Behavioral Portraits and the Design of Influential Experiences

“Remember… you’re unique… just like everybody else.” Although, it may be a little funny to say it that way, thank heavens for diversity!  For as much as we all have in common, our lives are more interesting because we’re not all the same. We’re interested in different things, we like different music, we’re attracted to different kinds of experiences, and we have unique emotional reactions to the situations we’re in.

Over the past 25 years, Customer Innovations has worked with a wide range of leading companies on the design of products, services, and experiences that influence customers.  In the course of that work, we’ve helped clients understand how their customers’ think, what their customers’ feel, and how and why customers behave the way they do.  That insight is used to design things that really matter to customers; that make a difference in their lives; that are intuitive easy to navigate; and that influence behaviors that make more money for our clients.

In this post, I will describe one of the key tools we use to do this work, called a Behavioral Portrait.   A Behavioral Portrait is rigorous approach to understanding the important ways that different people are attracted to, engage with, and respond to different kinds of experiences.  It also explains why people have widely varying and highly individual emotional and behavioral reactions to the same experiences.  The Behavioral Portrait tool is used to identify key behavioral differences between different customer personae (for more information see the following posts: Personae Driven Experience Design and What is the Difference Between Personae and Segmentation?).

The Behavioral Portrait measures preferences in five major areas that have a profound effect on the design strategy for influencing customers sensitive to these preferences.  These areas are:

  • Novelty Seeking. Describes the degree to which a person is attracted to, comfortable with, and exhilarated by new and unfamiliar experiences.  Novelty Seeking includes individual measurements for curiosity, impulsiveness, and extravagance.
  • Harm Avoidance. Describes the ways a person engages with ambiguity, risk, and unpredictable interactions with people they don’t know.  Harm Avoidance includes individual measurements for anticipatory worry, fear of uncertainty, and shyness with strangers.
  • Social Orientation. Describes a person’s preferences for social interactions and connections that influence their experiences and their lives. Social Orientation includes individual measures of introversion/extroversion, sentimentality, attachment, and dependence.
  • Decision Style. Describes a person’s preferred mode of perceiving and interpreting information and then making decisions based on that information.  Decision Style includes individual measurements of perceptual breadth, detailed versus conceptual interpretation, and analytic versus synthetic decision-making.
  • Behavioral Activation. Describes the unique ways a person initiates action, as well as, their degree of focus and persistence over time and in the face of obstacles. Behavioral Activation includes individual measures of energy, directedness, criticality, and single-mindedness.

Customers have different reactions to product, service, and experience design/  execution based on their preferences.  For example:

  • Higher harm avoidant customers tend to get stressed about elements of the experience that are unpredictable, confusing, or seem risky.  Higher harm avoidant customers also tend to react more negatively to any embedded element in the experience that might be perceived as a “violation of justice.”  For example, in a restaurant, they will react more negatively if people seated after them are served before them.
  • More socially oriented customers will go along with the behavior of others and will respond more strongly to social influence.  For example, more socially oriented customers will respond more positively to conservation programs that illustrate how their behavior compares with others (e.g., your electricity usage is 57% higher than the average for your neighborhood… or… the blue recycle bins are at the curb for every house on my street except for mine).
  • Higher novelty seeking customers will tend to be the early adopters of the latest and greatest new technologies. They’ll tend to engage more readily with interesting information about products and services.  They’ll tend to experiment with alternative medicine.  Our research also indicates that they are more attracted to and more likely to return frequently to restaurants that offer a diverse experience or change up their menu.

We’ve found that by understanding the behavioral preferences for different customer personae allows us to design products, services, and experiences that engage a wider range of customers.   You do this by allowing for personae-sensitive pathways.  For example, you provide a high-novelty seeking pathway that customers can opt into if they desire that.  However, you don’t force the low novelty-seeking customers through that pathway because it’s likely to make them feel uncomfortable.

