Awarded Campaigns: Lucky Yatra, on how a ticket-lottery turned fare dodgers into paying passengers

In this episode, MichaelAaron and Richard launch a new series by unpacking Lucky Yatra, an award-winning Indian Railways campaign that turned tickets into lottery entries. They explore how uncertain rewards, positive framing, and smart incentives drove a 34% rise in ticket sales

Transcript

MIichaelAaron 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 that powers great marketing today. I'm MichaelAaron Flicker.
Richard Shotton: And I'm Richard Shotton.
MIichaelAaron Flicker: And today we're bringing you a new series
where we explore effective campaigns, the work that went into market,
and why we believe they were so effective.
Let's get into it. So Richard, we are starting this new series because
there's so much interest and excitement around all the work in the
industry. You and I are very passionate about work that makes a
difference about effective campaigns, things that not just put great
creative in market, but that have demonstratable results.[00:01:00]
So we said to ourselves. What if we looked at all the effectiveness award
shows? What if we looked at all the case studies, if there's white papers
available and we find the ones that have demonstrated to have made an
impact, and we use that as a source of material for us to talk about it and
deconstruct and bring a lens to it.
Richard Shotton: Yeah, so in a way it's like a micro version of our book.
So the book Hacking Human Mind. 17 giant brands, you know, super
successful brands. Starbucks, Guinness, Klarna. Well, rather than look
at the brand as a whole, what we've done here is look at, you know,
smaller. Campaigns, and I think that opens up the discussion to a far
broader range of really effective bits of marketing.
MIichaelAaron Flicker: I hadn't thought about this, another connection
and separation from the book. In the book, we chose what we were
calling [00:02:00] some of the world's best brands. Here we are really
looking for the most effective campaigns. So there a lot of the brands we
are planning to feature. A lot of the campaigns we're planning to feature
in the upcoming weeks might be brands you've never heard of, might be
campaigns or markets you don't know the details about.
And we think that's powerful.

Richard Shotton: Yeah. Or, or it could be a brand that hasn't done very
well for 10 years, but they had an amazing campaign. The important
thing is. Is there an evidence backed idea in there that can be extricated
from the actual event and replayed and reused by listeners? So that's,
that's gonna unite everything we talk about.
There are transferable learnings that you can apply to your business,
MIichaelAaron Flicker: and this also opens up the opportunity for
listeners to. Write in and let us know about campaigns that were
effective that you see in market. We're always [00:03:00] looking for
where to get the best ideas, and if we think of ourselves as a chive mind,
all of our listeners, together we have access to tons of great campaigns,
tons of great marketing effective work.
So you'll listen to these and please by all means, share. For those
listening campaigns that, you know, were effective in market and we can
see if there's some evidence-based science to support it. So today's
episode is entitled Lucky Yara. Indian for the Lucky Journey, and it's
really a interesting campaign that was featured this year in the 2025
Cannes Lions Festival.
But let's focus on the campaign. This country is India. The client is Indian
[00:04:00] Railways. The agency is FCB India and Indian railways is
facing a systemic problem. Millions of Mumbai commuters simply. Do not
buy train tickets. They just jump on the train. And they ride for free With
over 24 million railway passengers each day, it's the busiest transit
system in the world.
It's so busy, so packed that it was impossible to add turnstiles of any
kind. Impossible to create a barrier. To getting that many people on and
off the trains. So rather than increasing ticket checkers or coming up
with more serious fines or using technology to enforce, getting people to
pay for their tickets, they flip the script.
What they [00:05:00] use is something that was already there on the
ticket. For almost a hundred years, Indian railways has printed a serial
number on every ticket that they sell. And so what FCB India and Indian
railways decide to do is they convert that unique number into a lottery
number and every person who purchases a rail ticket now.

