most
alcohol brands, they also gave picnic umbrellas and other accoutrements for the
bar all together. You get this kind of. Overwhelming effect of this orange color
everywhere you look in the bar.

And that made their popularity. Feel like you're discovering it yourself. So
imagine you're walking up to the bar, it's crowded, you're waiting for the
bartender to come to you, and now it's time to order. And this bartender said,
what do you want? And you just see this orange color everywhere. You're much
more likely to order an Aperol [00:13:00] spritz.
And to me, that really creates this idea that it was even more popular than it
might be because telling in. Another colored glass, if it was Jack Daniels or Jim
Beam, you know, Greg Goose Vodka Kettle One. All of their popularity is
hidden, not just by the color of the liquid, but by the glassware and the other
things they put in the bar.
Aperol really intentionally focused on making his popularity scene.
Richard Shotton: Yeah, that, that, that's one of my favorite episodes. I think it's
a brilliant one because. We talk so often about social proof and directly stating
popularity. Now all these ads that might go out and say, you know, we are the
nation's favorite bourbon, or the nation's favorite washing powder, I think Apple
just pushes it onto another level by rather than just stating explicitly popularity.
They imply popularity by making consumption so distinctive. They looked like
they're a massive brand before they were. [00:14:00] So yeah, absolutely. I, I
loveable as an example. That's well worth listening to, and the Kaiser study is a
really clever one to prove it.
MichaelAaron Flicker: That's the littering in the, that's the littering in the
alleyways.
Yeah. So that's episode three. How AOL applies the Power of Lateral Social
Proof episode three. My goodness, we were younger men when we, when we
recorded episode three. And I, in the show notes of that episode, I believe we
have the Google search trends. It's really a very lovely case study to see how
they roll out this campaign.
And you could see. Independent proof of the, of the popularity that they were
driving and a bunch of other elements to that. So a, a lovely episode and a great
case study for anyone trying to see examples of social proof being done well in
the market.
Richard Shotton: Nice.
MichaelAaron Flicker: So we talked about some of our favorites.

Let's talk about maybe an episode, not that [00:15:00] we would've done
differently, but if we could go back and add something to any one of the
episodes, what would the episode be and what would you want to add?
Richard Shotton: So one of the, in fact the earliest episode did was Guinness
and it's a great, the history of a brand.
It's got this amazing use of various different biases and we talk a lot about the
pratfall effect. So this idea that if you admit to a flaw, you make yourself, it's a
person doing it or your brand more appealing. So we talk in that episode about
the Elliot Aronson study back in 1966 when he was at Harvard.
That shows admitting a flaw, flaw, generates appeal, but. We did quite short
episode for that, and I think if we were doing it again, I would do a longer
episode and focus more on what type of flaw should you admit. And there's
some amazing work by GERD Bonner at Bielefeld [00:16:00] University that
that looks into this.
So, 2003 study. Bonner recruits 131 people. Randomizes them into one of three
groups and he shows them an ad for a restaurant. Now, sometimes the ad just
makes a positive claim. It says it has an amazing cozy atmosphere. Other times
the ad admits that yes, it's cozy, but there is a, a floor in the restaurant, it doesn't
have parking.
And then a third group, they see the same. Positive claim, cozy atmosphere. But
this time the negative feature that they admit to is related. It's kind of the mirror
image of the strength. It's that they can't accommodate large parties. It's such a
small restaurant. Sorry, we can't take bookings over. I know six people say.
Now what happens as the prac four effect suggests is that [00:17:00] the ads that
admit a flaw, both of them have the the best scores when people are asked about
their attitudes towards them. So on the top line, it supports what Aronson says.
In a commercial setting, you admit a flaw, you become more appealing. But the
really interesting bit is when you then start comparing the scores for the two
types of weaknesses.
And this is all on a a nine point scale. What Bon finds is the, the people who see
the ad that has the related flaw, they rate the restaurant best of all. And that, to
me, moves us on from just saying Admitter flaw to what you need to do is
identify the core strength of your brand and then think what is the.

