|
This is what
consumer behavior researcher Kare Anderson discovered in July 2001
as she conducted her "bonbon experiment" at two Northern
California multis. Lines at these cinemas--the CineArts triplex
in Sausalito and the five-screen Rafael Film Center in San Rafael--were descended upon by young women wearing cinema uniforms
and brandishing complimentary chocolate-and-ice-cream treats.
Patrons in line for an early-evening show received the treats.
Patrons at the next show did not. The people who received the free
bonbons spent a whopping 26 percent more on concessions. On another
day, the timing was reversed. Those in line for the later show received
the free bonbons, those waiting for the early show got none. This
time concession sales for the later show were 25.5 percent higher.
In Focus spoke to Anderson--a former Wall Street Journal
reporter and an Emmy-winning TV commentator who now publishes the
"Say It Better" online magazine--about the details of
her experiments, their ramifications, and other aspects of consumer
psychology and behavior.
Couldn't the results of these experiments
revolutionize the way movie houses do business?
They could. But, you know, the biggest barrier is that people have
never done it that way. My experience has always been until the
first one does it the others are largely unlikely to change how
they do business.
Were the bonbons given to people
in line at the concession counter?
No, they were in line outside.
At the box office?
Yeah. Your goal is to get them at the time when they are most bored
or restless. Once they're inside they're moving and
the momentum turns toward getting into the auditorium.
So you were giving them to people
waiting in line to buy tickets?
We did it both with people who had their tickets waiting to get
in, because that's one line, and people who didn't have
their tickets. The sooner you do it the better. Because then they've
got the taste in their mouth and they're waiting, they want
it, they want it right now. So, in other words, if I'm waiting
to buy my tickets, we had a higher response rate than if I'd
already bought my tickets.
Did the people handing out the bonbons
identify themselves as employees of the theatre?
They did by inference; they were wearing those shirts that have
the cinema company's logo embroidered on them. See, our goal is
to say as little as possible because even tone and style can affect
it. Some people are naturally warmer than others. They hold out
a tray and say, "Would you like one free bonbon-the kind you
can find inside?" We didn't want to say "sell"
because we didn't want to sound coercive.
So one shouldn't say "sell." Is it OK to say "buy?"
Neither "buy" nor "sell" because that's like
I'm trying to get you to do it, and there's an initial resistance
to that.
Do you think it would have made
a difference if the person handing out the bonbons was identified
as a representative of, say, the bonbon company instead of the theatre
company?
I don't know. I think not. I think it's about knowing it's safe.
If they were not identified as relating to the theatre, I believe
in today's world there will be hesitation about taking something
to eat. But as long as you are identified as someone who is "legitimate,"
it's safe.
There are other variables. The more attractive I find the person
handing out the treat, the more I will like it. We've done
several studies that support this, but we're not the only
ones.
We also notice it helps if you can smell the food as well as see
it. Bonbons you can't smell, so we were actually experimenting
with freezing them and then heating them up lightly just before
we took them out so you had that wafting smell of chocolate. My
perception is you want multiple positive multi-sensory cues. For
example, the sense of sight and smell is a multiplier; it's
not just double.
I'm going to try a similar experiment soon where one can
smell the food before one sees it, because that pulls me, makes
me curious. And if people are curious about something and their
curiosity is not satisfied, I believe the desire increases.
You mention the level of attractiveness
of those handing out samples. Did you pull your bonbon dispensers
from the theatre staff or . . . ?
In this case we didn't have "good-looking," they
just weren't ugly. I actually work with Dominican College,
which is a private college in [Northern California's] Marin
County, and I teach a course on marketing and another one on communications.
So I asked people in the class who were about the right height.
They're just well-groomed women and they were young. My instinct
is that when someone looks pleasant to you--that is, they're
smiling, not broadly, but they have a warm face--you tend
to like what happens more because you feel better about yourself.
Did you say something about height?
Yeah, I believe that slightly shorter would be better, and I believe
opposite-sex attractive will increase your chances for a positive
response.
Interesting. Are shorter men preferable
as well?
I don't know. In fact I don't know by the research where I could
even extrapolate. Because it's a 2-sided thing by the way. Shorter
men, in some ways, are safer for women; taller men may be more attractive.
So, there's a 2-level thing that will happen. There's also research
that suggests I want someone who looks more masculine at certain
times of the month.
