••• family research
Fueling family FOMO?
Images in ads, social media can stoke baby fever
What exactly motivates people to have children? Over time, researchers have attributed it to reasons like biological drive, social pressures and emotional fulfillment. But according to a recent study from the UBC Sauder School of Business, advertising and social media should be added to that list. The study, “Baby fever: Situational cues shift the desire to have children via empathic emotions,” was published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology.
The research team found that viewing positive parent-child images, like going to the park, having dinner, drawing, taking fun trips or playing with their children, reliably boosted young adults’ desire for their own little bundle of joy. This response is mostly driven by people’s empathic emotions.
Notably, viewing negative parent-child images, like children drawing on walls, crying, fighting with siblings or having a meltdown on an airplane, did not have much of an effect on people’s desire to have children.
“Advertising and social media play an important role in how we view the world. In general, what we see on Instagram and Facebook are positive portrayals of parenthood, with #blessed and #bestkidsever. How often do we see parents post #mykidsareterrible?” says study co-author and UBC Sauder Associate Professor Lisa Cavanaugh. “We wanted to see if, by simply showing pictures of kids in advertising, we could affect the desire to have children.”
In a series of four studies, researchers observed a total group of 1,093 young adults between the ages of 18-35, none of whom had children. Some participants were shown advertisements with positive parent/child images and others were shown versions of the same ads but with the child removed.
Researchers found that young adults who viewed the positive parent-child images had a 22 percent stronger desire to have children than those who viewed the neutral images (i.e., the same image but without a child). They also reported significantly greater empathic emotions (such as tenderness, compassion, sympathy, caring, affection) after viewing the parent-child images.
A second study looked at the response that viewing negative images would have on people’s desire to have kids. In this study, participants were divided into three groups: one that looked at positive images, another that looked at negative images and one that looked at images of only the featured products.
Those who viewed the positive parenting images experienced that same boost in their desire to have kids of their own but those who saw images of misbehaving kids with frustrated parents did not see their desire wane. In fact, the negative portrayals of parenting didn’t have much effect at all.
“These are people who don’t yet have children, so it could be they see the comedy in kids behaving badly. When it’s not you trying to clean up the mess or get a child to eat before you go to work, it can be humorous,” says Cavanaugh, who co-authored the study with S. Katherine Nelson-Coffey of Sewanee: The University of The South. “But we can say with certainty that people without children who saw these negative parent-child moments were not dissuaded.”
The researchers also found that the effects were far from fleeting among those who felt the increased desire to have kids, as these empathic emotions and aspirations to have children remained high even three days after seeing the images.
“That may not sound like a big deal at first but consider the constant drip of images in our social media feeds. People are regularly seeing images of their friends’ kids along with plenty of celebrity parent pics posted on social media and the effect could accumulate over time,” Cavanaugh says, noting how fascinating it is that, for young adults of childbearing age, their desire to have children could be measurably affected by something as simple and common as advertising and social media posts – especially since it’s a decision with such significant consequences for themselves and for society.
••• shopper insights
Not so fast
Even as COVID-19 wanes, pandemic shopping habits endure
While consumers appear eager to move on from COVID-19, pandemic-related shopping habits remain firmly in place, according to a report from sales and marketing services provide Acosta. The report, The Lingering Impact of COVID-19 on U.S. Shoppers, examines U.S. shoppers’ behavior nearly two years into the pandemic and finds that most of today’s consumers (68%) are currently shopping online for groceries, at least occasionally, as both the pandemic and economic outlook continue to evolve.
“It is no surprise that shopping behaviors developed at the start of the pandemic are still in place today, especially since concerns surrounding COVID-19 remain high for many consumers,” says Colin Stewart, executive vice president, business intelligence at Acosta. “In fact, Acosta’s research shows pandemic-related concern levels among consumers in January 2022 were only slightly lower than those of consumers’ surveyed about a year ago. Ongoing worries over safety and finances are compounded by product shortages and rising grocery prices resulting from supply chain challenges. While faced with the market’s continued uncertainty, consumers are likely to stick with – and possibly increase – shopping habits picked up over the past two years.”
Pandemic concern levels remain relatively high among today’s shoppers. The average concern level of consumers surveyed in January 2022 was 6.6 on a scale of 1-10 (1 being not at all concerned and 10 being extremely concerned), up .7 points from December 2021.
Forty-six percent of consumers surveyed in 2022 rated their COVID-19 concern level as “very concerned.” Twenty-four percent of consumers surveyed in 2022 rated their COVID-19 concern level as “not very concerned.” Nearly 33% of households are in a worse place financially in 2022 than they were before the pandemic.