Has a lottery ticket. The chance is to win a thousand. The chance is to
win $117 every day, or $585 every week just by taking their ticket
number and entering it on a Cipro website. They had a QR code, they
had a website. You enter the number and you're entered for a chance to
win. The results are astonishing with just $1.4 million allocated to prizes.
The campaign generated 685 million in ticket revenue, [00:06:00] and
that's a big number, but importantly, it increased ticket sales by 34%. So
it wins this effectiveness award not only for its creativity, but for proving
that rewarding honesty can be as powerful as punishing fraud. It was a
more than just a lottery.
It was a behavioral science experiment that they put into market to see
what would happen. And now the Mumbai railway. Test is going to
extend out to all of India's 7,000 stations. So they try it in Mumbai, it
works there, and they're extending it. So really a lot of interesting stuff
happening here. And you know what, we'll put in the show notes.
There's a great two and a half minute video that that talks about all the
conditions and what they did. So we'll add that to the show notes,
Richard, but a lot happening here. Very interesting. Campaign.
Richard Shotton: Yeah, I, I, I love it as a campaign. It's a great
[00:07:00] example of application. Psychological insight and then
beautifully, creatively delivered.
So I think when it comes down to the, the psychology, we've talked
about this principle before, which is the idea that uncertain rewards. Can
be more effective than certain rewards. So what we mean by that is
there are, you know, different ways you can financially encourage your
behavior. So you could reduce the price of something and everyone
gets, say a five or a 10% discount.
The alternative is to add some uncertainty in. Don't guarantee that you're
gonna get a price money off. You don't guarantee that you're gonna get
a win. You just have a sm a chance of of success. And there's a really,
really good study by Nina Mazar, who's at the University of Toronto, and
back in 2015, she did this brilliant study that suggests it's that [00:08:00]
uncertainty, those variable rewards that tend to be the certain ones.
So she sets up a vending machine, and the snacks inside this vending
machine normally cost 75 cents. But for a few weeks she runs a

promotion. So people have the choice. They can either have the 75
cents snack for 50 cents, there is a guaranteed fixed 33% off. That's the
certain reward, or they pay 75 cents and there is a one in three chance
that they get it completely free.
So two thirds of the time, you pay the total amount for 75 cents, one
third, you get it completely free. And what she finds is that there are
significantly more people buying the snack in the uncertain condition. So
people buy 43% more of the uncertain reward rather than the the certain
reward. The [00:09:00] argument that Mazar makes and others are the,
some of the benefit that we get excited about is the financial discount,
the financial award.
But actually on top of that, there is the uncertainty, the excitement, the
intrigue of the gamble. Will we be a a winner? And you get that added
benefit if you convert your fixed discount into a more variable reward.
MIichaelAaron Flicker: Yeah, it's an interesting study. Yeah. Because
one, it would not necessarily be what a classical economist would say
would happen.
Yeah. When you give, yeah. They'd
Richard Shotton: say they're the same thing. They'd say,
MIichaelAaron Flicker: correct.
Richard Shotton: Yeah.
MIichaelAaron Flicker: No, please. It's
Richard Shotton: the
MIichaelAaron Flicker: same thing. Yeah. They'd say, and so
Richard Shotton: say third off or one in three chance are free. It's the,
it's the same thing. And, and the cost of course the business is, is the
same.
MIichaelAaron Flicker: And so that's interesting in that it.

Challenges a classical assumption. The other thing that's interesting to
me is that when these numbers [00:10:00] are relatively insignificant, this
game of chance brings even a little bit of excitement to what otherwise is
a pretty low engaged decision. So on top of it, you know, or maybe
because. It's an easy choice, 50 cents, 75 cents.
Of course the quarter matters, but really this game of chance brings a
little bit of fun and intrigue to the decision. How much do you think that
plays into it?
Richard Shotton: So a lot of the experiments are around reasonably
small items now. This particular study with a vending machine, it was a
75 cent snack. She in the same paper, I think, does things with, you
know, pens or mugs.
I mean science's up to like five or $10, but they're reasonably small. The
only thing I would say is what inspired her to do the study [00:11:00] was
the case of a furniture shop. So there was a furniture shop in America
where they said to people. And apologies I get the, the baseball team
wrong. Is it, is it the Boston Red Sox are their baseball team?
It
MIichaelAaron Flicker: is
Richard Shotton: very, they're basketball
MIichaelAaron Flicker: from London. He gets right? Yes. Very good.
Yes. The
Richard Shotton: Boston
MIichaelAaron Flicker: Red Sox,
Richard Shotton: I think the amusingly for a European named World
Series. If the Red Sox won the World Series, people would get their
furniture purchase completely free Now. Again, I'm conscious that this is
a sport I know nothing about, so I'm scrubbing around a bit here.
But let's say at the beginning of the season, I know a 5% chance of the
Red Sox winning. That might be reasonable. You know what?

