Nancy Harhut, of HBT Marketing, is here to explain to us how mixing a little behavioral science in with our marketing campaigns can actually help us to track down, analyze, and understand the consumer’s decision-making process better, and therefore become more successful in the ways we choose to target them.
Rich: Getting people to take action is what my next guest is all about. Her specialty is blending best of breed creative, with decision science, to prompt response. A frequent speaker at industry conferences, she has shared her passion with audiences in London, Sydney, Moscow, Madrid, Stockholm, Berlin, and all over the U.S., including SXSW and The Agents of Change Conference here in Portland, Maine.
Along the way she’s been named Online Marketing Institute’s Top 40 Digital Strategist, Ad Club Top 100 Creative Influencer, and Social Top 50 Email Marketing Leader. Prior to co-founding HBT Marketing, she held senior creative management positions with Hill Holliday, Mullen, and Digitas.
She and her teams have won over 200 awards for digital and direct marketing effectiveness. Back for a second time on the podcast, Nancy Harhut. Nancy, welcome back.
Nancy: Thank you very much, Rich. Happy to be here.
Rich: Always good when I have an excuse just to invite somebody I like back onto the show and see them again. So you’re always on the cutting edge of psychology and consumer behavior, so I’m hoping that we can just dive into some topics that you’re familiar with, and we can talk about how our listeners can put them to work in their own digital marketing campaigns. Sound good?
Nancy: Sounds great.
Rich: All right, so let’s start with something called ‘inequity aversion’. Why are we so focused on what’s fair?
Nancy: That’s a great question. So social scientists have found that we absolutely are focused on what’s fair, and they’ve coined this term called ‘inequity aversion’. And what they’ve proven through research is that we will react against people being treated unfairly. So if we see something that we don’t think is fair, it just riles us up and we respond. They ran an experiment. I think it was called ‘the dictator game’ or something like that.
But basically in this game, one person would be given a sum of money, and that person could decide how to split it with their partner. And if you did a 50/50 split, great. If you did a 60/40 split, great. But anything less than that, people would reject it. Now, if you were my partner, you got nothing right now. And if I say to you, I’ll split half with you. Well hey, that’s great. But you know, Richard, if I said to you, “Look, I got a hundred bucks, I’m going to keep $90 of it and give you $10.” Well, you’re still $10 bucks ahead of where you started, right? But yet, people would be like, “No, I’m not, you know, I’m not taking just 10% of it. I want something that’s fair and equitable.”
So people just have this real aversion to inequity. So as marketers, we can really use that. You know, like a fundraiser might say, “Do you think it’s fair that right now children in our own town are going to bed hungry?” And if someone was more of a commercial marketer they could say, maybe there’s something like software as a service, for example, and they say, “Hey, up until now what we’re providing was only available to huge corporations that had billions and billions, and now we’re making it available to the little guys, the entrepreneurs.” And there’s just something about that, that gets people to respond and say, “All right, I’m against unfairness. I’m for the people who are kind of doing things in a fair way.”
There’s been even research that shows that even in a work environment, for example, you want your boss to do something, even if your boss doesn’t agree. If your boss listens to you, if you feel heard, that’s enough. You feel that that’s fair. I was listened to. So we just, as humans, have this incredible drive for fairness.
Rich: All right. So like you said, you gave a couple of great examples, both in the nonprofit and the for-profit world. But what we want to do is leverage that, kind of dig into that feeling of unfairness, but our solution will make the world fair again, at least in this one small part. So we want to put that in our email newsletters, on our website, and any of our social media communication. That’s what I’m hearing from you is to take away from this.
Nancy: Absolutely. You know, like some of the other companies will only sell to the large corporations, we’re the people who will sell to anybody, we’re fair and equitable about it.
Rich: Excellent. All right. So there’s another thing called ‘input bias’. Now, how does this work?
Nancy: So this is a really interesting shortcut. So basically people kind of cruise along through life on autopilot, right? We have so many decisions to make that we couldn’t possibly weigh every bit of data before arriving at a decision, or we just wouldn’t get around to making those decisions. So we rely on a lot of decision defaults, mental shortcuts, and input bias is one of them. We will look at the amount of input that that goes into a product or the amount of effort or the amount of time that goes into a product. And we’ll treat that as a proxy for the quality of the product. So if it took you 10 years to develop something, we might think, wow, it took Rich 10 years to develop that, it must be incredible. Now it may or may not be incredible.