Mirror weakness. So in the case of the restaurant, if you're saying you're cozy,
thatch can't take a big party is a related flaw. If your Guinness [00:18:00]
though, it's well, you say you are slow because often people assume slowness is
related to putting more time into products and that it'll be higher quality. So, so I
think if we were doing it again, I'd really double down on that, that bon
experiment because it makes the bias of the practical effect.
I think easier to apply in the real world.
MichaelAaron Flicker: I think that's such a important insight because
sometimes when we talk about these academic studies, there's doubt or gaps,
and if you, in the Aronson study. The flaw is he just spills water or coffee on
himself. It has nothing to do with his actual quiz taking abilities.
So it's really an unrelated flaw. And so the application in commercial settings
I've seen people sometimes hesitate about, but the Bonner study really does
solve that question for us. So for listeners, one study by itself may [00:19:00]
open. An idea for you. Multiple studies can give you an a, a way around solving
is this really more applicable?
And then of course, testing for yourself is a, is a way that you can have
confidence in the application of the insight for your businesses. Is that fair to
say?
Richard Shotton: I, I, I think absolutely. I think you've got multiple studies
should create greater believability in insight.
MichaelAaron Flicker: Mm.
Richard Shotton: And let's not. Delude people. If there is a single study that
tells you something quite surprising, hang a question mark on the end of it.
You know it, it might not be a genuine insight. It might be a statistical fluke if
you see multiple studies showing the same basic point. The believability and
credibility of that study increases. And then secondly, absolutely. Rather than
just being told, admit a flaw. Now what we are saying is admit a flaw.
That is the mirror image of your strength. So if you are a consultant, maybe a
B2B consultant, maybe you [00:20:00] want to convey the strength of being, I
don't know, particularly intelligent or particularly insightful. While the mirror
flaw, the related flaw might be that you are real expensive. People assume, well
those who are expensive are gonna be at a higher, higher, higher quality.

So it's a much more directional experiment, I think.
MichaelAaron Flicker: I think that's well said. Maybe my only final build on
this, maybe the in am in American universities. Richard, you have like one-on-
one classes are beginner. 2 0 1, yeah. Or intermediate 3 0 1 is like advanced.
Maybe like a 2 0 1 or 3 0 1 level recommendation.
Is to look at the actual study itself rather than just the analysis that somebody
did on it. I've found that when you first look at academic studies, it's
intimidating. It's written in dense language, it's often in a website with no
pictures. It's just a lot of text. But when you [00:21:00] read exactly how they
set it up and when you read about exactly the questions they asked and the
responses they got, it gives you a lot more context to how you might apply it to
your brand to your business challenge.
So all of. These podcasts hours included, all of the books give you good way
finding, but maybe the, the more advanced application of this is take a, take a
read at some of these studies, they're not always so impossible to penetrate and
you really get a lot more color and richness.
Richard Shotton: Absolutely. And, and, and Aronson's study is an example of
that.
The headline find that often gets repeated is admit a flaw and you get high
status. Aon probes that and puts a little bit of a a nuance on it, which is if you
have high status and you admit a flaw you become more desirable. He shows
that if you are a bit of a buffoon, if you are seen to be a [00:22:00] bit stupid and
you spill a cup of coffee down himself, you actually make the situation worse.
So absolutely, there's always these layers within layers.
MichaelAaron Flicker: Yeah. And, and isn't that the fun of this field? Is that,
isn't that like the joy of it is that it gives you insights into how humans may act,
how consumers might buy, but actually there's a lot more to uncover and there's
always deeper layers. Is it doky who says there's layers of an onion?
You know, you gotta keep peeling the onion back to get to. The heart of, of
humanity and I, that may be my, the only dusty FC quote I remember. Yeah.
University, but I believe it was him.
Richard Shotton: You could attribute anything to Dusti. Again, I have no, no
clue if you'll making up or not. So just, just pepper it in from now on.

Okay, so we have started with a few of our favorite episodes and well worth
going back and listening to those. What we've also done though is interview
people so often some. Brilliant. Strategists. Creatives, but also academics.
[00:23:00] Have there been any ones that particularly stood out to you in terms
of those interviews?
MichaelAaron Flicker: When we planned for this part of the episode, there
was just three interviews that I could recall. Moments of them like, like in an
instant. And I just, I, I thought I'd share those because they're top of mind and
they had lasting impact for me. So they may have lasting impact for others. So
the first one is from a Oxford University professor.
Named Charles Spence, and he's the author of Astrophysics and he's his expert
on the science of taste appeal. Mm-hmm. At first. I thought to myself, how will
we use what he has to talk about? And then he, in his very first experiment that
he talked about, he takes his university students, he puts them into a soundproof
room and he has [00:24:00] them munch or crunch on Pringles chips, but they're
wearing headphones and he alters the sound of the bite that they're making and.
And depending on the sound that he changes, he can get them to rate the
freshness and the crispiness of the chip by up to more, 15% more. And so it
really speaks to how sound. Changes our perception of taste. And then he talks
about how rounder chocolate pieces are assumed to be more sweet, how your
visual changes the way you taste.
And you've heard people say you taste with your eyes and your nose before you
taste with your mouth, but he added a lot of science and academic rigor around
that. So that was number one for me. I really love that one. Y
Richard Shotton: Yeah. And if if you're gonna, I mean, he, he almost invented
this subfield of psychology.
How one. The perceptions in one sense, like weight [00:25:00] or sight or smell,
affect perceptions in another. So hearing from him directly, all those studies
that, that, that was a genuinely amazing interview. I think he's very, very
impressive. And you made the mention of astrophysics book. I think that will
stick that in the show notes 'cause that's, that's well worth reading.
If anyone enjoyed the episode.
MichaelAaron Flicker: So that's episode 60, just to call it out as we go. I'm just
doing a little search on the side as we go. Yeah. Next episode was with Les