MIichaelAaron Flicker: We're gonna have Boston fans up in Arms.
Richard Shotton: Arms, okay. Okay.
But
Richard Shotton: seven and half percent, the argument would be, and
you know, it would be that, yeah, it is more effective. To give people a
chance in this, in this manner than just saying, okay, well this week
[00:12:00] we are reducing our furniture by 7.5%.
So, so, so, you know, I think that there are, that's an example, not a peer
reviewed one, but what inspired the campaign that shows that the it can
work on a bigger scale. 'cause that furniture shop in Mazars paper
reports a huge amount of excitement and uplift in the sounds because of
the, because of the campaign.
MIichaelAaron Flicker: Love it. So. F-C-B-C-C-O. Rakesh Menon says
by shifting the conversation from penalty to possibility, lucky Yatra is
reshaping how passengers view train tickets no longer just a fair, it's a
chance to win Pig. So as you're saying, it's a reframing. Of of what's
happening here.
Richard Shotton: Yeah. And actually I hadn't quite thought of it that
way.
It, so we've got the uncertain versus fixed award. Lots of things that
listeners can do with that. The other bit is, as you say, flipping the
conversation from negative threats around [00:13:00] penalties and fines
and whatever to positive you could win. And there are quite a few
studies that suggest that can be effective.
So there's an idea called the Ostrich Effect. George Lowenstein at
Carnegie Mellon did the, the, the first kind of research around it. And
what he found was often if you scare people, make them feel ashamed,
make them feel guilty. Rather than that person resolving to change their
behavior, so the criticism no longer applies.
What they tend to do is like the metaphoric gloss reach, they stick their
head in the sand. They just completely ignore the messaging, or they go
through mental gymnastics to explain to themselves why the messaging

just won't apply to them. And Lowenstein didn't just base this on logic
and speculation.
He had access to some amazing data. So the big fund provider,
Vanguard, let him look. Anonymized account data so LTE could
[00:14:00] see when were Americans checking their stock portfolios. And
what he found was when the s and p 500 stock market is going up,
people check their, their portfolio regularly when it's going down, and
therefore you're likely to have bad news.
People check their stock account less, and it's not, not rational. Yeah, it's
not rational. The information about your wealth is equally useful in, in
both situations, but when the stock market is rising, it's gonna be good
news and you feel good when it's going down, you get an immediate
feeling of negativity.
And what Loewenstein said is one of our rules of thumb is if something
causes pleasure. In the immediate term, we'll double down on it. If
something causes us displeasure in the immediate term, we avoid it So
often, the supposedly logical intervention in a situation like fair dodging
is to make massive threats and to try and scare people.
But what often happens is people either. Ignore the ads or they
[00:15:00] think themselves. Well, other people might get caught, but I'll
be all right. So I love this twist to a, a more positive approach to a social
problem.
MIichaelAaron Flicker: And this is not the first time uncertain rewards
have been applied to travel before. No,
Richard Shotton: no, there's there's quite the, the, the history of this
working well. So you go back, I think it's about 2018, Singapore
introduced a lottery style mechanism called the Travel Smart Program.
Each time you travel, you get points, and the more points you have, the
more entries you get into a lottery.
Now the clever thing they did was, one of the big issues in Singapore
was peak time is unpleasantly busy. So they decided, well, let's use
these. Points to try and shift people earlier in the day. And now if you
travel really early or really late, you get more points per mile travel.
MIichaelAaron Flicker: Mm-hmm. Yeah,

Richard Shotton: yeah. To the travel provider, you know, to the
Singapore transport system.
Doesn't matter how many [00:16:00] points you give away, all that
matters is the volume of the, the cash prize. So they were steering
people to the right times without actually. Costing the, the metro more
money. And what they found was that when they introduced this, there
was a 12% increase in people traveling in that morning pre peak period
because they boosted the number of points available.
MIichaelAaron Flicker: It's such a it's such a helpful thing to hear
because it gives you this, I, it, it, it's fertile to say like, how are you using
rewards? How are you incentivizing? And could you use the same dollar
impact on your brand's p and l in a more innovative way that's going to
improve the ROI on that investment.
Richard Shotton: Yeah. Your point is the one to double down on this.
Set of experiments is not give, give people money and they'll buy your
product more often and, you know, reduce the price or, or throw cash at
the [00:17:00] problem and, and you solve it. It is more subtle than that.
It's saying for the same dollar spend, you will get a better change of
behavior if you add an element of variability in rather whether, rather
than giving people a fixed discount that that's the key point.
We are not saying put more promotional budget down, we're saying
introduce more variability where you can.
MIichaelAaron Flicker: And it's interesting because in the first example
we're talking about a lottery style offer. When we were writing the book
together, we said We don't wanna be encouraging tactics that could just
be read, is like gambling.
So we are, so, you know, one of the ways that these un uncertain
rewards can take. A tactical hold is through like a game of chance. But
the Singapore's Travel Smart program is a great example where it
wasn't, it was variability, but not through a game of chance. Right. So,
you know, [00:18:00] whether folks are for or against gambling the, the
insight is more important than the way it comes into practice.
Fair.

