Richard Shotton makes a great point in this post about why marketers so often overemphasise chasing the latest fads at the expense of more established activities. A good part of the reason for this, he says, is demonstrated by a study that was made into (of all things) penalty shoot outs in football:
'In 2007 a group of Israeli psychologists, led by Professor Michael Bar-Eli at Ben-Gurion University, analysed the behaviour of goal-keepers facing penalties. They found a striking anomaly.
Despite 29% of the 286 penalty kicks studied being hit down the middle goalkeepers only stood their ground 6% of the time. The academics estimated that diving one way or the other saved one in seven penalties whereas standing still stopped one in three. So why did professionals, players at the top of the game, make the wrong decision?
The study blames the misalignment of interests between the goally and the team. The goalkeeper is interested in making a save but also not looking a fool. They know that most of their fellow goalkeepers dive and that if they concede a goal while following a different set of tactics they'll be culpable in the eyes of the manager. So the keeper, interested in protecting his lucrative career, follows the herd and dives.'
Richard warns marketers against blindly following the herd and being overly concerned with what competitors or peers are doing.
Bias to action is no bad thing. Slow decision-making often acts as a significant drag on progress within large organisations. Circular discussions, too many meetings, consensus-driven decision-making. We've all been there. A rebalance towards a smarter understanding of where it's better to act and course correct if necessary helps to unblock this. Yet we also need to appreciate that now and then it really is better to do nothing and let the answer come to you.
Leave a Reply