Burnett, who, if you are in the field of. Marketing or advertising, especially if
you have an interest in advertising effectiveness. I would say he is one of the
industry's most effective, most most effective leaders.
Most well-regarded leaders. He's the co-author of a number of white papers.
The one we focused on was the long and the short of it, the Secrets Behind
Advertising Effectiveness, and it was a lovely talk and [00:26:00] Richard, you
and I decided to approach that. Interview with Les to get his biggest ideas on the
table and teach them to our listeners.
And that was great. And at the very end he raises a concept that he's said, you
know, I've been thinking a lot about this. And he says, I wonder how branding
reduces price sensitivity. Everybody's looking for brands to. Increase recall,
increase intent to purchase, actually increase buying. But he says, I wonder how
strong branding reduces your price sensitivity.
And would you be willing to pay more for the same thing if it had a stronger
brand? And he kind of left it there, but of. All of the interviews we've done, that
thought has returned to me multiple times. And today in the industry, I don't
believe there's a lot of literature and a lot of studies specifically around this.
So Les may be advancing that. Now, it [00:27:00] may be a call for somebody,
one of our listeners to advance that, but it's a fascinating idea that there may be
other benefits that are yet to be explored about the strength of doing great
branding and great advertising.
Richard Shotton: Yeah. Pricing I think is one of the most.
Fascinating areas. You say the, you know, I think you get into that area of the
brand interaction with pricing. There is a big gap and hole that I'm sure far more
could be done. I think when you look at behavioral science experiments on how
to get people to pay or, or, or respond to the same price slightly differently, then
there's an awful without
MichaelAaron Flicker: doubt
Richard Shotton: You know, removing the.
Currency denominators, the Civil Yang stuff. I think we discussed with Phil
Agnew in his episode talking about the daily price of a time-based item rather
than the yearly one. This idea of the pen is a day effect. Now, I, I always think

if, if people aren't using behavioral sites in their organization now, one of the
best places to [00:28:00] start is on your website.
Trying to apply some of these principles right at that moment of sale around the,
the, the display the, the promotion of that price.
MichaelAaron Flicker: The only other one that comes to mind right off the bat
is our Red Bull episode where we talk about changing the relativity, pricing
relativity. So lots of good options there.
That's episode 46 with ette. Last one from me was. The indomitable, the
indisputable Rory Sutherland who was so generous to come and do an extended
interview. I think he might've been on set for three and a half hours. We were on
camera for two and a half hours, maybe longer. And to say we covered
hundreds of interesting ideas may even be an understatement.
But one of the ideas he brought that has stuck with me and I've used in my
work [00:29:00] over and over since he said it was this idea of reverse
benchmarking. And instead of looking at your competitors and ask what they're
doing well. You should ask what they're doing badly because where they're
doing something badly, you have a opportunity to improve upon that and do
much better.
And actually, he brings up 11 Madison Parks Will Guera and his example of of,
of how reverse benchmarking can work. And he says, when Guera was in
charge of designing the experience at. 11 Madison Park to become a best
restaurant in the world. Him and his team, Will's team visited a lot of other best
restaurants, including the then number one spot.
And instead of looking to emulate what they did so well, he had his team write
down all the things that they were doing badly. And that gave 11 Madison Park
an opportunity to differentiate themselves and exceed their expectations. And so
[00:30:00] I think that to me. Was just such a reminder that we are really trying
to increase our share of the pie.
Increase the overall share of the pie. Competing where others are great may be a
lot harder than competing where they've left white spots.
Richard Shotton: Yes, that that part really did stick in their mind. I think the
Wil Gadar example he gave was they go to some amazing restaurants, get
inspired. Lots of people come back, say, well, I thought the way they did the
pastry was amazing.

