As a brand, our goal will always be to persuade the customer to do something: to be interested in us, to buy, to recommend us, to stay... or to stop doing something: not to go to the competition!

We had the opportunity to talk to Prof. BJ Fogg, founder and director of the "Persuasive Technology Lab" at Stanford University, about effective persuasion. His model is a reference to which we turn to for our projects.

In essence Prof. Fogg proposes that behaviour (of the web user or the customer in general) is systematic and persuasive: we can decide what target behaviour we want to elicit, design our interface specifically for it, and iteratively adjust it until we achieve the desired result.

For example, if we talk about a purchase situation, the customer's behaviour will be conditioned by three variables: motivation to buy + ability to buy + appropriate stimulus that activates the behaviour. The three elements have to act simultaneously for the customer to actually buy.

Each variable in the model works in a specific way:

  • A.- Motivation: What needs drive customers to act in a certain way.
  • B.- Capacity: It is the difference between the effort that the shopping behaviour demands from the customer (time, money, paperwork, queuing,...) and the availability of those resources. Here the magic word is "ease": if I manage to make the purchase in the shop very easy I will make it more likely, even with a low level of motivation on the part of the customer.
  • C.- Action threshold (function of parameters A and B): Above which buying is more likely.
  • D.- Stimulus: Only with A+B there is no purchase. Above a suitable threshold, an appropriate stimulus at the right time can precipitate a purchase. The stimulus is perhaps the most complex element to design, as it requires content that connects with motivation, must be salient to the customer and be presented at the right time.

Let's look at an outline of the model to make it clearer:

Some "tips" for applying this model.

We have discussed with Prof. Fogg our experience with the practical application of the model in a retail environment, and in addition to thanking him for his time, we would like to share some of the most relevant points of the conversation here in summary form:

IT. How is it possible to detect in the shop that the customer is above the action line, i.e. motivated to buy?

BJ Fogg. The best proof that the customer is above the line is that he or she is willing to make some kind of effort, however small, beyond just walking around the shop. If we are talking about a clothing shop, it will be the fact that the customer tries something on or asks his companion if he likes one colour or another better, or asks about the price, or spends time looking at some detail of the product. Anything that signals a customer effort is an indicator that the customer is above or close to that line of action.

IT. Talking about motivation, it is not easy to know what really motivates customers, how it is possible to get to that "insight".

BJ Fogg. It is indeed not easy and if we ask customers directly we may not come to valid conclusions. I believe that the best informant of this is the good salesperson or the good service professional. That is, the really good ones. In practical terms these people know exactly what motivates a person to come into our shop, what needs they have and what things they are looking for. Their insight will be very valid for the design.

IT. In general, how the shopping experience design process should be approached.

BJ Fogg. It depends very much on the type of product or service we are talking about. It has nothing to do with the process of buying a car or children's clothes. But I would say that improving the "ease" of purchase for the customer will always be positive.

If we talk about the purchase of mobile phone services, for example, one barrier is often the complexity of the pricing plans, which is intimidating for the customer. Well, we need to make that intrinsic complexity feel easy at the time of purchase. Make it easy for the customer to understand.

IT. There is a lot of talk about "neuromarketing" as a strategy to predict and design customer behaviour, what is your opinion on this?

BJ Fogg. I understand that it is not a very practical approach if we want to persuade the customer to buy. It is attractive for its scientific and metric aspects, but I find it too complicated to go from neuroscience to how I place my shop window to make it attractive.

I know companies that do good analytics on reaction to TV ads, but I think the gap to the implementation of those analytics is too big and there are other more practical ways to bridge the gap, such as from best practice analysis or, as we talked about, from the insight that good marketers give us.

Moreover, designing in-store customer behaviour is more of an art than a science, an art that is composed of analysis, iteration and testing.

What do you think, do you also think that persuasive customer experience design is more art than science?