Richard Shotton: Yeah. And absolutely. And I always say, you know.
It's not for us to tell people what's moral immoral, but everyone of course
will have their own code. And I'd never wanna suggest if a experiment
makes someone feel uncomfortable and they don't like the implications,
there's no necessity to apply it. I mean, there are so many of these
studies, just work on the ones that fit with your kind of own standards.
And if people don't like the idea of the kind of gambling or gambling light.
Maybe the other learning, as we've discussed from the lucky Yra, is the
power of positivity. Now, if you scare people, it often backfires. That
could be a completely different learning to take from the same case
study.
MIichaelAaron Flicker: I love that.
It reminds me of a study we've talked about before. Maybe you can give
everyone the details. Stockholm, Sweden, [00:19:00] and they use.
Speed cameras. It's a speed camera lottery. Am I right about
this?
Richard Shotton: Yeah, that's, that's right. So Volkswagen a while ago
we'll put, there's a very good case studies, we'll put. It's a little two
minute video.
We'll put that in the show notes. Okay. They encourage people to come
up with ideas and one of the winning ones was what was called the, the
speed camera lottery. So. I think you said stock Stockholm, didn't you?
Yes. What they did was, previously Stockholm tried to encourage drivers
to reduce their speed by not speed cameras.
You drive past, you are going too fast, you get fine. What they tested
was a little twist of that. If you drive too fast, you still pay a fine. But the
fine money goes into a pot and anyone who drives past the [00:20:00]
speed camera and they're obeying the speed limit, they have a chance
to win the pot. That's been by the fine
MIichaelAaron Flicker: entered, you're entered to win because you
complied with the rules.
Richard Shotton: Yes.

MIichaelAaron Flicker: And it's being funded by those that did not
Richard Shotton: comply. Yeah. And we'll put the, the link in the show
notes and it's got a nice big bump. In the proportion of people who were,
who were following
MIichaelAaron Flicker: the speed limit, speed fell speeds, fell by 22%,
is the punchline from 32 kilometers per hour to 25. But it's that, it's it's
kind of like a gambling scheme, but not, you know, it's kind, it's, it's
using, it's, it's teaching a lesson and it's using.
Social pressures in a unique way. I think it's a lovely, it's a lovely
example of being very creative with how you can get people to change
their behavior.
Richard Shotton: Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. Now we've done the
good news about uncertain rewards and lotteries and all sorts. There is
a bit of bad news though, which is, you know.[00:21:00]
People are complex. The world is a a noisy, sophisticated place. And
just because lotteries generally work doesn't mean they always do. And
there is some interesting data around COVID vaccines. So Andrew
Freeson. At University of Colorado, 2021 looks at 19 states and he
compares the uptake in the vaccine rate with states that have a lottery
and states that don't.
Now, what's interesting about a lot of state lotteries is how big they were.
So Ohio had a million dollar. Prize or $5 million prize offered by the
Department of Health, California went even bigger and had a 1.5 million
dollars prize. And what frees and finds is there is no significant
difference in vaccine uptake between the states.
Now, at first, that sounds [00:22:00] surprising. You know, offer people
lots of money, surely, or a chance of lots of money. Surely they should
all jump at the chance. But Sarah Krepps, who's at Cornell University
said, you've got to be a bit careful because you've gotta think about what
is the, the body language of the of, of the lottery.
And so she said. If you are offering huge prizes, what people might take
out of that is the degree of suspicion. They might think, well, if the
government has to incentivize me so much, maybe there is something
wrong with this vaccine. Maybe it's not as good as people are saying.