Customer Innovations has developed several tools for measuring these behavioral preferences.  These tools include:

  • The full Behavioral Portrait tool – an 85-question instrument that takes about 12 minutes to complete and provides a reliable measure of an individual’s preferences across the 5 dimensions and 17 sub-dimensions described above.   This full Behavioral Portrait tool is used as part of in-depth personae development research.  It’s also used to provide rich feedback to individuals about their preferences.
  • A streamlined Behavioral Indicator tool – a 17-question set that can be embedded in a quantitative survey in order to correlate a respondent’s behavioral preferences to their response to other questions about their experience, their attitudes, or their preferences for new product or service concepts.

If you have an interest in learning more about the approach outlined above or any of the associated tools, please let us know.

Customer Experience: Beyond Better Sameness

So… we’re ten years into the Experience Economy and, over that time, there’s been an explosion of attention and investment in creating and improving customer experiences.  Even in this midst of very challenging economic environment, it’s hard to find a company that isn’t either actively involved in or planning customer experience investments.   As the economy now starts to show signs of turning around, we’ve observed an increasing level of interest in getting closer to customers.

Despite the attention paid to customer experience, with a few exceptions, people are no happier with their experiences as customers today then they were 10 years ago.  It’s as if the majority of customer experience efforts have produced little more than “better sameness.”   Better sameness is doing what you’ve always done… and what pretty much all your competitors do… a little bit better and faster; providing friendlier customer service, incrementally faster response times,  a more appealing retail environment, a more streamlined web catalog and ordering processes, etc…

The problem is, customers don’t perceive these incremental differences.  If you’re looking for a competitively relevant improvement, you need to do something that actually grabs the customer’s attention and positively influences how they feel and what they do.  These are the only things that actually improve your competitive differentiation.  Moving beyond better sameness demands doing something that isn’t just a difference in degree; it demands doing something that’s a difference in kind.

For examples:

Southwest and JetBlue represent a difference in kind experience compared to the other major US-based airlines;

Umpqua Bank represents a difference in kind financial experience is a sea of highly undifferentiated consumer banks;

umpqua_bank_logo

Wegmans, and Nugget Market is a difference in kind experience compared to most other major grocery retailers.

wegmans_food_markets nugget_markets

Unless what you’re after is better sameness…

…the most common tools for improving customers’ experiences are insufficient ! !


This includes:

Customer Satisfaction Measurement: Most companies ask customers for subjective evaluations of the company’s or product’s performance on the assumption that these expressed attitudes drive behavior, such as repeat purchases or positive word of mouth.  Unfortunately, decades of research into the correlation between evaluations and subsequent behavior show, although the link exists, it tends to be relatively weak.  Most customers who switch said they were satisfied.  Satisfaction is not an emotional state that powerfully drives behavior.  In order to get beyond better sameness, companies need to surface how the the experience influences customers’ perceptions and feelings about themselves not the company.

Voice of the Customer Insight: Listening to customers is critical for gaining insight into their lives, their goals, their needs, as well as, their frustrations, feelings, and behaviors.  However, as Henry Ford said, “If I asked customers what they wanted, we’d just have ended up with faster horses.”  In addition, what customers say they want is not often well-correlated with the deeper goals and subconscious factors that influence their behavior.  In many cases, what customers say they want is inconsistent with what ultimately drives their behavior… leading companies to invest in the wrong things.   Getting beyond better sameness involves engaging customers in fundamentally different kinds of conversations and getting beneath the surface of what they say to understand their deeper goals and the experiences they’re having.

Touchpoint Mapping and Service Level Improvements:  Touch point mapping is a highly company-centric activity.  Customers’ experiences do not just happen at your company’s touch points.  Customers follow an end-to-end set of activities that make sense to them given the goals and needs they’re trying to address.  You can’t understand and meaningfully improve the customers’ experience by just looking at and incrementally improving service levels at your touch points.  As customers go about their busy lives, they rarely pay attention to or act on any of the incremental service improvements at the existing touch points.  Getting beyond better sameness involves creating high contrast, signature experiences that get customers’ attention, influence how they feel, and shape the story about what you stand for.

