300 customers at a car wash were split into two groups and given one of two different loyalty cards for a free wash upon completion: either one with space for 8 stamps or one for 10 (with 2 spaces pre-stamped).

Despite both cards requiring the same amount of effort, completion of the non-pre-stamped 8 card over a 9-month period was only 19% whereas the pre-stamped 10-card was 34%.

Get them started. Endow progress with a fraction of points, stars or a brand-specific measure. Make sure you endow enough to motivate use, aiming for between 10-25% of the total effort required for the first reward.  As well as helping with initial effort, make the reward itself substantial and meaningful to assist habit-forming.

Never endow at the end. The closer we are to a goal, the more we value our own internal efforts to complete it. Doing so on their behalf will devalue existing effort, perceived reward value and reduce loyalty strength.

Make it seamless. In Christmas 2013, 1 in 8 Americans got a Starbucks Gift Card. On redemption they were automatically endowed with progress in the form of loyalty stars, creating 1.5m new loyalty members as a result. How can you seamlessly channel gift customers through to your loyalty scheme?

47 subjects were given around 20 small, manual tasks to complete, one at a time. Experimenters randomly interrupted completion of half of these tasks. After, subjects were asked to recall as many tasks as possible.

There was a 90% higher recall of incomplete and interrupted tasks than those completed.

Make important task completion frictionless. If customers leave your site without finishing their order, make it effortlessly easy to get that completion feeling, such as allowing for completion with a single click, tap or swipe. 

Focus on completion’s emotional release. Providing reward incentives for task completion actually demotivates consumers. Instead, remind them not just of the product they’ve not yet bought, but of the feelings that this ‘purchase task’ will unlock. 

Make known campaigns incomplete and interactive. Greater familiarity with an advert increases consumer ability to complete an interrupted ad message. Active participation also boosts ad memory (Heller, 1956). So if your popular campaign’s reaching its end, consider a special second follow-up version that allows for active participation in completing the ad message. 

77 people were asked to choose between an entirely certain win of $30 and an uncertain 80% chance of winning $45.

78% of people opted for the significantly smaller, certain reward, despite the risk-adjusted payout being higher for the uncertain reward (0.8 * $45 = $36).

Certainty is valued highly.‍

What ways can your business create reassurance or guarantees that make consumers feel safe?  How can you use exclusive certainty to reward and foster a sense of status with your brand?

Stick to your promises!

Letting consumers down, even once, will trigger uncertainty in the quality perceptions of your brand. If making claims about being the best at something, don’t ever give consumers reason to question that and turn a selling point into an unsustainable headache.

Reframe uncertain offers to appear certain.‍

The uncertain frame here requires consumers to calculate proportional savings, but the certain frame removes this by showing certainty of a zero-priced third lemon.

67 people were asked if they prefer Coke, Pepsi or have no preference, split into taster groups and given 3 rounds of both in either unlabeled or labeled cups.

Taste preferences were split evenly when the drinks were unlabeled, but when labeled, they exhibited a strong taste preference for Coke, underlining the bias of brand attachment in consumer choice.

Test your assumptions. Decision-Makers often start new projects under judgements that are both unproven and erroneous. Bring key Decision-Makers together to list assumptions honestly. Use these as a basis for testing the validity of the idea in its simplest form. This avoids unnecessary costs further down the line. See the Lean Startup Model for further details.

Consider conflicting alternatives to strengthen your strategic decision-making process. Seek impartial feedback from trusted others who are less emotionally invested in the chosen route than you.

Repeatedly point out what you do well, especially with attention to small details around customer care or craftsmanship in process. Consumers will begin to notice and start to look for further evidence to support these newly-held beliefs.

Did you know of the fascinating study of winners of the popular gameshow The Weakest Link (Raghubir & Valenzuela, 2006)?

Researchers found that contestants randomly assigned to a central position in the semi-circle tv set design were 45% likely to win the show over those positioned at the edges, who were only 10% likely.

Multiple studies have shown a bias like this to prefer central options over ones at the extremes, in what's called "edge aversion".