The scale of the prize actually amplified seeds of doubt in some people's
minds.
So the argument here would be, I think just be careful and because
lotteries generally work, just think about the unique elements [00:23:00]
of your situation. I think that would be the key part. And in this particular
medical situation, too big a lottery was a problem.
MIichaelAaron Flicker: Yeah, I think that's the thing I would underscore
is that.
The science and the academics that inform what should work, always
have to live in the real world with the, with the culture and the, and the
business case around it. There was a lot of vaccine skepticism. Across
the United States when this was happening. And so even though a big
reward could have worked, it missed the, it missed the setting that it was
in, or at least that's what Sarah Crepes is making the argument that
that's possibly one of the reasons it didn't work.
Richard Shotton: Yes. And you know, someone trying to explain the
results afterwards. It is slightly spec, but that to me does, does make a
lot of sense. And I think this whole area of [00:24:00] rewards and
incentives, you know, is a interesting or complex area and I think one of
the best. Interviews that we've ever done was with ESEI.
Oh yes. So, you know, he wrote this amazing book, I think it's called
Mixed Signals, all about how to get the most out of incentives and when
they can, when they can backfire.
MIichaelAaron Flicker: Episode 78. So my quick Googling Yeah. Of
our, of our of our article, of our, of our episode. And as you say, he went
deeper into the parts of that you might think about when you're setting
up these these different uncertain rewards.
Richard Shotton: Yeah, and, and, and he argued that sometimes if you
offer a financial incentive, it can crowd out. The, the social obligation
reasons for adopting a behavior. So he says, look, there's two ways of
driving [00:25:00] behavior. You can use money to incentivize people or
you can appeal to their kind of better selves.
Mm-hmm. You can use, you know, the kind of social norms and
expectations of society. And what could be happening is, you know, you

introduce a. Cash incentive, and then that crowds out those existing
social motivations to get a vaccine. Some people might have done it
even though they were worried about a vaccine, but they thought, well,
this is still the, the right thing to do.
Once you en cash enters the equation, now it, it can dampen down
some of those. Social reasons for, for donating
MIichaelAaron Flicker: and, you know, what comes up for me that he, I
don't remember him talking about, but you are solving a very emotional
challenge with a very rational. Solution. So the vaccine skepticism
centered a lot around fear of the unknown, [00:26:00] fear of, you know,
what something developed so quickly could do to you, and you're solving
it with something very rational, A taxable prize.
Yes. You know, it's a, it's a fascinating Yes. Again, thinking about it after
something more emotionally based might have been more successful.
Yeah, absolutely. Like that. You go for it.
Richard Shotton: Oh, I was gonna say, you know, I'm just thinking the,
the flip of what you are saying, which is if the problem had been quite
mundane, a lottery and a financial incentive from a government could be
brilliant.
So in you Go Britain, the example that strikes me, we have a tax, like a
property tax that you pay every year called the council tax and you have
to pay it. But lots of people pay by you know, ringing up. A week, they
have to, you know, hit the deadline. And that's expensive for the council
to run those phone lines to chase the people who forget.
And they, and also just the fact they haven't got money for a couple of
months. So what the councils try and do is encourage people to set up a
[00:27:00] direct debit. It comes out automatically, it's cheaper. They get
the money earlier. And they very, very successfully have used a lottery
mechanic to do that. You know, if you set up a direct debit, you are
rented into the drawer.
The behavioral insights team in Britain have found that to be a very
effective way. Of encouraging behavior change, but there it's much more
of a mundane, there you go. Just not getting round to it. It's hassle they
have to get over. So maybe, you know, when it comes to these areas,
it's picking the right tool for the right challenge.

MIichaelAaron Flicker: So often that's the, that's the fun, the skill, the
excitement of what we're talking about week after week. It's one thing to
know the business, challenge the business problem deeply. It's another
thing to know the marketing academics. Deeply, but the, the art is
connecting them and using and, and then creatively presenting that
academic insight to solve the business problem.
That's [00:28:00] where, to us, the creative fusion occur. Yes,
Richard Shotton: because a lottery isn't, A lottery isn't a lottery. I mean,
what's the size, what's the theater around it? You know? Yes, you can
have a general finding, but of course if there's variance within what type
of lottery you're doing, there's gonna be a a different impact.
And then when it comes to the academic studies, I always think if you
are a business owner and you read about the Nina Mazar study, you
remember the one with the vending machine, you've gotta think how
close is my situation to that? If you literally are a vending machine
operator, you are crazy not to at least test that idea.
If you are selling low value items on the internet, yeah, it's probably a
good idea to test. If you are selling Rolls-Royces to multimillionaires,
then well, I dunno, maybe it's too much for a stretch to apply it. You
know, we've got to have an appreciation of. Is our situation similar to the
situation that the experiment was running?
If it is. [00:29:00] You got a good chance at working the further away you
are, the more uncertainty creeps in ironically. Yeah,
MIichaelAaron Flicker: yeah, yeah. It, it's, it's great and, you know,
you've used the term a lot literal versus lateral applications. It's a great
argument for, like, if you are not a vending machine owner, then any
literal application is a little bit more of a, a stretch and a little bit more of
a test and learn.
But if you can understand what was happening. When consumers,
buyers made that decision, your ability to come up with lateral
applications inspired by thinking that brings the idea more broadly, I
think, is it it becomes much more effective.