Back to top
|
You say you only used women?
Well in this case because there are only women in that class. It
wasn't a choice, it was they were the easiest to get and they
would take instructions. We practiced on a tape, the modulation
of their voice, because I wanted it relatively warm but not hyper-friendly.
Was there any thinking about having
a mix of men and women handing out the bonbons?
Cross-sex works better then same-sex, we find, as long as they're
medium to very attractive. Otherwise there's too many other
variables.
How many people did you actually
have handing out the bonbons?
We used 12, but we used them in rotation because we wanted them
to come out slowly. We wanted the moviegoers to see the [bonbon
dispensers] coming out. But we've also done it with just one.
Did you say 12?
Yes.
That's a lot of people.
It is, but we had them floating. In other words, they came out and
you would only see two at a time and you'd see them coming.
Motion draws attention and heightens emotion.
Where did you get the idea to do
the experiment?
I was standing in line and I just had finished some research where
the younger the group of people, the shorter the attention spans,
the less likely they were to want to wait. I thought, "Well,
how can you appeal to them then? Because as restless as people are
when they have to wait, give them something else and they're
more likely to think about it. And so where are the places to wait?"
At which movie theatres did you
conduct the experiment?
There were two; they were in the county of Marin, which is my county.
One is in the town of Sausalito and one is in the town of San Rafael.
We covered over 300 people in each theatre. Sausalito is real upscale.
San Rafael has a whole mixture; it has a lot of Vietnamese, Hispanic,
from several parts of Latin America, as well as WASPs. That's
why I wanted San Rafael, because of the high Hispanic content. Many
of them don't have nearly the same income as others but a
lot stronger family bonds.
Was there a lot of difference in
the results between the two theatres?
There wasn't, and that startled me.
Was there any skepticism on the
part of theatre management over the viability of all this?
They didn't see any downside in it, and they became really
interested. They said, "You're not going to charge us
for doing this?" I told them I was doing it because I wanted
to study it for my own purposes; it wasn't research for other
people. So I tried to anticipate the questions I would ask if I
were in their shoes, about things that might cause some concern.
Whenever I do my research, I want people to feel comfortable, so
that when I come back they'll be open to having a follow-up.
Have you conducted other experiments
in movie theatres?
No, but if there is a cinema owner who would like to work with me.
I have about four variations I'd like to try relative to the
experience inside a theatre.
The cinemas at which you tried
the free bonbons, do they continue at all to hand them out?
They've done it erratically; they've done it sometimes
I gather. I haven't gone back there much to ask, but I've
seen it twice. One would need to create a system to set it up on
a regular basis, and in my experience few people think systematically.
I mean I could sit down and come up with a system for them that
would allow them to use existing staff just by rotating them differently.
In my experience, institutions--even in enlightened self-interest--rarely make major changes until a competitor does. And I'll
bet if I worked with one of the theatres in the same geographical
area on how to make it systematic--not needing more staff,
but changing the tasks and the order in which they did them--then the other theatres would adopt it in that market area.
So the lack of a system kept these
theatres from continuing with the bonbons?
I think they went back to business as usual. It faded from their
minds.
So people, even when you approach
them with proven data, are still reticent to change?
They're not reticent, that's the wrong thing. They go
about doing business. Everybody has a job to do. I believe people
don't change the way they do business.
Well it happens slowly. I guess
you know that you can get cappuccino in theatres where you couldn't
15 years ago.
True, but I don't think it changes slowly. Once cappuccinos were
offered in one theatre I bet a lot of competing theatres began offering
it too. Researchers who have been studying this for years say that
the biggest motivation is when your competition does it, even if
they don't do it well.
Is there another catalyst? Is it
enough that a competitor simply does something new, or do they have
to see some sort of special success with it?
No, I think they have to see it happen elsewhere and then they get
the idea. "If they've done it, oh, I can do it"
or "I can do it better." It can't work poorly,
it just has to work somewhat. And they have to see it with someone
near them, someone they feel is on their turf.
Do you think theatre owners would
do well to hand out bonbons all day, every day?
They should try different times. I definitely think the early evening,
when the movies start around 7 p.m., would be good because some
don't eat or eat enough then. But [exhibitors] should do it for
two weeks, to see if it works better at some times than others.
You get immediate feedback on cash. Figure out the pattern that
works for you.