Rich: Rich may just be slow and busy.
Nancy: Exactly. Or the product may be really good, but it might have been good at year one, and you spent an extra nine years before you took it to market. But we look at that input, that amount of time or effort, as an indicator of what the quality is going to be.
And if someone says they had a team of a hundred people working on this, or that they interviewed 10,000 customers before they created this particular product, we say, “Wow, it must be incredible.” It used to drive me crazy, when I worked at this agency early in my career. There was this one woman who would talk and talk and talk and talk in brainstorming sessions, but not if it was ever usable. Like, it just wasn’t useable. And yet she would get invited over and over and over. Every time we’d arrange a brainstorming session, they would invite this particular woman. And it would drive me nuts. Later, I realized exactly what it was, input bias. Someone’s having a brainstorming session and this person is at least talking, she’s providing input. We’ll sort it out later, but right now we’re getting input.
So anytime a company can talk about the amount of time or effort that went into a product or a service, it’s a really good thing to do. Now I wouldn’t wax poetic about it, I wouldn’t go on and on. But you know, a well-placed phrase, a bullet point, a call out, just letting people know that you hand stitch, you don’t machine sew, you consulted a number of different experts before you took this to market, you tested 17 competing products before you developed your own. These are the kinds of things that people will just automatically assume indicate the quality of your product.
Rich: Right. Because if you’ve put in all that time, or you’ve interviewed all the experts, or you’ve tested 17 different products, then you must have. Why am I going to go through that process, you’ve already gone through it? I’m sure that’s part of what’s going on right there. But then also there’s that intrinsic value that we assume that must come from all of that work, even though that’s not necessarily the case. That’s what I’m hearing
Nancy: Yeah, you’re absolutely right. You know, there may be a relationship, right? I’m not saying that there isn’t, scientists aren’t saying that there isn’t, but there may not be. And I think that’s what scientists are saying. But people don’t stop to analyze that. We just assume, we take it as a shortcut. It’s like, all right. If you spend all that time or effort, did all that research involved, all those people, it must be good. And therefore, I can end my search. I’ll just buy that product.
Rich: I’m hearing from you, we don’t want to overdo it. That shouldn’t be the main focus, but that is one of those things that’s going to help our customers kind of leapfrog to making the decision to go forward with us.
Nancy: Right. And that’s a really good point, Rich, because sometimes we can get a little too in the weeds. You know, we love our products, our services, our company, we believe in them. And you know, we’ll go on and on and on about them. Well, we believe in them. Right? And so now what I’m saying is hey, talk about input bias. Use that to your advantage. I don’t want people to walk away thinking, oh, I should have three pages on my website talking about all the research that went into this, because that’ll be too much, people will kind of gloss over. People want to know what’s in it for me. They want the solution. They don’t want to know everything about you.
So that’s why I said a well-placed phrase or bullet point. Get the point out there that you’ve got an amount of effort and time and research that went into it, but don’t go on and on and on because that could backfire on you.
Rich: Yes, as people’s eyes glaze over. So why does rhyming seem to matter, and how can we use it to make our wallets fatter?
Nancy: So it’s interesting, you might say we’re marketers, we’re not poets. Why are we even talking about rhyming? But there’s something called ‘rhyme is reason effect” or ‘rhyme is reason bias’. And it was identified by this researcher named Matt McGlone. And here’s what he found. He found you then have two statements that essentially say the same thing; one of them rhymes, the other one doesn’t. So woes unite foes, versus woes unite enemies, for example. Or what alcohol conceals sobriety reveals, as opposed to what alcohol concealed, sobriety uncovers. Right? So one of them rhymes the other one doesn’t, but they both say the same thing.
Researchers have found that people would judge the rhyming phrase to be the more truthful, the more accurate phrase. And it has to do with something known as cognitive fluency. It’s easier for the human brain to process phrases that rhyme. And if something is easier to process, it feels more right. And if it feels right, it’s not a big leap to assume that it is right.
So, what’s the takeaway from all this? Well I’m not saying rhyme all of your ads and your social media posts and your emails in iambic pentameter. That’s not going to happen. You know, we don’t want to do that. But some well-placed rhymes are actually a very good thing. Maybe a call to action, maybe you say, “Don’t delay, sign up today.” Or maybe it’s your email subject line, or maybe it’s the title of your content, or the name you give to your webinar. But a little well-placed rhyming can actually go a long way, because it’s just an easy thing for the brain to process and we just think it’s more true.