Training and Motivating Front-line Service Employees:  Having engaged, well-trained, and motivated service employees is important.  However, a lack of training and motivation is rarely the real issue behind a poor experience.  The experience customers’ have with any organization is the product of behavior that emerges from a complex organizational system. The root of that behavior is a leadership, management, measurement, and cultural environment that reinforce “unwritten rules” inconsistent with employees doing the right thing for customers.  Focusing on training and motivating employees without surfacing and addressing the unwritten rules is like hacking at the leaves rather than striking at the root of the problem.  Getting beyond better sameness involves surfacing the unwritten rules and leadership and management beliefs and behavior that constrain the experience.

Creating positively and profitably influential experiences, that go beyond better sameness, requires a more fundamental shift in perspective.  You have to focus first on how customers HAVE experiences… not on how your organization or product DELIVERS experiences.  This includes being very clear on:   What are customers really trying to accomplish?  What influences the pathway they follow in pursuing those goals?  How do they actually construct preferences and make choices along that pathway?  How does the process make them feel about themselves?  How does the experience influence the relationships they care about?  In most cases, understanding how customers HAVE experiences, leads to a completely different set of strategies for creating experiences that really make a difference for customers and the business.

Customer Innovations follows a unique Cognitive-Affective-Behavioral Engineering approach that enables companies to design products, services, and experiences from the mental model of the experiencer… not just the mental model of the company.  Over the course of 25 years track we’ve helped leading organizations realize bottom line results of 10-25% in the form of increased retention, incremental sales, reduced acquisition costs, positive word of mouth, higher price realization, and improved productivity of customer-facing operations.

The Customer Innovations approach is driven by three toolsets deliberately structured to push companies beyond better sameness:

  • Behavioral Portraits – Generates deep insight that enables you to understand why customers behave as they do and identifies the most important behavioral drivers for specific groups of customers.
  • Trigger Analysis – Surfaces how people perceive, interpret and evaluate their experience and identifies the specific customer interactions that elicit positive or negative behavioral responses.
  • Influence Strategies – Designs the product, service, and experience interventions needed to influence customer behavior and creates the mechanism for consistent delivery of those changes.

Choice Architecture: Designing Experiences that Influence Customer Behavior

Well-designed experiences influence behavior.   A well-designed customer experience can influence customers to return for additional purchases, spend more money during each purchase, and tell lots of other potential customers about the experiences they’ve had with your business, etc…    In addition, a well-designed customer experience can influence customer behavior in a way that decreases the cost of service.   For example, the experience can be designed to increase the likelihood the customer will place an order or look for service on the web rather than calling the call center.  Additionally, I’m doing an increasing amount of work with energy companies who traditionally haven’t paid much attention to customer experience.  However, many of those companies are now focused on designing services and experiences that influence customers’ conservation and consumption behavior.

In order to keep things simple, classical economics has always assumed that people act based on a relatively stable set of preferences.  However, in real life, this is far from true.  People typically don’t know what they want until they see it… they construct their preferences and work through decisions as they understand their alternatives in context.  Subtle differences in the design of that context can have a significant impact on the decisions customers make.  In fact, research in the areas of cognitive psychology and behavioral economics has shown that…

…small and seemingly insignificant contextual details have a major impact on people’s behavior.

For Example….

…How Including an Irrelevant Choice Can Influence Customers to Spend More?

One of my favorite recent examples comes from MIT Professor Dan Ariely.  (See Dan’s great book:  Predictably Irrational)  Dan came across the following advertisement for The Economist:

The Economist Subscription Options

The Economist Subscription Options

The ad offered three subscription options:

  • Electronic Only: $59
  • Print Only: $125
  • Electronic and Print: $125

Which of these options do you think people would choose?  Why would anyone choose the “Print Only” option rather than opting for the additional “FREE!” electronic subscription?  It seems very unlikely!  In fact, Ariely conducted a test with 100 Sloan School students and only 16 chose “Electronic Only” while 84 chose the “Electronic and Print” option.  No one chose the “Print Only” option! On the surface, this option seems totally irrelevant.  Why would you even offer it?   It turns out that something very interesting happens when this seemingly irrelevant option is eliminated.  When another 100 students were offered only two choices: “Electronic Only” and “Electronic and Print”, 68 chose “Electronic Only” while only 32 chose “Electronic and Print.”   