Back to top
|
So
you encourage them to experiment?
Oh yeah. For example, who knows if people's attitudes aren't
different when it's really cold? What snacks for this time
of day, and for this time of year, would work? During the summer
certain kinds of snacks are going to be more desired than others,
and they can tell that from what they buy inside.
Bonbons, being chocolate-covered
ice cream, obviously may not work as well in winter. What's
your instinct about other types of free snacks one might hand out?
This guy at the Food Marketing Institute, he and I are going to
be doing a study about saltiness and men, and we think that there
are certain times when men like salty snacks much more than women,
and we don't know who initiates the buying. If a woman's
on a date, a man may take the initiative where a woman may be more
reticent.
I would pick the snacks that people might otherwise want to be
having for that time of year and time and place. If it's really
cold out, they could warm up mini slices of something that's
warm that they can buy inside. It all depends on what they are offering
inside.
Perhaps something that is baked locally nearby, so that it's
low-cost. [Exhibitors] could do partnerships with other businesses;
give away mini-slices and offer larger versions inside. Or they
can pick something with a longer shelf life.
The whole goal in my mind is to get something that people don't
mind sitting in a chair and eating, or walking with and taking it
to their car. I would set up criteria for ideal snacks, because
I want them to buy it in the theatre and to eat on the way home
and to eat later on, because I want them to have three reasons to
buy.
When you talk about "slices,"
it makes me think of pie or cake.
Oh no, not pie or cake, that would be messy. Something that's
pre-sliced by the food provider. I want to keep this as simple as
possible. People are baking cookie bars, bars that hold together
well without crumbling.
One assumes exhibitors utilizing
local bakeries should seek out bulk discounts?
Just as any other retailer would. If I was a theatre owner I'd
be going back to the bakery and saying, "Be my partner in
experimenting, so we both make more money."
But I'd want to try different kinds of snacks. I'd
want to see salty, sweet, even offer both as samples. I'm
not a bakery expert, so I'd ask, "What are some of the
most popular salty-type snacks you have? What are some that hold
together well so they won't spill if they choose to take them
in the car." In other words, share with my partner, the baker,
or candy-maker, or whatever it is.
How big a sample can you hand out
without ruining a moviegoer's appetite?
It depends on the nature of what it is you're eating, but
we want to have small samples.
Just big enough to leave them wanting?
It's called a sample; it's a taste of it. "Get
a taste of this, to see if you like it, there's more inside."
See, that's friendly. Saying "You might want to buy
this when you get inside," that's forceful. I want it
friendly, not forceful. We say taste, so if you're getting
it free you can't be betrayed. If they say "Can I have
another?" "Yes, there's more inside." You
stay warm but you play fair and say "I want to make sure I
have enough for everybody."
Do you have any other ideas that
would be applicable for movie theatre owners, other things they
can do to increase profits?
You can do an "exposures audit," which means that you
visualize the set of exposures customers have to your theatre: literally
from first line of sight, what do they see? Usually what they see
is the theatre marquee of what's showing, but they don't
see anything about a luscious snack to have inside, they don't
see any pictures of it. So you don't get people to start salivating
soon enough. Why not have it be an elegant picture that matches
the marquee and the rest of what you do. The quality of the pictures
of the food should be relative to what people are seeing in other
venues.
What constitutes a good picture
of food? Should it be larger, or more colorful?
Something photographic. Look at all the food displays in most of
the good food magazines now. The standard of food photography is
stunning, and relatively easy to obtain. Have a picture taken by
someone who takes pictures of food. An ad agency here in San Francisco
has a whole section of food experts; all they do is food photography.
It's not, ironically, that expensive for something you want
to have at eye-level when people are walking by, and it can show
all your products in one luscious display.
Most of the stuff is rather low when you go into the theatre to
buy it. So why not have something down the center. Give them more
ways they can see it easily. Glancing up, glancing over. Also, photos
of food behind the person taking tickets.
Multiply the number of things I see, smell, taste or touch, so
if I'm able to taste it, and if I'm able to see it at
eye level when I'm walking in, if I see it as I'm approaching,
if I see it as I'm driving by--even if I'm not
going to the theatre--that means it's going to be more
in my mind.
Back to top
Kare Anderson is the founder of the Say It Better
Center, located in Sausalito, CA. She can be reached via email at
kare@sayitbetter.com.
|