We’ve also got the advantage that rhyming phrases are easier to remember, they’re more memorable. So that as well is something that’s helpful. But a little bit of ‘rhyme is reason’ effect is a good thing.
Rich: It’s interesting because I can definitely understand why rhyming works, because it is easy to remember, ‘an apple a day keeps the doctor away’ or whatever the phrase may be. It’s such a jump for me to believe that we suddenly believe that it’s more truthful. But what you’re saying is the research shows that people are more likely to believe things that rhyme than things that don’t.
Nancy: Than the alternative, it doesn’t. And the researcher specifically used kind of these antiquated sayings, “woes unite foes” and “what alcohol reveals, sobriety conceals”. They’re not as common, you know, because they wanted to make sure that in the research it wasn’t that the sayings were so common that people were like, oh, I’m really familiar with it, therefore it must be true. Like they chose sayings that weren’t particularly common, but you could express it this way which rhymes, or you could replace a word so now it no longer rhymes, but it says the same thing. And you know, what they found was people were judging the rhyming ones should be the more truthful, the more accurate representation. So, a little bit of rhyme is good.
Rich: Have you seen any research into whether it’s just rhyming? Because obviously a lot of people also use tools like alliteration, and marketers will often use some sort of initials or something to make things more memorable. Which also, I guess, would make it cognitively easier to recall something. Has there been any research, or have you heard anything that’s like that, or is it more just specific to rhyming?
Nancy: So the ‘rhyme as reason’ effect is one flavor of cognitive fluency. This idea that people prefer things that are easy to think about and easier to understand. But there are other things that also aid in cognitive fluency. And some of the ones that you mentioned are right up there, the idea of alliteration, having a series of words that begin with the same letter. It’s a little bit easier to remember, it calls attention to itself because we don’t always see that. And so as a result, it’s a helpful tool for marketers. Similarly in metaphor, if we want to dive a little bit more into English class.
Rich: I’m an English major, let’s go.
Nancy: Oh, there we go. Okay. So, all right. So similes are comparisons using like or as, metaphors are comparisons that don’t use those. But they’re very good for marketers when you’re trying to take a more abstract product and make it a little bit more concrete.
There’s a product called Crazy Egg. So if you’ve never heard of it, you might be like, I have no idea what Crazy Egg is. Is it a kitchen device? But they had an ad that said, “Crazy Egg is like an x-ray machine for your website” or something like that. And so you’re like, oh, well I know what an x-ray machine is. And so it helps you understand what the product is. So if you’ve got something that’s brand new, that people don’t have a frame of reference for, if you have something that’s more abstract that you’re trying to make a little bit more understandable, more concrete, using a metaphor is a very good thing. Using repetition is good, just the more times you hear something, the more familiar with it you become, and the more likely you are to think that it’s true.
That’s another reason why repetition is a good thing and rhyme is a good thing. I don’t know if you’re old enough to remember, when I was a kid I used to hear the jingle for Libby’s vegetables, “When it says Libby’s, Libby’s, Libby’s on the label, label, label, you will like it, like it, like it, on your table, table, table.” And I’m like, wow. They had the literation, they had the rhyme, they had the repetition. It was a home run for them.
Rich: It’s funny, though. It seems so archaic and goofy, like who would, but they were very effective. And it also, this whole idea of using the metaphor reminds me of – and I think they even talked about it in the movie – but the idea of trying to pitch something. So after Diehard was such a success, every action movie after that, Diehard on a bus for Speed, or Diehard on this. In the theater, whatever it was, but it was like, let me take this new idea – and I know you don’t get it – so I’m going to tie it to something you do understand, and then you’re going to understand what this movie’s all about.
Nancy: Yeah, because of the reference movie or the reference brand. But it absolutely helps. And I think that neuroscientists have literally looked at people’s brains when they’re being exposed to these kinds of turns of phrase or literary devices, whatever you want to call them, and different parts of their brains get activated. And that’s largely why these things are a little bit more memorable or they’re a little bit easier to understand.
Although they found something interesting. They found that metaphors that gets overused and kind of becomes hackneyed, no longer has that effect. So if you have one of these metaphors that people would just use all the time, it becomes wallpaper, and it loses the ability to activate more parts of your brain and become that more memorable, more interesting turn of phrase.