The presence of an irrelevant option influenced a more than 250% increase in customers choosing the more expensive alternative!!!

Ariely observed the following, “Thinking is difficult and sometimes unpleasant.” Cues that allow us to establish the relative value of various offerings, then, reduce the cognitive load or effort required to think about your options.  What the Economist offered was a no-brainer; while we can’t be certain that the print subscription is worth more than twice the electronic version, the combination of the two was clearly worth more that the print version alone.

Choice Architecture:  Designing Choices that Influence Customer Behavior

Customers always have choices.  Choice architecture is the deliberate design of both the choices and the context for those choices in order to influence a person’s behavior.  The most obvious, classic examples of choice architecture come from the design of retail stores and merchandise displays, restaurant menus and buffet lines, print and online catalogues, etc…  I got my start in customer experience 25 years ago designing store layouts, merchandise displays, signage, and promotions that increased customer profitability.   I’ve learned that there are three components that need to be addressed: 1) the Choice Design (the customer options including the information provided about those options), 2) the Choice Pathways… the sequence or placement of those choices in time and space, and 3) the Choice Environment including peripheral cues like signage, lighting, other people in privacy/public space, etc…

Let’s look at a simple illustrative case.  A well-designed restaurant menu can be a great example of choice architecture based on sophisticated menu psychology.   It turns out that there is a predictable Visual Choice Pathway people typically follow when they read a menu.  For example, when most people open a four page menu, their eyes go first to the top of the page on the right side.  A smart menu designer generally places one of the highest profitability items at the top of this page.  Then, most people’s eyes will move down towards the center of that same page.  An even smart(er) menu designer will put the most expensive item towards the center of the page… not because they think the customer will order it… but because it will tend to prime the customers’ expectations about what they’re likely to spend.  In most cases, customers will then look at the items immediately above and below the most expensive item.  Those two items immediately above and below the most expensive item are deliberately two of the most compelling selections on the menu… and are the most commonly ordered items designed to generate the most profit on the menu.  There have been numerous examples of restaurants that have been able to significantly shift their average ticket size based on the design of the menu.  (See:  Reading Between the Lines: The Psychology of Menu Design or Basics of Menu Psychology).

A similar thing happens in high end retail boutiques.  The sight of those $295 jeans (I still can’t believe it!) subtly prime the customer to feel that $125 jeans are a bargain.   The $295 jeans sell a lot more $125 jeans.  We’ve seen the same sort of thing in jewelry stores, hospitality companies, and many other diverse situations.

Although these examples are intriguing, it’s important to recognize that examples of choice architecture are literally everywhere.   For example:

  • The design of an election ballot is an example of choice architecture. Experiments have shown, if a candidate is listed first on the ballot, he may well get a 4% increase in votes.
  • When a doctor describes alternative treatments available to a patient, it is also an example of choice architecture. Research has shown that if a doctor says 90% of patients are alive five years after a certain procedure, far more people opt for that procedure than if the doctor says 10% of patients are dead five years after having it.

Choice architecture applies just about any product or service company that offers alternatives to their customers.   This can be anything from insurance companies that offer coverage options, banks that offer different financing or deposit products, business services firms that propose alternative approaches to their clients, etc…

Unfortunately, most companies don’t think about choice architecture effectively… actually in most cases, they don’t think about it at all.  Often a company will just throw a bunch of alternatives at their customers and count on the customers to sort it out.  As a result, they miss significant opportunities to drive additional revenue and profit.  The most important starting place is to understand much clearer how customers make decisions and design an experience that fits the way customers think (i.e.,  Design from the Mental Model of the Customer).  See:  Optimizing the Most Critical Elements of the Customer Experience: Customer Choices and Cognitive Ergonomics: Framing and Priming the Customer Experience.

