Currents:Book Review—Unraveling the Mysteries ofHuman Behavior and Consumer Choice GILL IAN RICE

Zaltman, Gerald, and Zaltman, Lindsay H. Mar-keting Metaphoria: What Deep Metaphors RevealAbout the Minds of Consumers. Harvard BusinessPress, 2008, 272 pp.ISBN: 978-1422121153 (hardcover) $29.95.

Ariely, Dan. Predictably Irrational. Harper, 2008,304 pp.ISBN: 978-0061353239 (hardcover) $25.95.

What do you eat for breakfast? Do you even havebreakfast? What’s your morning ritual? What hap-pens when for some reason you can’t follow that rit-ual? In Marketing Metaphoria, Gerald Zaltman andLindsay Zaltman relate the experience of a globalfoods product company as it developed a new break-fast beverage. The company’s marketers researchedthe role of food in consumers’ early morning ex-periences and expected much variation across con-sumers in North America, Asia, and Europe. Themarketers learned that morning rituals give con-sumers a sense of control and that control was thelens through which consumers viewed their morningfood consumption. When consumers can performtheir morning rituals, their day starts off right andthey feel a sense of empowerment. If something dis-rupts their morning rituals—if they sleep through thealarm, get stuck in a traffic jam, or if something elsehappens beyond their control—their day starts off“on the wrong foot” and they feel out of control therest of the day. The perception of the consumptionof different foods as adding to or subtracting from aperson’s control occurred regardless of nationality.Even though morning rituals differ from country tocountry, consumers worldwide were concerned withcontrol.

“Control” in such a situation is a “deep metaphor.”According to Zaltman and Zaltman, deepmetaphors are enduring ways of perceiving things,making sense of what we encounter and guidingour subsequent actions. They identify six other deepmetaphors: balance, transformation, journey, con-tainer, connection, and resource. Research through12,000 in-depth interviews in over 30 countries re-veals these seven metaphors repeatedly. However,Zaltman and Zaltman suggest that because we knowour group, society, or culture better than we under-stand others, we like to think ours is unique andso we overestimate how unique it really is. Thesebiases cause executives to concentrate too much onconsumer differences and to miss the commonali-ties among them. Deep metaphors, explain Zaltmanand Zaltman, are similar to the “human universals”explained by anthropologists, psychologists, and so-ciologists: the traits and behaviors found in nearlyall societies.

Executives cannot think deeply and imaginativelyabout consumers and develop innovative, unique,and winning strategies without having deep insightsfrom consumers. One study conducted by Zaltmanand Zaltman uncovered a deficit in deep, careful,imaginative thinking within companies. A repre-sentative comment from one of the study’s partici-pants was: “We do not have deep consumer insights.. . . Just because my managers consume the productsand watch the focus groups, they think they under-stand consumers. They do not. When I push them toexplain a consumer insight that excites them, theyoften cannot. They have not thought deeply aboutit. If it did not upset me so much, I might feel sorryfor them.”

c© 2009 Wiley Per iodicals , Inc .Publ ished onl ine in Wi ley InterScience (www.interscience.wi ley .com)

Global Business and Organizat ional Excel lence • DOI : 10.1002/ joe .20252 • January/February 2009 67

A problem is that most survey research involves ask-ing consumers to rate their level of agreement with astatement or to say how important they think some-thing, perhaps an attribute, is. The data obtainedshow only opinions about what managers and re-searchers deem important, but these might not bethe most relevant drivers of consumer behavior. Inthis kind of research, consumers respond to ideasimposed on them, not generated by them. Zaltmanand Zaltman are ardent advocates of two-hour, in-depth interviews, often using picture collages col-lected, developed, and explained by the intervieweesthemselves. Marketing Metaphoria includes numer-ous such collages, along with descriptions of howthe various deep metaphors expressed within themrepresent consumer behaviors across cultures.