Rich: Interesting. All right. Now I generally don’t like labels, but apparently labels pack a lot of power. So what is this all about?
Nancy: So, yeah, you’re absolutely right about labels. You want to be careful with them. But labels are really interesting. What researchers and behavioral scientists have found, is if you label somebody as part of a particular, they will start to behave as if they were a member of that group. They want to be consistent with the label. And this holds true, unless the label is something that the person finds really abhorrent. But even if you hadn’t thought of yourself in a certain way, and somebody labels you that way, maybe someone says, “Nancy, you’re an entertainer, you’re an entertainment influencer.” And I’d be like, “Well, I never thought of myself that way.” And they’re like, “No, you are. And as a result, you should have this product.” I might very well buy the product. You know, I never really thought of myself that way, but they told me I was. And so now I’m going to start to behave in a way that’s consistent with it.
So as long as you’re not labeling somebody as a member of a group that they really had a problem with. I don’t know, telling a vegetarian that they’re carnivores or something, they’re somebody who can really judge the quality of a nice, rare steak. But yeah, when you’re labeled in a certain way, you like to live up to that label.
And researchers actually ran an experiment. They talked to people about this upcoming election. I think it was in Chicago, and there was an election coming up in a week or so. And so they interviewed people about their voting habits and their perspective on some of the issues. And then afterwards, arbitrarily – and that’s the keyword there – they arbitrarily assigned people into one of two groups. So even though we had the interview, the interview answers that you gave me had nothing to do with the group that I assigned you to you. And one group was told that they were more politically active and more likely to vote. The other group was told that they were just of average likelihood to be politically active or vote. And then a week later when the election came up, 15% more of the people who had been randomly assigned to the group that was told they were more politically active, actually showed up at the polls.
So it’s pretty amazing just telling someone that they’re a member of the group. That’s why it’s great to talk to people and say, you know, you’re one of our best customers. Hey, people will start to behave like one of your best customers. And that’s a good thing.
Rich: Yeah, they want to live up to that feeling of consistency. And I can see how you could actually motivate people. And even things like I might say to a couple of my clients, “You’re some of the most prolific bloggers” or “Your blogs get some of the best ranking.” Suddenly, or maybe the first example is better, but all of a sudden, they’re going to see themselves as somebody who write great blogs and they’re going to more likely take more of those actions. So whatever the action is we want them to take, first define them, first label them as somebody who’s already good at this, and they start to live up to it.
Nancy: Yeah, absolutely. You know, “As a discerning consumer of fine wines, you’ll be really interested in this case special we have.” But it could be that kind of a label, or it could be more of somebody who’s really intent on succeeding in the business world, so it’s like not a noun kind of a label, but more of a descriptor. Like just in terms of your attitude or your behaviors.
But, you know, it’s like for people who are looking to get ahead, you should buy this product, you should attend this conference, you should subscribe to this podcast, that kind of a thing. But yeah, you want to use a label that’s going to match what it is you’re about to ask them to do.
Rich: So kind of as a side note, this is always like this tricky thing. So, we talk about these things, and we talk about how the proof is there, the research is there, and do this stuff. But I don’t know if I’ve just been reading too much of the source material. Like I always find like when people come at me like that, I’m just like immediately taking a step back. Is that because I live too much in this world, or maybe I’m just fooling myself and these tactics actually do work? Is there a way to know when we’ve gone too far as marketers, trying to get people to do this, that we’ve perhaps shown too much of our hand?
Nancy: So that’s really good question. So I think you, me, maybe many of us that are listening that are marketers that are living this every day. We approach things a little bit differently. I think we get bored with the campaigns before the general public does. I think we labor over them. You know, we spend more time writing them, then people spend reading them or consuming them. So I think marketers, we’re our own little breed and we’re a little bit more tuned into these things.
That said, I’m a big believer in behavioral science. I really do believe that people have decisions to follow so they have shorthand ways of making decisions. That said, there’s no silver bullet. So we’re talking about input bias and inequity, aversion, and labeling. And all these things are helpful tools for marketers, but none of them are going to make everybody buy every time. It just isn’t going to happen. And sometimes if people are really paying attention, they might be like, you know what? That company sent me an email last week saying they were going out of business and now they’re sending me one this week saying they’ve got a going out of business sale, how long are they going to be going out of business? Sometimes that happens, people pay attention. But a lot of times things wash over people, and all things being equal, they can be influenced by a variety of these behavioral science techniques.