There are two key mechanics underpinning Centre-Stage:

‍

1. Central gaze:

Eye-tracking research has shown us to have a tendency to give more attention naturally to what is directly in front of our eyes (Atalay, Bodur, and Rasolofoarison, 2012)

‍

2. The "Centre is Best" belief:

Where we feel that options placed in the middle are somehow better or more popular than those that them. This may be driven by how we use cues around group status, authority and attractiveness and how we then map these beliefs onto unrelated items so as to make the 'best' choice.

‍

Certainly, Weakest Link contestants are no less subject to this phenomenon than supermarket shoppers.

One wonders, if the tv set was creatively redesigned so that contestants would be stacked vertically, how their odds of winning might be a little better if they were up top, seen as gods looking down on the rest.

Did you know of the fascinating study of winners of the popular gameshow The Weakest Link (Raghubir & Valenzuela, 2006)?

Researchers found that contestants randomly assigned to a central position in the semi-circle tv set design were 45% likely to win the show over those positioned at the edges, who were only 10% likely.

Multiple studies have shown a bias like this to prefer central options over ones at the extremes, in what's called "edge aversion".

There are two key mechanics underpinning Centre-Stage:

‍

1. Central gaze:

Eye-tracking research has shown us to have a tendency to give more attention naturally to what is directly in front of our eyes (Atalay, Bodur, and Rasolofoarison, 2012)

‍

2. The "Centre is Best" belief:

Where we feel that options placed in the middle are somehow better or more popular than those that them. This may be driven by how we use cues around group status, authority and attractiveness and how we then map these beliefs onto unrelated items so as to make the 'best' choice.

‍

Certainly, Weakest Link contestants are no less subject to this phenomenon than supermarket shoppers.

One wonders, if the tv set was creatively redesigned so that contestants would be stacked vertically, how their odds of winning might be a little better if they were up top, seen as gods looking down on the rest.

155 people were shown a cocktail menu, with 5 options listed either vertically or horizontally. They were then asked which drink they'd prefer.

In great contrast with those with a vertical menu, those with the horizontal menu were far more likely to choose a drink in its centre (26.5%) than at its edges (10%).

Put what's 'best' in the centre

Whether it's a product on a shelf, a panelist on a tv show or a set of cocktails in a menu, what's horizontally surrounded by its peers is seen as most popular.

Those unfortunate enough to be placed at the edge are therefore seen as less attractive or riskier, unless actively stated otherwise (e.g. "Market Leader" / "most popular").

If you're designing for 1) new customers with limited knowledge or 2) for a range of products that don't vary too much from one another, reduce cognitive fatigue by presenting a small set of choices horizontally, helping them towards the middle option.

Consider adding in some Social Proof to boost effectiveness and guidance.

Orientation is everything

So, as a general rule, for horizontal lists, we'll more likely choose the middle option given its perceived popularity.

However, for a vertical list of options, the opposite is true: the first and last items are seen as more influential and are more likely to be chosen (See Serial Position Effect).

Put simply, we have an in-built judgement of good as up and bad as down and that, when it comes to making a choice, the higher, the better, quite frankly!

In both an online and physical context, orientation and order matter greatly.

In what orientation order are you currently presenting options to people?

Can this be improved by changing the orientation in some cases?

Use to nudge better choices

A recent project by Behavioural Insights Team and Nesta utilised Centre-Stage Effect to nudge smaller portion sizes by 22%.

Another study (Keller et al, 2015) showed that as well as portion sizes, Centre-Stage can, amongst other things, be used to nudge healthier product choices. Healthier choices increased from 13.3% to 36.7% by placing them centrally.

What better choices do you want to help people make? Presented horizontally, put these in the middle to increase their selection.

The gift-buyer booster

It was also found that the Centre-Stage Effect is stronger when consumers are making purchase decisions for others (e.g. buying a gift, or food for a dinner you’re hosting).

Are any products you're selling predominately bought as gifts? What orientation are you presenting them in? Help people choose the 'most gifted' product by placing it centrally in a horizontal set.