« Elbert Hubbard on inertia | Main | Jim Autry on metaphors »

T.S. Eliot on selves

"It is only in the world of objects that we have time and space and selves."

The marketplace is once such world, and one in which our selves are spending an increasing amount of their waking time.  Providing insight into this world, Harvard Business School doctoral candidates Katy Milkman and Todd Rogers along with Professor Max Bazerman have published a working paper that explores how two of our many metaphorical "selves" make decisions differently for the near term than for decisions in the more distant future.

They've found, through their analysis of online grocery purchase data, that people's "want-selves" take control in near term decision-making (e.g. groceries purchased for consumption tomorrow) "act[ing] on immediate, visceral desires." On the other shoulder, their "should-selves" - the ones that supposedly want to eat healthy, save money, etc. - take over the decision-making process the further into the future they project (i.e. ordering their groceries up to 5 days in advance of consumption.).

There are plenty of insights in their study for consumers, policy makers and inventory planners, but where is the big insight for marketers?  I don't really see one, other than the fact that our mind's distant future is a much more rational place than its near term future.

Watch any late night infomercial and invariably you'll hear, "But wait! If you order now, you'll also receive . . ."  Why do you think they say that?  To win over your irrational "want-self" before it gets a chance to imagine the more rational future.  Because marketers know darn well that if your "want-self" sleeps on the decision, your "should-self" will wake up wondering why it thought it needed a set of kitchen knives that can cut through shoes and beer cans.

Here's a marketing insight: stop playing the either/or marketing game and develop products that satisfy both selves.  That's what the LiveStrong brand did; it appealed to the "want-self's" desire to enhance its identity, and the "should-self's" desire to help people. Ask yourself: how can I resolve the want/should conflict inherent in my customer's decision-making calculus?  How can I appeal to the impulsive, novelty-seeking, socially-obsessed customer who also wants to satisfy his much more rational, future-self? 

Posted July 16, 2007
Email this post

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/5144/20082726

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference T.S. Eliot on selves:

Comments

Hi, Tom. First of all, thanks for the reference of the article. I met Max Bazerman at Harvard, and my opinion is that his approach to decision making is interesting though it leaves some questions ananswered. I will explain why:

1. One of the bases of cognitive decision making is that there is one way of maximizing the value of decisions. If you don't achieve that maximum value you are acting irrationally. Indeed, one book of Bazerman is called Negotiating rationnally. I think this is a shortcoming. Saying something is irrational is saying nothing. If you take a decision, it has always a basis. There are always reasons that can explain a decision. For example, if you like a girl, you think she is beautiful, indeed the most beautiful girl you know. That option maximizes your value. But let's say you are caucasian and she is african american. All your family and friends are quite biased by racial matters, so you decide not to try to court her. Is this decision irrational? It is not irrational for there are reasons that explain it, poor reasons, but reasons after all. I mean that in a decision making process there are always different structures that play a role on the final decision making. Social conditions are one of those.

2. In the case of the many selves, I don't see there are big differences with what Spinoza stated about wishing things that are far in the past or close.

The should-selve is nothing but the ideal image of what we would like to be, but it is psychologically proven that the force of the ideal to impose its reasons on the will is directly proportional to the closeness of the subjectively felt probability of achieving it. You will live up to your ideal as long as you feel you are closer to it. Instead you will submit your will to the demands of what Lacan called the "pulsion", the repetitive consumption that provides inmediate pleasure if you think your are far from the ideal.

If I wanted to build a bridge between both structures of action, I would keep in mind what the ideals are that circulate among my clients and how far they are from being achieved and how I can build a business that can provide an answer to both the pulsion and the ideal fulfilling process. Obviously, these issues will have to be studied in a detailed manner in every different case.

Posted by: Felix Gerena | July 20, 2007 at 06:44 AM

Tom,

Thank you for your kind words over at David Armano's Logic+Emotion. Your post here reminded me of a short post I wrote a while back on "The 'Buy' Button" inside our brain. Link http://www.conversationagent.com/2006/11/pushing_the_buy.html

I used to work with child brain neurological development so that information spoke to me. Yet one more insight into the way we think and feel our way through life.

Posted by: Valeria Maltoni | July 26, 2007 at 06:37 PM

Thanks for the insights Felix. And I agree, nothing really new here.

And welcome Valeria. If you enjoy contemplating the brain and decision-making, check out my friend David Wolfe's blog at http://agelessmarketing.typepad.com/

Posted by: Tom Asacker | July 28, 2007 at 08:15 AM

Post a comment