It is theorized that habits are formed as a method of saving
energy. The mind attempts to find
patterns in any activity, with the goal of creating a habit, and within a few
repetitions is generally successful in so doing. This is well-supported by the rat-maze
experiments, in which the brain activity of rodents decreases with each
repetition of the same exercise, and it’s evident in human begins as well
through their daily habits.
Consider your own morning routine: there is very little
decision-making effort in deciding what to do between the time you wake and the
time you arrive at work: you do what you do every morning, in the same order,
unless there is an intentional effort to change your patterns or something
external prevents you from following your common routines. It is as if you are on autopilot: these
tasks require no thinking, and are generally not recorded in memory, so long as
everything goes as usual.
Quotidian patterns lead to quotidian consumption, at least
on the product level. If you brush your
teeth every morning, there is very little thought as to whether you will
consume toothpaste – you simply will consume it, and repurchase it when you run
out, as a means of perpetuating the routine and avoiding the expenditure of
mental effort that would be required to question whether the task should be
done differently, or at all.
On the level of brand, the consumption routine is less
influential than the purchasing routine – another procedure that tends to run
on autopilot. The daily task of brushing
one’s teeth requires the consumption of toothpaste as a product, and the
monthly task of buying more toothpaste involves the selection of the brand of
the product to be used.
Or more accurately, it often does not involve selection, but
repeating previous behavior mindlessly in the environment of the store – going
to the same store, going to the same aisle, reaching for the same space on the
shelf where the brand is expected to be found.
There is, of course, and interrupt sequence: if the brand is
not found in its usual spot, there’s a temporary need for mental engagement to
locate it in a new location, which will become the patterned location after a
few iterations. But even then, the mind
is focused on the task of finding the familiar brand, and both cognition and
sensation are attuned to that task.
While there is a chance this will provide an opportunity to
consider a different brand, the more common behavior is to take the easiest
route to success: to use superficial sensory input to find a known pattern in
an unknown location, rather than the cognitive task required to select an
entirely different brand. Thus, even
when there is an interrupt sequence that requires additional mental effort, the
degree of effort expended is minimized by the nature of the decision undertaken
to overcome the obstacle.
Particularly for products that are part of a quotidian
consumption cycle, it is exceedingly difficult to become the brand of choice or
to get the customer to change their preferred brand. It is likewise difficult to accidentally
disrupt brand loyalty unless a conscious effort is made to do so – which may,
perhaps, support the notion of routinization-and-minimization pattern among
vendors.
No comments:
Post a Comment