So, you know, if they’re really paying attention, they might be like, I think they’re just trying to get my business and I’m not going to fall for it. But a lot of times they don’t have their thinking caps on because they’re asked to make so many of the decisions and their attention is divided and they’re pulled in so many different directions, that they’re looking for a shorthand way to respond and they’re kind of on autopilot. And often these things will work, and you’ll see incremental gains. But in marketing, God is in the details and we’re looking for those incremental gains.
Rich: Right. It is funny how we might see things differently, but I’m sure I’m fooled all the time, too. And I think your point of the fact is we’ve got so many decisions to make infinite decisions almost every single day that sometimes we just have to take these shortcuts. And you and I have talked about some today, and also in the previous episode as well. And so using this may not get everybody motivated to take the right steps, but it will move more people in the right direction. And I think that’s probably the important takeaway.
Nancy: Yeah. You know, it doesn’t cost anything extra to try some of these techniques. And you know, think of it as free business.
Rich: Right. Now people, especially Americans, love the concept of freedom. So talk to me a little bit about the ‘autonomy bias’.
Nancy: Yes. Yeah. This is a hot one right now, especially where we’re kind of in the middle of coming out of the pandemic. I’m not quite sure where we are but surrounded by the pandemic. But yes, social scientists who found that people have this innate, hardwired desire to exercise some kind of control over themselves in their environment, some kind of agency. Like we want some kind of autonomy, and we crave it, and we fight against not having it. And so when you have the last year and a half with our lives being turned upside down and suddenly, we’re told you can’t do this, and you can’t do this, and you can’t do this. And we had a lot of our autonomy taken away from us. So people are even more ripe for it, I think that the craving is even stronger. And so anytime as marketers we can give some of that autonomy back to people it’s a good thing.
And there are a couple of ways that we can do it. One is by giving people choices, because if people have a choice, they feel they have some kind of control. So instead of just saying, “Here’s the product I want you to get”, or “Here’s the service I want you to sign up for”, you give them a choice of two different ones or two different service levels or two different product levels. And what happens is the decision goes from, do I, or do I not want that product? Do I or do I not want that service, to, “Which of these two products do I want?”, “Which of these service levels do I want?” You would just kind of leapfrog over the “do I or don’t I want it” and get right into which of these do I want? So choice is a great way to give people a sense of autonomy.
That said, don’t go overboard on it, because there’s something known as choice overload. People are loving all the different choices, but then they can’t quite make a decision. The analysis paralysis. So, you know, 2, 3, 4, I wouldn’t go beyond five choices because it starts to get to be too much.
Then another way that you can make it feel that they’re in control and trigger this idea of autonomy bias, is to use the BYAF technique, B Y A F. And that stands for, “But You Are Free”. So what you do is you describe your product or service, then you tell people what you want them to do. You know, please sign up, please buy whatever it is. But then you remind them, “but you are free to choose”, Which sounds kind of counterintuitive from marketing, right? Like, why would you just sell your heart out and then at the end say, “but you know, it’s up to you, you can choose”. And it doesn’t have to be the exact words, but it’s like, you know, the choice is yours.
But what social scientists have found is just reminding people that the choice is theirs, kind of triggering that autonomy bias, actually makes it more likely that people will do what you’re asking them to do. I think one study showed that it doubled the likelihood people would comply. So, you know, giving people choices, reminding them that that they’re the ones who were in control, can be a really powerful thing for marketers to use. And I think, particularly now, given the current environment with COVID and all, just people are craving control. So anything you can do to give them a little bit of that control back is a good thing to do.
Rich: Yeah, that technique also works really well with toddlers and teenagers. Giving them some sort of choice.
Nancy: Sure, yeah. Do you want to brush your teeth and then do a bedtime story and go to bed, or do you want the bedtime story and then brush your teeth and then go to bed? But, you’re going to bed.
Rich: But it’s your choice. So let’s wrap up with something called bundling, ‘hedonistic bundling’, specifically. What’s that all about, and how can we put that to use?
Nancy: Yeah. So this is cool. So, George Loewenstein is a neuro-economist, and he did a lot of research into something known as the ‘pain of paying’. And what he found was people experience pain when they have to pay. The same part of your brain that’s activated when you’re in physical pain, if you have a hangnail, or you stub your toe, or you’ve got a stomachache. You know, one part of your brain gets activated. And if you have to part with your hard earned money, that exact same part of your brain is activated. And what he found was, bundle things together and you minimize the pain of paying.
