WE'RE SO SORRY: WHY ROBOTS WON'T WIN

The notion that an apology has two parts is rooted in its art and science.

In its art, it’s all about delivery, the way someone says the two words … sincerely and with empathy.  [Psychologists often recommend offering a hug, a donation to a favorite charity, even the top ten reasons … to make the delivery more human, more real.] 

Its science has more to do with content than its flair, from ensuring that “I’m sorry” refers to the same situation to a promise not to do it again.

Those on the receiving side, believe it or not, treasure the response.  A 2009 study from the University of Nottingham School of Economics, offering complainers words or cash, found that almost 50 percent preferred the apology.  Over pure hard cash.

Yet, despite our knowledge that the more humane we get, the better, many businesses, groaning under the onslaught of customer complaints, turn to software as an answer.   In the past, companies did resort to an automatic responder who garbled the language in making amends for some mishap.  Airlines have been a prime culprit, er, user.  Fliers were often taken aback, insulted, and even felt minimized when the computer spit out a rote or form letter.  And they often voted with their credit cards.

Today, hundreds of customer care agents work for U.S. airlines and other merchants and service purveyors, trained well in how to say “I’m sorry” in real life. 

Proof that human “mea culpas” are best.

THE EXPLOITATION OF EMOTIONS

What do scotch, soda, and whipped topping have in common – other than belonging to the general class of food/drink stuffs?

Answer:  Psychologists and advertisers who’ve discovered that joy (or its lack) is big news these days.

Johnnie Walker claims that joy helps people achieve more.  Reddi-wip, that we don’t have enough of it daily.  And Pepsi, that it’s a great inducement to song and happiness.

All these brands and others capitalize on the state of our hearts and minds, hoping we’ll walk with joy and Johnnie, add whoosh toppings to our meals, and drink more contentedly.

Jaded?  Sure.  But there’s a good point hidden by the hype.  Which is figuring out how, exactly, to infuse this state of being into our everyday doings.  In other words, into our favorite four-letter word:  Work. 

These days, in our meaderings around the Fortunate 500s and others, we deal with executives, managers, and associates – and watch.  A lot.  There’s much earnestness.  Deliberate conversations.  Determination to meet deadlines.  Intelligent and often soul-searching questions. 

Yet, within all this busyness, there’s not much levity or laughter.  Rarely do we see folks smiling when they exit a meeting or town hall.  Leaders might throw in a joke or personal aside or two before moving into the main subject.  And in cafeterias and break rooms, people occasionally grin when engaged in a personal round-table dialogue.  But not much else.

Perhaps our consumer marketers are right:  Is it time to embrace the ordinary stuff, to celebrate small wins, and to nurture at-work relationships with joy?

HEAD TRIPS

Deadheads, we’re not (though we admit to loving that music).

But how to figure out what’s in consumer (or stakeholder) brains when they buy?

Some of our recent op-eds have dealt with sub-sets of the new ‘neuromarketing,’ from eye scans to facial coding.

That’s only part of understanding how we make decisions.  What our advertising and marketing colleagues are advocating is a holistic take on uncovering the reasons behind our behaviors.  In fact, they’re doing more than talking about it; they’re actively looking at subconscious perceptions, studying real-life actions, and field testing, in addition to ferreting out physiological clues.

Obama’s academic consultants are credited with the ‘gotta delve deeper’ movement.  Yet way back in 1915, J.Walter Thompson hired John B. Watson for market research (the U of Chicago co-founder of behavioral psych). 

Back to decisions:  Choosing A over B, say the scientists, is complicated.  Especially since 90 percent of our thinking occurs way below awareness levels.  It’s a meld of feelings versus thought, with our minds working at cross purposes during decision time.

But why can’t those of us in communications develop messages that appeal to the different parts of the brain (which is what our colleagues do, in absence of large budgets and loads of time)?  It’s the intuitive versus the deliberate, the fast versus slow, the effortless versus the planful.  No question, most of us are masterful in internal and external wordsmithing.  Isn’t it way past time we plot the appropriate ways to capture minds and hearts?