A study of shopping experiences done for Procter& Gamble in Japan, France, and the United Statesshowed that consumers in all three countries per-ceived shopping as a transformational journey, in-volving numerous themes, including work and play.Two deep metaphors, transformation and journey,were uncovered. With respect to the work aspectof the shopping journey, a Japanese consumer men-tioned having a “depressed, blue feeling so that Idon’t want to do anything. I don’t ever want tosee the products themselves much less go out andget them.” A French consumer said, “I am neithervery happy nor very worried. It’s just what youhave to do; it’s a path every mother with a fam-ily has to travel. I think, ‘Okay, let’s go and do theshopping and get it over with.”’ A U.S. consumernoted, “I dread the trip to the supermarket becauseit is a means to an end. It is something we have tohave, but not something I want to have. Because Ibuy the same thing every week, it is a very mun-dane and routine outing.” These and other inter-viewees in the study explained other, more positivedimensions of the shopping journey, stressing a play-ful excursion and an exciting exploration. Zaltmanand Zaltman highlight that a deep metaphor mayhave multiple themes, often involving a bright and adark side.

Managers can leverage the universality of deepmetaphors in the development of strategies. Under-standing the rich functioning of consumers’ uncon-scious minds can help in this process, but Zaltmanand Zaltman emphasize that managers must engagein disciplined and imaginative thinking, or what theyterm workable wondering. They provide ideas forhow managers can improve in this regard. For ex-ample, remember that data alone are just that: data.Data are not solutions, insights, or strategies. Thelatter are developed by managers who exercise, notjust use, their imaginations. How might managersof auto-related products and services imagine strate-gies based on the following information? Zaltmanand Zaltman report a study about keeping car exte-riors clean. Many drivers expressed transformationthemes (suggesting the deep metaphor “transforma-tion” is at play here), despite knowing that no ma-terial transformation had occurred beyond the car’sappearance: “Whenever I clean my car, it runs bet-ter and even faster. I know that makes no senseand sounds silly. Cleanliness cannot make a differ-ence. But it really does. I can feel it.” Is this an irra-tional thought? How many of us might experiencethis same feeling?

Dan Ariely believes we are all indeed irrational, butpredictably so. In Predictably Irrational, his obser-vations and conclusions provide a host of insightsthat can be used by executives, who, as Zaltman andZaltman suggest, engage in “workable wondering”or deep thought. There is much to wonder about inPredictably Irrational. Ariely reports experimentalfindings relevant to human resource management aswell as to marketing.

How often do people buy two of a product that theywouldn’t normally have chosen in the first place,just to get the third one free? Ariely provides thefollowing scenario. Imagine going to a sports storeto buy a pair of white socks, the sort with a cush-ioned heel and a gold toe. Fifteen minutes later, youleave the store, not with the socks you intended tobuy, but a cheaper pair that you don’t like (without

68 January/February 2009 Global Business and Organizat ional Excel lenceDOI : 10.1002/ joe

a cushioned heel and a gold toe), but that came in apackage with a free pair. This means you gave up abetter deal (the superior socks) and took somethingthat was not what you preferred, just because youwere enticed by “free.” Economic theory assumeswe are rational and that we are capable of mak-ing the right decisions for ourselves. Ariely studiesbehavioral economics, a discipline that draws onboth psychology and economics. The experimentshe and his colleagues conduct imply that we are farless rational than economic theory assumes. At thesame time, these irrational behaviors are not ran-dom but follow a systematic, predictable pattern.Knowledge of how and why can be very useful toexecutives. Based on the socks scenario, as well asthe results of experiments in which consumers chosebetween Lindt truffles and Hershey’s kisses, Arielyargues that most transactions have an upside and adownside, but when something is free, we forget thedownside. We are so excited to get something freethat we perceive it as being more valuable than it re-ally is. If we have a choice between something thatis free and something that is not, there is the risk ofloss, of having made a poor decision if we choosethe item that is not free. Choosing the free item isaccompanied by no visible possibility of loss. Hu-mans, Ariely reminds us, are intrinsically afraid ofloss. Amazon.com started taking advantage of thisphenomenon when it offered free shipping for ordersover $25. How many of us have wanted one partic-ular book but ordered another, which we may nothave wanted, increasing our order total from $17.95to, say, $33.90, just to get free shipping, and avoida $4.95 shipping charge? The free shipping promo-tion provided good results for Amazon.com in gen-eral, but in France, strangely, there was no increasein sales. Ariely explains why. The French divisiondid not offer free shipping on orders over a certainamount, but priced shipping for those orders at anextremely low price—one franc (at that time, about20 cents). This is not very different from free. WhenAmazon changed the promotion in France to includefree shipping, France joined all other countries in adramatic sales increase. Although shipping for one

franc was a real bargain, it was virtually ignored,whereas “free” caused an enthusiastic response.