Shopping behaviors that developed during the pandemic are still in place for many consumers today, with 68% now shopping for groceries online at least some of the time, versus 40% of consumers surveyed between December 30, 2020, and January 4, 2021. Seventy-five percent of consumers surveyed in 2022 continue wearing face coverings while shopping, even when not required.
Thirty-one percent of consumers surveyed in 2022 continue stocking up on some products, particularly paper products, canned goods and meat. Twenty-two percent of consumers surveyed in 2022 continue using online subscription services. Today’s shoppers also continue to feel the impact of increasing product shortages (60%) and higher grocery prices, especially for meat and dairy items (94%).
Fifty percent of today’s shoppers say they have dined in a restaurant over the past month and 57% say they intend to do so again soon. Fifty-four percent of diners say they are noticing higher menu prices (up more than 10 percentage points from diners surveyed six months ago) and seem to be less aware of limited menus, staff shortages and ongoing safety measures.
Data for the report was gathered via online surveys using the company’s proprietary shopper community, conducted between January 25-27, 2022.
••• nonprofit research
Giving of my time – but on my terms
Donors seek control when they volunteer
Donations of both time and money are key to the success of nonprofit organizations such as charities and political groups. And although nonprofits typically favor receiving financial gifts, past research has found that donors’ preferences are often just the opposite: They like to give their time more than they like to give their money – even when donating time does less good for the cause.
New research from the University of Notre Dame delves into the underlying psychology of this phenomenon, identifying a previously unexplored difference between time and money, which helps to explain the preference.
Donors feel more personal control over how their time (versus money) is used, according to “Why are donors more generous with time than money? The role of perceived control over donations on charitable giving,” in the Journal of Consumer Research from John Costello, assistant professor of marketing at Notre Dame’s Mendoza College of Business, along with Selin Malkoc from Ohio State University.
The study found that asymmetrical perceptions of control over donations drive donors’ propensity to give more time than money. The authors also found that if charities can increase people’s sense of control over their donation, this asymmetry can be eliminated.
“We identify several ways to increase donors’ perceptions of control in our paper, but one straightforward approach is by giving people a choice about how their donation will be used,” says Costello. “Decades’ worth of research in psychology and consumer behavior finds that choice is one of the most dependable ways to increase people’s perceptions of control. We find that this strategy is more impactful for money donations than time donations and thus eliminates the time/money asymmetry.”
The research involved seven studies of more than 2,700 participants. Some were conducted online while others took place in a behavioral lab.
“Because potential donors feel more personal control over their donations of time, we find that leads them to be more likely to agree to donate and to donate in greater amounts,” Costello says. “We find support for this prediction across a number of studies through measurement and manipulation of perceived control, while also ruling out a variety of alternative explanations.”
That donors prefer to give time rather than money surprised the researchers, given a consensus among both academics and practitioners that donating time is less efficient for both the donor and the recipient.
“I think many people assume that donation decisions are almost exclusively driven by purely altruistic motives,” Costello says. “For example, how much their contribution helps the cause. While these clearly play a key motivational role, our work shows that donation decisions are also impacted by the donor’s own psychological needs, specifically the desire to feel control over their actions.”
While past work has revealed a general preference to donate time, this study is the first to identify several situations where this is not the case. Notably, the preference to donate time can be eliminated when donors have a choice about how their donation will be used.
“On the other hand,” Costello says, “we also find that donors will become much less interested in giving their time and no longer prefer it to money when they expect that the charity will have complete control how their time will be used.”
The researchers designed and tested several strategies that can be used by nonprofit organizations to generate donations more effectively. “Charities may need to consider different strategies when soliciting time versus money,” Costello says. “Past work has shown that giving donors a choice of how their donation is used can increase donations. However, one of our studies shows that while this is true for monetary donations, it is much less impactful for donations of time.”
Adopting changes to marketing language can also be used to increase perceived control and donations for money, which typically lag behind those of time. “We find that asking donors to ‘spend’ their money rather than ‘give’ their money in donation appeals leads to greater perceptions of control over that donation,” Costello says. “While ‘give’ is more commonly used by real charities, we find that ‘spend’ is more effective in generating monetary donations.
“With regard to volunteering, charities must certainly impose some restrictions,” he says. “However, our findings suggest that those organizations wanting to increase volunteering should take whatever steps they can to minimize the donors feeling like their donated time is controlled by outside forces.”
••• financial services
Inflation up, confidence down
Americans struggle with rising prices
With headlines announcing that inflation has hit a four-decade high, an Ipsos poll conducted on behalf of BMO Harris Bank has found that Americans’ financial confidence has taken a hit as they feel the pinch in their pocketbooks. The BMO Real Financial Progress Index has shown a steady decline in American’s financial confidence since the middle of last year and is down three points from year-end.