Let's copy that. And Wil G Guitar's point as well. The beer was bloody awful,
and you couldn't get a decent flat white at the end. And then he goes out and
recruits someone just to be the beer sommelier, just to be the, you know, expert
barista. And, you know, back in what, probably early two thousands, nineties,
yes, the expectation of Michelin Star for coffee and beer was not that high.
So he absolutely smashed those expectations, and that therefore became a very,
very memorable part of the [00:31:00] experience. Yeah, that reverse
benchmarking idea is lovely. So well worth the lesson,
MichaelAaron Flicker: episode 73 for those keeping track at home.
Richard Shotton: Yeah. Yeah.
MichaelAaron Flicker: How about on your side, Richard? Did you have some
standout episodes that really got you thinking?
Richard Shotton: Yeah, so I certainly wouldn't disagree with, with your
choices. I think the ones I was gonna draw attention to though, were. Hearing
from the academics, talk about their own research. I've always thought that was
super interesting. So I've had Dan Arles come on and talks about his work origi,
about how often incentives can backfire.
But of all of the episodes, the one that I really, really enjoyed the conversation
was with iLet Fishback. Mm. And she talked a lot about her research. Things
like the gold dilution effect. But I particularly liked her discussion of her
[00:32:00] work with Lucy Sharon around uncertain rewards. So the study she
talks about in the episode recruits a load of students and she gets 138 of them
together.
They are shown, one of two bags of chocolates. So some people see a
transparent bag and there are four chocolate truffles on it, and they bid how
much they're prepared to pay, and the average bid is 66 cents. Other people are
shown an opaque bag and they're told, look, it might have two truffles in it
might have four truffles in.
And this fresh group of people, they are asked how much they're bid to take that
back home with them. The average bid is more than double. It's $1 49. Now you
think about that for a second, and suddenly you are selling people a worse.
Product or, or a cheaper product for the maker, let's say. Put it that way, you're
selling this cheaper [00:33:00] products.

'cause on average it's gonna have three truffles, not four, yet you are able to
charge so much more. And the point the Fishback made was the people,
especially when it's these kinda smaller purchases, they love this excitement of
the uncertain reward. They love the excitement of a gamble. Everyone wants to
be a winner.
So you can. Put into your product psychological value that is free to do, rather
than trying to create value by giving people more and more expensive products
away. So, so that was such a nice study, such a nice area. It's one that when we
put Hacking the human Mind together, we talked a lot about uncertain rewards
and how they could be used in the, in the, in the Facebook chapter.
So she was brilliant. I love that one.
MichaelAaron Flicker: I, I think it's a great reminder, especially if you are
more of an advertiser in advertising or in only one type of marketing. That
marketing in its classical form is [00:34:00] not just promotion. It's not just
price. It's also product in place. Product means, wow, does it what is the thing
we are selling and how does it meet?
Near ael talked about how does it meet a psychological need? How does it, how
does it meet that? And I think that what Aelt and her studies were revealing is
there's sometimes a satisfaction or an intrigue that has as much to do with the
what you think you're getting as what the actual product is.
Richard Shotton: Yeah. And you know, that we've seen some lovely
applications of the. I can't remember if we talked about this in the Rory episode,
but we've certainly spoke about on, on some of the episodes, which was the
English curry chain applying this principle. Mm-hmm. So for those of you. I've
never been to Britain.
There's a smallish chain called Deum, like quite a fancy curry house. And if you
go at an off peak [00:35:00] time, you can ask them to give you a key ring and
they give you this very fancy key ring. And then if you go back at an off peak
time, at the end of your meal, you can ask them to bring out the macca. And this
is a kind of brass jar that they put a dice in, you shake it, roll it, and if a six
comes out.
Everything you've eaten, everything you've drunk whole table completely free,
and people absolutely go wild for this. But if you were a, the accountant
working at dsu, you'd say, well, we're just giving people a 16, 17% discount. I
mean, that is not that steeper discount. There are many other people who give