So instead of buying three different items, you bundle them together and you make one purchase, there’s a single hit of pain. And then other researchers have gone beyond that and they’ve said, well, does it make a difference how you structure that bundle? And there’s something known as ‘hedonic bundling’. And what they found is if you kind of market the bundle as having a discount on the most indulgent item, you’re much more likely to make a sale.
So say you’re a telecom company and you’re selling phone and internet and TV and HBO. You’re going to put these four things in a bundle and say, “Hey, here’s the bundle price.” So that’s good. And George Lowenstein would give you an okay, because you’re not making four separate purchases, you’re only making one. But then when you factor in hedonic bundling, what you want to do is you want to say, “You’re going to pay this one price for the phone and the internet and the cable TV, but we’re going to give you the HBO for free.” Because that’s like the most indulgent one, the most luxurious one. Kind of the one you don’t really have to have, it’s not as practical. You need the phone, you need the internet, but the HBO you can do without, so you know what, you’re not paying for the HBO. That’s part of the bundle. It’s the free part. And it’s an interesting way of kind of structuring a bundle so that it’s going to do the most good for the marketer.
Rich: It’s really fascinating that you say that, because of course we all see you get this phone, and you get Hulu, or HBO, or Apple+ for a year. And I hadn’t thought about it as hedonic bundling up until that point. What I thought they were doing is giving you a free year. Because once you’re used to having, not having it is awful.
So I bought my daughter for her for high school graduation/going off to college, a Macintosh laptop. And I got, which I didn’t know I was getting, but I get this email, you now have a year of Apple+ for free. So suddenly I could get this, which I almost never watched until somebody tipped me off to Ted Lasso. And then I watched that, I’m like, oh my God, this is the greatest show ever. And then the year’s over. And so what do I do? I immediately go, oh, season two is coming, I’ve got to get another one. So now I can’t live without this hedonic Apple TV thing. But it’s interesting. I guess they both factor into this, but now I can’t live without my Apple TV.
Nancy: Yeah. Yeah. Well, you know what else I think was at play there, is something called the ‘endowment effect’. Which means that you place greater value on things that we already own. So you might’ve said, “Oh, it’d be pretty cool to have that”, if you didn’t have it. You know, “Apple TV, that sounds nice.” But once it becomes yours, it sounds even nicer because it’s yours. And because we place more value on what’s ours, we’re that much more likely to react against losing it.
So, you know, they gave it to you for a year. You started to use it. Now you think of it as yours. And then they say, okay, well the year is up, your free trial is over. And you start to experience loss aversion. You’re like, no, no, no, you can’t take that away from me. And so as a result, I did the exact same thing. You pay the whatever it is, the five bucks a month now, like now I’m a subscriber.
Rich: Probably why my Roku TV has like 27 streaming services, because it’s like, no, no, I sometimes watch Drunk History on that one. And no, I watch this show on that one. So, I guess that marketing is working. I’m going to have to be more aware and make some better financial decisions it sounds like.
Nancy: Well, you don’t want to give up Ted Lasso, so.
Rich: No, no. I haven’t watched season two yet. All right. This has been great as always, Nancy. Always fun talking about this sort of stuff. If people want to learn more about you, about your company, maybe even talk to you about doing some business together, where can they find you online?
Nancy: Sure, that’d be great. Well, we’ve got a website it’s HBT Marketing. and H B T stands for human behavior triggers. So HBT Marketing, HBTMKTG.com. You can follow me on Twitter @nharhut, I’m on LinkedIn, I’m on Facebook, many, many ways to reach me. And we’d love to hear from anyone who wants to chat or who wants to do business, either way.
Rich: Awesome. And we’ll have all those links in the show notes. Of course, Nancy, thanks so much. It was great seeing you today.
Nancy: Thank you, Rich, pleasure was all mine.
Nancy Harhut is well-versed in the automatic, reflexive behaviors that consumers tend to make, and she helps her clients trigger these automatic responses to get the results they want. Learn more about this fascinating science of marketing by checking out her website, or follow her on Twitter, LinkedIn, or Facebook.
Rich Brooks is the President of flyte new media, a web design & digital marketing agency in Portland, Maine, and founder of the Agents of Change. He’s passionate about helping small businesses grow online and has put his 20+ years of experience into the book, The Lead Machine: The Small Business Guide to Digital Marketing.