Too many choices
I recently picked up Malcolm Gladwell’s book Blink again to refresh my memory about a certain topic. (If you haven’t read Blink yet, I highly recommend it.) Leafing though the pages, I noticed a story about researcher Sheena Iyengar, who conducted an experiment to see how customers would react to having more choices.
Iyengar set up a tasting booth in a grocery store with a variety of gourmet jams. Sometimes the booth had six jams, and other times it had 24. As Gladwell says, “Conventional economic wisdom, of course, says that the more choices consumers have, the more likely they are to buy, because it is easier for consumers to find the jam that perfectly fits their needs. But Iyengar found the opposite to be true. Thirty percent of those who stopped by the six-choice booth ended up buying some jam, while only three percent of those who stopped by the bigger booth bought anything.”
As Gladwell concludes, too many choices can actually hinder the decision to buy.
How does this bit of information fit in with the trend toward unbundling association services? Are people more likely to make a decision when offered one choice (“Join now and be a member of our association!”) or many (“Join now and choose among these 30 association benefits!”). People want personalized service, but can things get too personalized, too fragmented, so that potential members feel overwhelmed rather than welcomed?
I would argue that the best way to square this circle is to look at your menu of benefits and pare it down. If you’re offering so many choices that people could feel overwhelmed, I bet some of those options aren’t directly related to your core purpose. Being all things to all people is not only impossible—it could even prevent new members from coming on board.
| | Permalink |
Comments
You're definitely on to something. I actually brought up this exact study in the context of ASAE's Research in Action project where we discussed Mapping the Future of Your Association's eight super trends in an online forum from January to April of this year. Notice that Iyengar used six varieties for the simple group of jams. Other research indicates that the human mind can only process six to eight different concepts at once. So perhaps eight is the upper limit of choices we offer to members and prospects?
Posted by: Ben | November 27, 2006 9:33 PM
That's an interesting way to look at it, Ben! (And I'm still regretting not being able to attend those super trend discussions.) I think eight is a good number--especially if you think in terms of "How many benefits would a typical member be able to list if you stopped him or her in the street and asked about the benefits of belonging to your association?"
I'm sure most associations could come up with a dozen or more benefits that they currently offer, all of which are good things. But if an association offered eight mission-based benefits that really made a significant difference in the careers or businesses of members, I think potential members would be beating down their door to join.
Posted by: Lisa Junker | November 28, 2006 7:43 AM
Another book, The Paradox of Choice, addresses this topic in great detail.
Posted by: Jeffrey Cufaude | November 28, 2006 12:49 PM
Many moons ago now it seems, I was the creative director at an advertising agency. I worked with five graphic designers, and when it was time to pitch a new idea to a client or try to snag a new client with some fresh ideas, they all wanted their piece to be one of the options. Over the years, I tried many different permutations and combinations of numbers, but the one that always got us the most work was two choices, which really surprised me. Three was even too much some times. When a client was presented with two choices, he or she pretty much liked one more than the other and the decision was easier on their end.
Posted by: Shawn Lea | December 6, 2006 11:01 AM