steeper, fixed or certain discounts to get people in unpleasant times of, of peak
times.
But by turning into a game, introducing a bit of theater to the, the situation, you,
you, you create this value, the. Isn't in the mathematics, it's not in the underlying
utility of, of what's being offered.
MichaelAaron Flicker: [00:36:00] It's what you would call big capital B brand.
It's part of the brand experience at Theum, even if it has nothing to do with the
food that you're eating.
Richard Shotton: Yes. Although the, the nice thing they do is they give it an
aura of relevance. Yes. So DUM is made out to look like a kind of 1920s
Bombay restaurant, and the board that comes out is very war and it's got writing
on in and restive languages. The macca they say is a, you know, they, they, they
give it this kind of aura of 1920s India.
So, so I think that's. Takes the idea on one step further
MichaelAaron Flicker: mm-hmm.
Richard Shotton: In which you move from just, I know rolling a standard dice
on a bit of cardboard, you know, it, it's those theatrical elements, the aesthetics,
the design that bring it back to the brand a bit more.
MichaelAaron Flicker: I love that. Yeah. Makes great sense. It makes great
sense.
Richard Shotton: And in case people think we've just lost our senses,
[00:37:00] we've definitely gotta put a picture of that in the show notes. 'cause
my description is is woeful.
MichaelAaron Flicker: Oh, I think it, I think it's lovely. And we've done this
together. We've been to, we've been to Deum together and, that's one of our
great joys. As co-hosts of this podcast, we did an episode, remind me of the
name of the of the restaurant in Britain that has unlimited champagne at the
push on button.
Richard Shotton: Oh, Bob. Bob Ricard. Yeah.
MichaelAaron Flicker: Yes, Bob, Bob Ricard. We've been to Daum. We have
not yet made it till 11 Madison Park together. No, no, no.

Richard Shotton: Yeah.
MichaelAaron Flicker: When we get better way 10
Richard Shotton: million listener, we'll do that.
MichaelAaron Flicker: Yes, exactly. When we continue to grow the
listenership. But what better way to enjoy behavioral science than to go out and
live it, to, to be a part of it.
Lovely. So we've talked about a lot of our favorite, most memorable parts of
the first a hundred episodes. Thinking about the future what are you most
excited for, [00:38:00] Richard? What are you thinking about in what's coming
up?
Richard Shotton: So there's a couple of things that we've done. So we started
some themes, some, some themes of episodes.
So there's behavioral science for agencies and we, we thought, well, what are
the various different. Roles or tasks that an agency has. There's pitching, there's
copywriting, there's media planning, and we did themed episodes around those.
So what are the behavioral science biases that those specialties could use?
And I, I, I, I, I really like those because it gives a different angle and it shows
people new ways to play behavioral science. But the new theme that I'm very
excited that we're just gonna start recording in the new year is around award-
winning campaigns. So we've looked at things like the IP effectiveness papers,
the A PG Awards can Lions and see, well, what are some of those amazingly
successful campaigns?
And then unpicked, what are the behavioral science principles [00:39:00]
behind them? And I think they will make fur some. Very, very good episode. So
they should be coming out quite soon.
MichaelAaron Flicker: And so that as we look to the upcoming year, we're
gonna continue doing our brand focused episodes that we've started the podcast
with.
We're gonna continue doing our interviews with thought leaders in our industry,
and now we're gonna look at some of the most effective campaigns, some of the
best work in the industry, and look at it through a behavioral science lens.

Richard Shotton: Yeah, and, and I wonder if. It makes it even easier for people
to apply.
'cause you could think, oh, well wait a minute, aol, they launched in 1919, they
colored their brand this bright, bright orange. Now I am dealing with a hundred
year old brand. How do I kind of apply something they did so long ago? Mm-
hmm. Now, I think that is a unfair criticism, but I'm slightly worried sometimes
people have it with a campaign.
These are constant new ideas, often on a smaller scale. So they're the, the.
They're easier, I think, to take and [00:40:00] apply for listeners. They can apply
them on their own work much more easily.
MichaelAaron Flicker: And for me, without teasing too much. We have some
big interviews coming up. Yeah. In the upcoming year, one that is confirmed.
Mark Ritson of the mini MBA that he has made for marketing. He's a great
thought leader in our industry. We're very excited to have him on in Q1 of this
upcoming year. And so that plus a bunch of other really great thought leaders, it
should be a great year of interviews coming up ahead as well.
Richard Shotton: Happy, good one.
MichaelAaron Flicker: So as we come to a close, Richard, and I wanted to say
thank you. To everyone who's helped build behavioral science for brands to
what it is today. Getting to a hundred episodes wouldn't have been possible
without everyone who's been listening and giving their comments, connecting
with us on LinkedIn and really helping make sure that what we're [00:41:00]
doing adds value to your work and to your careers.
So thank you. Thanks for the chance to create this content and to build this thing
together. We really appreciate it.
Richard Shotton: Fantastic. Likewise.
MichaelAaron Flicker: We're looking forward to 2026 and all the
conversations we have ahead and as we'd like to sign off. Until next time, I'm
MichaelAaron Flicker.
Richard Shotton: And I'm Richard Shotton.
MichaelAaron Flicker: Thanks so much for listening.

Advertisement: Behavioral Science for brands is 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 [00:42:00] 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.