This is an area that is getting an increasing amount of academic attention. Richard Thaler, Director of the Center for Decision Research at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, and Cass R. Sunstein are authors of the excellent book, Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness (see also:  Designing Better Choices (LA Times Commentary) by Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein).  Thaler and Sunstein provide several interesting examples of how organizations can improve the decision making effectiveness for their customers and employees.  This includes:

  • If we want to increase savings by employees, employers might … enroll them automatically in a 401k plan, unless they specifically choose otherwise.
  • If we want to increase the supply of transplant organs in the United States, we could assume that people want to donate, rather than treating non-donation as the default.
  • If we want to increase charitable giving, we could give people the opportunity to join a plan, in which some percentage of their future wage increases are automatically given to charities.
  • If we want to respond to the recent problems in the credit markets, we could design disclosure policies that ensure consumers can see exactly what they are paying and make easy comparisons amongst their possible options.

Thaler and Sunstein describe three key elements that are important to designing a choice architecture that leads to better results for individuals and society:

  1. Default Design. Whatever you chose as the default option has the highest likelihood of being selected.  For example, the states that have organ donation as the default option when individuals get a drivers license have a much higher acceptance rate.  In fast food restaurants, highly profitable combo meals have become the default option… customers often need to explicitly ask for just the burger. Design architects need to pay careful attention to the default option.
  2. Providing Feedback. People respond to feedback about their decisions.  For example, in some markets electric utilities are starting to provide specially designed bulbs (called orbs) that glow red as homes use higher levels of energy.  These devices have influences customers consumption behavior and have proven to reduce energy use during peak periods by 40% in Southern California. (find reference and make sure I’m using the right terminology)
  3. Anticipating Errors. People make mistakes and it’s possible to design a choice architecture which anticipates these mistakes and thus leads to better outcomes.  Thaler and Sunstein have been promoting the example of “Save More Tomorrow” programs, which help employees set aside future pay hikes for retirement. “Save More Tomorrow is based on the same principle of expecting error,” he said. “We ask people if they want to commit now to saving more later, because all of us have more self-control in the future. The first company that adopted it tripled savings rates, and the program is now spreading.”  They also use the example of the Paris subway card, which allows users to insert it into an electronic turnstile in any of four ways to gain entrance to the subway.  Compared that to most payment kiosks in which there are 4 possible ways to insert your credit card… only one of which will work.

This is a topic with a lot of subtlety and power… if you’re looking for additional practical insights, feel free to post a reply or get in touch.  In summary…

If you offer customers options and you don’t think about choice architecture…

…you are almost certainly missing significant opportunities to improve profitability.

Designing for Customers’ Reactive, Deliberative, and Reflective Experiences

In a previous post, Optimizing the Most Critical Elements of the Customer Experience:  Customer Choices, I shared a set of frameworks for understanding the decision processes that customers use to make choices.  In this post, I will build on this foundation to further describe the way customer process their experiences and outline an overall strategy for designing experiences that fit with the way customers think and act.

How Do Customers’ Process Experiences and Make Decisions?

People generally have a gut feel for the situations they are in and what they want to do.  In these situations, customers’ may have already subconsciously made a provisional decision before they even begin to consciously and rationally consider tradeoffs and their ability to justify that decision.

The leading neuroscientist, Antonio Damasio, has made a series of surprising discoveries regarding the extent to which subconscious feelings are a precursor to rational thinking.  In an ingenious experiment, Damasio demonstrated that subconsciously generated physical changes in the body significantly precede a person’s deliberate and rational thinking. (See Iowa Gambling Task)

In this experiment, participants were given four decks of cards along with $2,000 in play money.  The participants were told that each time they chose a card they will either win or lose money.  The goal was to win as much as possible.  What the participants didn’t know is that the game was rigged.  Two of the decks were “high risk decks” with larger payouts and much larger losses.  The other two decks were “low risk decks” with smaller payouts but even smaller losses.  If participants consistently drew from the low risk decks, they would end up way ahead in the end.