While 75% of all Americans say they feel confident about their finances, this falls to 65% for Gen Zers (those aged 18-24), a figure that has declined 10 points from the previous quarter. Alongside falling confidence, the data shows rising anxiety: 81% of Americans indicate they are anxious about their finances, with family related expenses (69%, +5 pts), keeping up with monthly bills (62%, +3 pts) and fear of unknown expenses (84%, +3 pts) placing the greatest pressure.
While the aggregate data depicts the struggle many Americans are facing, the challenges posed to Gen Z and Millennials are particularly prevalent: 93% of Gen Z are anxious about their overall finances; 80% of Gen Z are anxious due to family related expenses; 82% of Gen Z are anxious due to keeping up with monthly bills; 88% of Gen Z are anxious due to fear of unknown expenses.
Despite these feelings of anxiety and a decline in confidence, perceptions of being able to make financial progress are relatively stable, although young Americans show somewhat sharper declines than the national average: 46% of Americans agree they are making real financial progress, -2 pts from the previous quarter; 48% of 25-34-year-olds agree they are making real financial progress, -5 pts from the previous quarter; 50% of 35–44-year-olds agree they are making real financial progress, -4 pts from the previous quarter.
In line with being a main cause of anxiety, three in 10 (31%) Americans cite keeping up with monthly bills as a key barrier to making financial progress. Mirroring the other trends in the data, the stress of monthly bills is higher among Gen Z (40%) and Millennials (39%).
These are the findings from an Ipsos poll conducted from January 7-28, 2022, on behalf of BMO Harris Bank. For the survey, a sample of 3,400 adults ages 18 and over from the continental U.S., Alaska and Hawaii was interviewed online in English (including n=300 oversamples in Chicago, Indianapolis and Milwaukee).
••• b2b research
Omni’s OK
B2B firms sold on selling through multiple channels
B2B companies had to quickly pivot to virtual selling options during the early days of the pandemic and as time has passed, they’ve grown more confident in their new sales models, MarketingCharts reports. New research from McKinsey suggests that this confidence is a result of companies increasingly offering various interaction points, arguing that “omnichannel is more effective than traditional sales models alone.”
The results of McKinsey’s latest B2B pulse survey – fielded among 3,360 decision-makers in 12 markets – certainly draw a link between omnichannel selling and market share gains. For example, while 46% of respondents using a single channel to sell products and services reported an increase in market share of at least 1 percentage point versus peers during 2020-2021, that figure increased with each successive number of channels used. As such, 72% of respondents that enabled purchase over seven channels reported market share growth.
The meaning of omnichannel has changed over time, too, as the bar has been set higher and higher. Today, B2B customers report using 10 distinct channels to interact with suppliers over their decision journeys, up from an average of 7.5 in 2019 and five in 2016. New channels that are being used now include mobile apps, video conferences and web chats, among others.
Another interesting finding is that B2B buyers are almost evenly split in their ways of interacting with sales reps. At the earliest stage of the process – identifying and researching new suppliers – 34% opt for digital self-serve, while 33% choose remote human interactions and 33% traditional interactions. Likewise, this near-even split is seen among buyers when considering and evaluating new suppliers. Not too surprisingly, during the ordering and reordering phases, there is a slight tilt towards digital self-serve and away from traditional interactions but even in these cases, at least 30% of buyers choose the traditional methods.
As one might expect, B2B buyers gravitate a little more to certain methods than others depending on the type of purchase they’re making. For a first-time purchase, buyers tend to favor traditional methods over remote or self-serve and the same is true for higher-value purchases and more complex purchases.
By comparison, self-serve is the preferred interaction method for lower-value purchases and less complex ones too.
What experiences are required for customer loyalty? McKinsey outlines five, termed “must-dos” and said to be wanted by buyers in combination. These critical attributes are: a performance guarantee (full refund; essential for 78% of buyers); product availability shown online (74%); ability to purchase from any channel (72%); real-time/always-on customer service (72%); and consistent experience across channels (72%). For each of these, without being offered, at least seven in 10 would look for another supplier.
Other essential elements include outcomes-based pricing (70%), readily available customer reviews (69%), shipping within two days or less (64%) and a single log-in/password for all supplier sites and apps (63%).
In other findings: 72% of B2B companies that have built their own marketplace report market share gains over the past year, compared to 42% of those who say they will never consider building a marketplace. B2B companies with a greater degree of marketing personalization are more likely to report market share gains than those with a lesser degree of personalization. Twenty-nine percent of B2B buyers surveyed in December 2021 reported a willingness to spend more than $500,000 on a single interaction on remote or self-service channels, up from 25% in February 2021, with that change coming from an increase in the percentage willing to spend between $500,000 and $5 million.
The results are based on a December 2021 survey of 3,360 B2B decision makers in 12 markets: Brazil, Chile, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Spain, U.K. and U.S.