Richard Shotton: Yeah. Yeah. So you've got this like thought about
how close is my situation to the experiment, but then the second way of
thinking about that lateral interpretation is the creative ability.
To execute [00:30:00] the idea is super important. There's a famous
phrase, John Hegerty of BBHI think said a great idea is 80% strategy
and 80% execution, which I've always liked. And I think thinking about
that what you could agree is there's a brilliant insight from the
psychological experiments that gives you an opportunity.
But then how you. Express that that is just as important. That is super
important. And the one that I keep and think about and we talked about
this in Hacking to human Mind is the example of, so this is a curry house
a chain of Indian restaurants in Brim, and they introduced a variable. So
if you went at certain times they would incentivize you at the end of the
meal.
You had a one in six chance of getting the, the bill completely paid for.
Now you could do that. And the way it just comes out and says to you,
you know, in a [00:31:00] monotone voice, well, you didn't win this time,
you've gotta pay. But what they do is they give it a real theater. The
whole design ethic of the restaurant is kind of 1920s Irani cafes in
Bombay, and they bring out this big wooden board, similar design style a
brass jar.
They called the Macca and they get you to roll the dice. And I think it's
that level of theater and beautiful creativity that makes it. Such a good
idea, not just the idea that you should have an uncertain reward.
MIichaelAaron Flicker: I love that. I think that's ultimately why we're all
to some degree in this industry is because doing the creative around it,
bringing.
Creativity, capital C, not just design, not just copywriting, but creativity in
its full form to solving the business problem is exciting to all of us.
[00:32:00] So it's a great example of why uncertain rewards by
themselves may or may not work, but the theater, the creativity to make
it compelling is really a big part of why, of why it works for Daum.
And in these examples here. So Richard, would you. Just help give us a
quick roundup of today's topics.

Richard Shotton: So we've covered maybe three big themes. The first
one was the power of uncertain rewards versus certain or fixed rewards.
And what we mean by that is giving someone a one in three chance of
getting something for free tends to boost sales more than giving people
and everyone a one third off discount.
So that was the first idea. The key point here is if you have a
promotional budget, consider shifting how you use it. Not necessarily
spending more, but introducing that element of variability. Give one in a
hundred [00:33:00] customers a hundred percent off rather than a
hundred percent of customers, 1% off. That was the first part we
discussed.
We then talked about the ostrich effect a bit more briefly, but that is the
idea that campaigns that try and scare people or make them feel guilty
or ashamed, they tend to backfire. People will ignore the ads or explain
to them. They'll explain themselves why those messages don't apply to
them. And then the third and final study we discussed was a real watch
out.
And it was that sometimes a very big incentive can backfire. And we
talked about how California and Ohio had used very large incentives to
encourage people to get vaccinated, but because they were so large,
the question they popped into people's mind was, is this thing
dangerous? If the government is trying to pay me so much to do it so.
Just because lotteries can work well, in [00:34:00] general, you need to
think about the specifics of your situation and if there is a, you know, and
I would argue unfounded nervousness and concern about your products.
You know, as you said, that kind of emotional, a fear, throwing a large
lottery at the problem might not be the best thing to do.
MIichaelAaron Flicker: Might make it worse.
Richard Shotton: Might make it worse. Yeah.
MIichaelAaron Flicker: Yeah. Thank you to everyone who listened to
today's episode. As we like to say, please share it with others that are
excited about marketing because we hope it will be of service to them as
much as you, as much as you liked it, and to help us reach even more
people if you would like, comment, or share.

That helps us reach new marketers who would be helped by our
conversation today. Until next time. I'm MichaelAaron Flicker.
Richard Shotton: And I'm Richard Shotton.
MIichaelAaron Flicker: Thanks so much for listening.[00:35:00]
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 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.