To aficionados of the shopping trolley, this type is apparently known as "the Japanese style" presumably because it originated in Japan. I suppose I should ring someone at WPP to check - even though technically Wire and Plastic Products only makes baskets, not trolleys.
The Japanese model can be distinguished from the vast full-depth trolley model popular with survivalists and Catholic families in that the deck is much higher up and there is a large area of wasted space beneath. Its capacity is perhaps a third that of a large trolley, but several times that of a basket.
Now to a purely rational man this kind of trolley serves little purpose. What is the point of something which takes up just as much floor-space as a larger trolley but which only offers a fraction of the load-carrying capacity?
I think the answer lies in an couple of anomalies of human behaviour.
For one thing, people entering supermarkets are probably prone to underestimate how much they will buy, or at least enter the store intending to buy very little, but end up tempted to buy more. When confronted with the choice of a basket and an insanely large trolley, many people may end up picking a basket only to find themselves overburdened with heavy shopping half-way round the store, hence buying much less than they might have done with a smaller trolley. The medium-sized trolley seems less disproportionate to moderate shoppers as they enter the store, and hence may discourage the use of baskets.
But the main reason is, I suspect, to do with what behaviourists call choice anchoring - the idea that the choices we make are often illogically distorted by the range on offer. One example of this is the following conversation supposedly overheard in an American restaurant.
"What entrees do you have?"
"We have fish or chicken."
"I'll have the fish"
"Oh, sir, and I forgot: we also have beef."
"In which case I'll have the chicken."
The point here is that, even though the beef was never an option, its presence on the menu served to make the chicken seem a relatively healthier option.
The medium-sized trolleys hence probably work in tandem with the large trolleys to implicitly discourage the use of baskets. (It would be wonderful to try a few experiments here - perhaps with outsized baskets.)
But my question here is really that at the top of my article. Who came up with this discovery? Behavioural insights such as this might well have been worth a few hundred million pounds to any retailer over the last ten years, and yet I have never heard of anyone much being briefed or paid to look for them.
We spend almost all out time attempting to change behaviour through overt persuasion - while paying no attention to influencing the other, barely conscious ways in which people behave.
In the same way, far too little time is spent understanding and improving customer experience. Seventy-five percent of the US economy is now in services, and yet the focus of advertising has changed little from the time when it was used mostly to sell products.
One hope of mine is that a recession may bring new focus on these things - not least because they are sometimes fantastically cheap. You may find a few welcome suggestions here at www.customerfutures.com/downeconomypublication .
Bit of over-intellectualising going on here I think. The shallow trolley is light, easier to manoeuver, ample if you're shopping for 1 or 2 and doesn't necessitate awkwardly bending double to reach items in the bottom. It may even be a behavioural insight, although perhaps a bit uncomplicated for a purely rational man.
Me? Overintellectualize? Surely not. These are contributory factors which explain why consumers like mid-size trolleys, but do not explain why stores enthusiastically offer them.
'but do not explain why stores enthusiastically offer them'
Because 'every little helps'?!
Some friends and I used to refer to these as 'young professional trolleys', for various reasons such as their size and due to the fact that unlike the larger trolleys these required a pound coin to use (of course back as students a pound was a lot of money!). No doubt as we walked around with our superior trolleys subconsciously we felt successful and perhaps consequently made more expensive purchases...
maybe
Why are they offered? Because baskets are insufficient for the top-up shop of society’s rapidly growing obese underbelly (sorry). Second, as baskets fill up their weight increases proportionately, the increase in load stress has a knock-on effect to shopper speed. Shoppers begin to rush toward the checkout finishing line. Supermarkets want to keep customers on the shop floor and in the purchasing zone away from the tills for as long as possible.
As a footnote: supermarkets rank highly amongst places to initiate a romance. Without the opportunity to accidentally knock trolleys and start up a conversation with that petite brunette who frequents the local Tesco at the same time as you each week, the entire shopper experience would be severely undermined.
I guess in real business world, lots of great invention has been achived by trial and error. The medium trolly could originate as an experiment and turned out to be prefered by lots of customers over either basket or large trolly. Based on this encouraging observation the retailer would be glad to roll it out.
As advertising broadens in scope of influence, we enter deeper into a business and discover behavioural analysis and innovation that seems crazy and new to the world of communications yet is everyday in the sphere of product innovation and design. P&G and Ideo have approached product and brand design in this manner for years. I guess what i'm trying to say is our new frontier is their homeland
What our industry we are realising is that like design communication only gets interesting not when it is made to stand out but when it is seamless with customer experience and inuitive, almost invisible.
A great example of choice anchoring is found in restaurants. You'll note that a lot of menus have items priced in the £9-£15 range and then one dish at perhaps £22. The presence of one more expensive dish means that people will more likely order the moreexpensive dishes in the £9-£15 range. The same is true of wine lists.
Rory Sutherland
Blogging for:
Member since: 03 Jun 2008
Last login: 08 Jan 2009
Total Posts: 286