There’s probably nothing more dangerous to an already successful business than giving customers what they say they want. This is not to say you can give customers something they don’t want, quite the opposite in fact. Rather, it’s to never deny the preeminence of revealed preferences.
People want things. They don’t always, however, enjoy how those preferences might be perceived by others (or by themselves). Customizing your consumption to fit the preferences that you would prefer to signal is not a luxury that we can often indulge, however. Basic instrumental needs have to come first. Once a good is already in a household’s portfolio of consumption, however, it is relatively low cost to signal alternative preferencs to peers, surveyers, or focus group organizers. If a producer were to take these signals as earnest, however, they could end up undermining the good already previously purchased and consumed, leading to a business catastrophe. “Trust people’s actions over words” is at least a cliche, if not an outright proverb. I’ll leave it to you to find its most archaic analogue.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot, and no, not in the context of political polling and the recent election, though I will grant the relevance. I’ve been thinking about it more when watching sports and consuming the news.
Soccer in the top leagues, particularly the English Premiere League (currently the best in the world) is in year 5 of a growing injury crisis. Most seasons the winner can be predicted based on total salary outlays. Not because of superior top line talent, however, but because they can afford 11 second string players of top quality to play when the starters are inevitably injured. This is largely because of a tragedy of the commons in international soccer, but it’s been massively exacerbated because the EPL responded to the perceived request from consumers that the sport become “more physical”. This amorphous physicality has been granted in the form of more lenient refereeing. The result of this has not been to increase the “fight in the game”, but to grant less talented players greater license in kicking and sliding through the legs of more talented players. I don’t know the full economics of modern sports, but I’m pretty sure fans don’t pay large ticket prices to see the best players in the world on the sidelines in high-end athleisure wear draped discreetly over a walking boot.
As for the news, I see a related, but not identical phenomena. Being a GenX-er, I spent a lot of time in heavy conversation during college bemoaning the impact of advertisers on media content. The “news as propaganda” bit is not a new concept, I assure you. What very, very few us would have guessed, however, is that Craigslist destroying the ad revenue of newspapers and the internet walking off with the customer base most interested in news as information source would lead television program producers untethered to the desires of their advertising sponsors, leaving them to create bespoke content for their new overlords: the consumer. As it turns out, what the remaining subset of customers most wants isn’t information or insight, it’s reaffirmation. We wanted advertisers out of content, but it turns out you got better news when the true customers were corporate overlords hawking sugar water and baggy clothes. People signaled that they wanted deep reporting, uncompromised integrity, and uncomfortable truths. And hey, more people than ever subscribe to The Economist. But it turns out most people just wanted confirmation bias.
Sure, by clicking on the link to this post you’ve signaled to me that you want a depth of insight you just can’t get anywhere on the internet. But I, enwisened scribe, know that what you really want is cliched aphorisms.
Be careful what you wish for.
Economist Writing Every Day 