Marketers often use the offer of “trial ownership”and know that it works well to tempt consumers.For example, if we have a basic cable television pack-age, we might be lured into a “digital gold package”by a special “trial” rate (only $59 per month in-stead of the usual $89). We can always go back tobasic cable. But once we try the gold package, weclaim ownership of it, incorporating ownership ofit into our view of the world and ourselves, andwe rapidly rationalize away the additional price.Ariely provides an intriguing three-part explanation.First, we become instantly attached to what we own.And the more effort we put into obtaining owner-ship, the more attached we are. Ariely calls this the“IKEA effect”—pride of ownership is inversely pro-portional to the ease with which one assembles thefurniture. Second, we focus on what we may lose,rather than what we may gain. Why do we so of-ten refuse to sell our cherished clutter, and if some-body offers to buy it, we attach an exorbitant pricetag? Third, we assume that other people will see thetransaction from our perspective and will appreci-ate how the sunlight filters in through the kitchenwindows of the house we are trying to sell; unfortu-nately, the prospective buyer is more likely to noticethe back mold in the corner.

In addition to being attached to what we alreadyown, we like to keep our options open. We buycomputer systems and insurance policies with allthe “bells and whistles,” just in case we might havea need for the extra features in the future. This be-havior is irrational, proposes Ariely, because we giveup something for the ability to have those options.In the case of the computer system, we are payingfor features we don’t need and will never use. Inboth our personal and professional lives, this be-havior can mean that “in running back and forthamong the things that might be important, we forgetto spend enough time on what really is important.”To support his argument, Ariely provides details of

Global Business and Organizat ional Excel lence January/February 2009 69DOI : 10.1002/ joe

a computer game experiment. He also quotes ErichFromm, who wrote in 1941 that in a modern democ-racy, people are beset not by a lack of opportunity,but by a dizzying abundance of it. In The Paradox ofChoice, Barry Schwartz (2004) shows how the op-portunity to choose can lead to paralysis of decisionmaking. On this point, Ariely includes a simple butevocative story written by the French logician andphilosopher Buridian, who commented on Aristo-tle’s theory of action: “a hungry donkey approachesa barn one day looking for hay and discovers twohaystacks of identical size at the opposite sides of thebarn. The donkey stands in the middle of the barnbetween the two haystacks, not knowing which toselect. Hours go by, but he still can’t make up hismind. Unable to decide, the donkey eventually diesof starvation.” Company executives might want toponder how they can simplify choices for consumersand employees.

We live in two worlds: the social world and themarket world, each with its own behavioral norms.Ariely notes how even small gifts keep us in therealm of the social exchange world and away frommarket norms. We behave differently in each realm.In a market (or “money”) situation, people behavedifferently; experiments detailed in Predictably Irra-tional show that money does not have to be present,merely mentioned. People in market situations aremore selfish and self-reliant. In Israel, a day carecenter wanted to determine whether imposing a fineon parents who arrived late to pick up their chil-dren would be a useful deterrent. Ariel relates thatbefore the fine was introduced, the teachers and par-ents had a social contract, with social norms aboutbeing late. If parents were late—and they occasion-ally were—they felt guilty about it, and their guiltencouraged them to be more prompt about pickingup their children in the future. Once the fine wasimposed, the day care center had inadvertently re-placed the social norms with market norms. Nowthat the parents were paying for their lateness, theythought of the situation in terms of market norms:because they were being fined, they had the option

whether or not to be late, and they often chose to belate. This was not what the day care center intended!