As expected, participant’s initial card selection was random; they had no reason to favor any of the four decks.  On average, participants turned over approximately 50 cards before they began to draw more consistently from the low risk decks.  It took about 80 cards before the average participant could explain why he was drawing from these two decks.  However, the most interesting part of the experiment was that Damasio had attached electrodes to the participants’ palms.  These electrodes measured electrical conductance of the skin which correlates with nervousness.  Damasio found that, after only 10 cards, participants began to show signs of stress when reaching for a card from one of the high risk decks!   As signs of stress began to increase, the participants started to draw more frequently from the low risk decks.  The most interesting observation about these findings is that the participants began to have a preconscious feel for the game 40 cards before they consciously recognized what was happening and 70 cards before they could articulate the reasons why.

This experiment illustrates an experience that occurs on three different levels: 1) subconscious and automatic reactions, 2) deliberate planning and action, and 3) reflective thinking.  These three levels correspond with a model created by the brilliant cognitive scientist and artificial intelligence pioneer Marvin Minsky.  Along with Seymour Papert, Minksy has developed a modular theory of the mind (called “The Society of Mind“) that attempts to explain how intelligence can emerge from the interaction of large numbers of non-intelligent agents.  (See:  The Society of Mind and The Emotion Machine).  In essence, the mind can be modeled as the integration of a reactive layer (A-Brain), a deliberative layer (B-Brain), and a reflective layer (C-Brain).  This is illustrated as follows: 

A-B-C Brain

  • The A-Brain (Reactive Level) is the only part of the brain that receives signals directly from the external world. The A-Brain continuously predicts what will happen next and compares the signals it receives to these predictions. If there is a significant difference between the prediction and the actual signals, the A-Brain reacts by shifting attention, making muscles move, and/or stimulating systems that affect the person’s level of physical arousal. This A-Brain has no sense for what external events “mean.” It just responds with some combination of instinctual and learned reactions:
    • Instinctual reactions include automatic physical responses to sensations of temperature, hunger, thirst, pain, etc… It includes things like quickly removing your hand from a hot surface or focusing on finding food when you’re hungry.
    • Learned reactions can include everything from jumping out of the way of a moving car, to executing the sort of automatic behavioral scripts involved in driving a car, playing an instrument, making coffee in the morning. Learned reactions also include a wide range of subconscious associations with environmental clues… like the physical stress reaction you have when you hear someone you care about talk to you in “that tone of voice.”
  • The B-Brain (Deliberative Level) is connected in such a way that it can receive signals from the A-Brain and can respond by sending signals to the A-Brain. However, B has no direct connection to the external world. The signals that the B-Brain receives from the A-Brain are often focused on differences between the A-Brain’s predictions and what it sensed in the real world. The B-Brain then interprets what the A-Brain senses but mistakes these interpretations for the real thing. The B-Brain does not realize that what it perceives are not real objects in the external world but are merely events that occur in the A-Brain itself.” In addition, the B-Brain cannot directly perform any physical action on it’s own but it can influence the way A reacts. The B-Brain is responsible for our ability to achieve more complex goals. It applies all sorts of knowledge in order to create and carry out more elaborate plans. This knowledge is accumulated and generalized from personal experience and what we learn from others.
  • The C-Brain (Reflective Level) supervises the B-Brain while the B-Brain is dealing with the A-Brain world. Reflective thinking often begins when our usual strategies start to fail. The brain is able to reformulate and reframe its interpretation of the situation in a way that may lead to more creative and effective strategies. The C-Brain includes several levels of processing:
    • Reflection: The C-Brain reflects on it’s recollection of thoughts in the B-Brain. This includes predictions that turned out wrong, plans that encountered obstacles, and failures to access or apply the knowledge that was needed.
    • Self-Reflection: The C-Brain reflects not only on the thoughts of the B-Brain but on the self that had those thoughts. Self-reflection incorporates our model of our self with our model of the external world. For example, a person might recognize that, in the course of doing something, he’s stuck or confused. This may lead them him to recognize that: his plans have gone off track, he’s paying attention to too many details, or he’s pursuing a goal that could be revised. This self-reflection leads to a shift in perspective that allows people to work around obstacles.
    • Self-Conscious Reflection: The C-Brain also reflects on how well our actions match the values, ideals, taboos, and identify we apply to ourselves. In order to do that, the brain must have built models about the kinds of ideas and behavior one ought to have.