The distinction between market norms and socialnorms is important in employee relationships. So-cial norms should be cultivated because they canbuild loyalty in the workplace and make employ-ees ready to be flexible, concerned, and willing toput in extra effort for special circumstances. Shouldmanagement give an employee a gift worth $1,000or $1,000 in cash? Most employees would say theyprefer cash over a gift. The gift has its value, but, asAriely opines, it is sometimes not well understood.The gift can provide a boost to the social relationshipbetween the employer and the employee, and by do-ing so provide long-term benefits to everyone. Whowill work harder, show more loyalty, and truly loveher work more: the person getting $1,000 in cash orthe person getting a personal gift? Recently, a salesexecutive I know was about to leave for a long-planned weekend away with his wife to celebratea special anniversary. Just before they were due toleave, his car broke down. His employer gave himthe use of his own BMW M3 vehicle for the trip. Thisgesture was more meaningful than offering to payfor a rental car for the executive and is an exampleof behavior that can improve the workplace socialrelationship. Ariely raises concerns about changesin medical coverage at many U.S. companies, whichare among the best ways a company can express itsside of the social exchange.

As social norms give way to market norms, this givesrise to an increase in breaches of ethical behavior.In 2000, according to the Transparency Interna-tional Corruptions Index, the U.S ranked fourteenthin the world in terms of integrity. In 2002, Arielyobserves, following a series of corporate scandals,the United States had slipped to twentieth. Arielyand his colleagues have conducted several experi-ments that show clearly, however, that signing asimple statement about ethics or even recalling theTen Commandments (and none of the experimentalparticipants could recall the entire ten) actually

70 January/February 2009 Global Business and Organizat ional Excel lenceDOI : 10.1002/ joe

stopped cheating on various tasks. This research hasclear implications for the workplace.

The experiments reported by Ariel refute the as-sumption that we are all fundamentally rational.The topics include how much consumers are will-ing to pay in various situations, why humans tendto procrastinate, how expectations can influence ourenjoyment, and why we are more restrained in cheat-ing with money than we are with nonmonetary itemslike frequent flyer miles. Behavioral economists likeAriely are convinced that, in their decision making,people are susceptible to irrelevant influences fromtheir immediate environment (called “context ef-fects”), irrelevant emotions, short-sightedness, andother forms of irrationality. These mistakes can pro-vide opportunities for improvement. If we all makesystematic mistakes in our decisions, then why notdevelop new strategies, tools, and methods to helpus make better decisions and improve our lives?

This is where the messages of Marketing Metaphoriaand Predictably Irrational converge. Both are con-cerned with understanding people and their ways ofseeing the world. People are trapped within theirperspectives. Ariely suggests that the question ofwhy Americans are not saving enough for retirementis meaningless from the perspective of standard eco-nomics. Although there might be many and variedreasons why we are not saving for retirement from

the economic perspective, we are saving exactly theright amount in accordance with our preferences.The perspective of behavioral economics is differ-ent. It does not assume that people are rational. Theidea that we are not saving enough is perfectly rea-sonable. People procrastinate. People find it difficultto comprehend the real cost of not saving as wellas the benefits of saving. It is easy to create con-sumption habits and hard to give them up. Hereis an opportunity to approach the matter from thepoint of view of Zaltman and Zaltman. What deepmetaphors might be associated with the behavior ofsaving for retirement? How might workable won-dering about these metaphors lead to a competitivestrategy that can help consumers save for a better re-tirement, at the same time as benefiting the financialservices company?

Reference

Schwartz, B. (2004). The paradox of choice. New York: Ecco.

Gillian Rice teaches marketing and marketing research atArizona State University. She was a Fulbright Senior Scholarat the University of Bahrain in 1996–1997 and is profes-sor emeritus at the Thunderbird School of Global Manage-ment. She holds a PhD from the University of Bradford. Dr.Rice’s research interests include environmentally related con-sumer behavior, the fair trade movement, and models of em-ployee creativity and organizational innovation. She can becontacted at Gillian.Rice@asu.edu.

Global Business and Organizat ional Excel lence January/February 2009 71DOI : 10.1002/ joe