The interaction of these three brains creates something that Minsky calls the “Immanence Illusion.”  People have the illusion that their experience is unfolding in real-time because as they processes signals from the outside world, they are also recalling and creating a comprehensive array of predictions about what they will experience.  Whenever a real object appears before their eyes, its full description is instantly available.  “Our sense of momentary mental time is flawed; our vision-agencies begin arousing memories before their own work is fully done.”  Perceptions can evoke our memories so quickly that we can’t distinguish what we’ve seen or heard from what we’ve been led to recollect.

“We don’t see things as they are.  We see things as we are.”  Anais Nin

Implications for Experience Design

The implications for experience design are profound!  At one level, the clues that customers pick up from the experience must be roughly aligned to fit with the way their reactive, A-Brain processes the signals from the world.  At the same time, the most compelling experiences include a small number of clues that are deliberately designed to get the customers’ attention; to create an “orienting response” and shape their reflective, C-Brain.  The trick is to deliberately design an experience that naturally maps to customers’ automatic behavioral reactions while reserving a very small number of salient differences; things we call “Signature Experience Elements.”

The place to start is by understanding customers’ reactive, A-Brain processes.  One of the ways to do this is to map out their Automatic Behavioral Scripts.  These automatic behavioral scripts are like little subroutines that brains execute in a way that enables people to accomplish predictable tasks without thinking too much about them.   If you’re like most people, you have automatic behavioral scripts for tasks like:  driving to work, getting a cup of coffee, going to the bank to make a deposit, etc…  You can accomplish these tasks on “automatic pilot”… allowing you to pay attention to more pressing matters.  So, when you go to the bank branch to make a deposit at lunch, you can be thinking about your meetings this afternoon or what you’ll do this evening.

Unfortunately, most companies do exactly the opposite.  They interrupt their customers’ automatic behavioral scripts.  For example: frequent changes to a travel company’s online storefront interrupts the automatic behavioral scripts of their frequent travelers; or a bank that “greets” customers as they come in to the branch to make a deposit creating a valueless distraction from their customers’ “doing it on automatic pilot” activity and interrupting their train of thought on the six other things that were more of a priority.   In addition, if you’re going to do something different (get the customers’ attention; interrupt their train of thought; create an “orienting response”), you’d better make it good!  Most companies have a hard time being creative and focused on the small set of things that will actually make a difference to customers… and be consistent with a differentiated brand story.  So, as a result, the actual experience customers have with many companies can be summarized as varying degrees of being difficult to do business with.

Beyond fitting with the customers’ reactive, A-Brain processes, the next challenge is to create a small number of Signature Experience Elements that get the customers’ attention and are aligned to tell a story that works with how they make decisions (deliberative, B-Brain process) and consider the meaning of the experiences they have (reflective, C-Brain process).  For example, Whole Foods Market has a small number of signature experience elements that reinforce their “Whole Foods, Whole People, Whole Planet” positioning and are perceived by customers’ as a difference in kind.  These include:  organic food, artful food presentation, local growers, educational signage, novelty seeking selection, and premium pricing.

For the past several years, we’ve been working with clients on designing a small set of “Signature Experience Elements” that customers will perceive as a “difference in kind” and that fit with the overarching purpose of the organization.  Typically we design to no more than 5-7 Signature Elements that are aligned with the purpose or story the experience is trying to tell.  Another client example is a major jewelry store chain, whose brand story is “The Perfect Gift, Guaranteed.”  This company’s signature elements included:  a distinctive welcome, creative and consultative gift advice, coaching the customer on how to romance the gift, and a wow process for returns.  Each of these signature elements was designed to get the customers attention and contribute to them really internalizing the desired brand story.