Archive for category Consumer behavior
Optimal airline boarding strategy will never get off the ground
Posted by mark in Consumer behavior, Uncategorized on August 19, 2025
As I waited at the end of a line last week to board the Mount Washington Cog Train with my assigned-seat ticket in hand, it occurred to me that only needing a small backpack made the process far simpler than for a flight burdened with carry-on baggage. A random free-for-all process, providing priority by willingness to wait in line, served well for the 45-minute ride up and down the mountain.
It’s not nearly as simple getting luggage-laden people on board a flight. But there is a solution. In 2008, astrophysicist Jason Steffen came up with “perfect airplane boarding method.” It starts by seating window-seat passengers every other row from back to front along one side and then the same on the other side. Then repeat the process with middle seats and, finally, the aisle.
For a fun ‘Pac Man’ illustration, see this interview of Steffen by News Nation:
An experimental test of airplane boarding methods using a mock Boeing 757 airplane showed that Steffen method cuts the time in half from traditional methods going by zones. But though it would certainly save airlines a great deal of time and thus money to switch their boarding to this innovative method, none are likely to make the change due to its precise control of passenger being impractical. Elite flyers accustomed to priority boarding would be very unhappy. Furthermore, families must be broken up in the Steffen-method lineup—not good.
However, there is hope for a better way on to an airplane. As noted in the News Nation video, United Airlines adopted a simplified Steffen method called “WILMA” that boards passengers first by window, then middle and, finally, aisle. However, as laid out in this June 24, 2025 post by CNBC the airline exempts many passengers from WILMA, including those with United credit cards. Perhaps that’s why they only save 2 minutes per flight with their new boarding process. But at an estimated cost of $100 per minute the savings of $200 per flight times nearly 5,000 flights per day by United adds up to $1 million in daily savings.
Based on my experience boarding the Mount Washington Cog Train and numerous studies, a random process serves well by it being fair and fast. When American Airlines tried it in 2011 on all but those passengers with elite status, the random process shaved 20 to 25 minutes off average times. However, according to their flight attendants, it created “complete chaos in the cabin.” As you can see in this April 26 press release, American now goes by a 9-group process. Evidently saving time via free-for-all boarding cannot provide payback for the pandemonium.
Pizza purchasers tricked by not knowing pie are squared
Posted by mark in Consumer behavior on July 29, 2022
Here’s a trick question going the rounds (pun intended) recently*: For the same price, which of these two options provides the best pizza value—one 9 incher or two 5-inch pies?
Many consumers would go for the two smaller pizzas. But going strictly by area, they then come up 38% short of the single large pie. Two for one is not a good deal in this case.
For comparing pizzas by size and price, even those of us that know the math can benefit from calculators like these:
- Nathan Yau’s Pizza Exchange Rate posted earlier this week—nicely slider-barred with a graphic view to make sure you get a fair deal. For example, if you order a mega 30 inch pizza that cannot be delivered, do not settle for anything less than 36 five-inch ones.
- Better yet is this value-based computer by DQYDJ (Don’t Quit Your Day Job) blogger “PK”.
For a fascinating study demonstrating the significance of how poorly people relate diameter of pizzas to their value, see this 2001 Marketing Science publication on Pizzas: p or Square? Psychophysical Biases in Area Comparisons. The research suggests that “consumers understand the [pizza] size increase more readily when presented with pictures of the various sizes versus when merely presented with the diameters.”
The authors go on to say that “the best strategy, however, is to give the actual area numerically.” Though this is obvious, it seems to me that most people who buy pizza would be overwhelmed by all this mathematical detail.
Am I being overly pessimistic?
*Twitter post about restaurant’s mathematical pizza miscalculation goes mega-viral, Michelle De Pacina, July 4, 2022 post by Yahoo.
Megastudy uncovers secret to motivation for exercise
Posted by mark in Consumer behavior, Wellness on January 10, 2022
Over half of all Americans making resolutions for 2021 made exercise their top priority according to this report from Statista. Unfortunately, most people who decide to work out more often after being ‘flabbergasted’* by the year-end holidays will fall off by the 17th of January—cruelly declared as “Quitter’s Day” by fitness tracker Strava.
However, the results of a new ‘megastudy’ reported by this report last month in Nature provides some hope for certain interventions getting folks back on their treadmills or the like. A team of scientists in collaboration with 24 Hour Fitness created a “Step Up” program that, with a small incentive ($1 in Amazon points), drew in 61,000 members. They then divided up the group into groups to test over 50 four-week programs aimed at increasing weekly gym visits.
Only 8% of the interventions led to participants making a significant change in their behavior. The most successful approach, increasing attendance by 27% versus the control group, came by giving people about 10 cents in reward points for returning to the gym after missing a workout. Surprisingly, a larger monetary reward (~$1.75) produced slightly less improvement.
“Try not to miss more than one workout.”
Advice from lead-author Katy Milkman, a behavioral scientist and professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania
I like the New York Times December 8th “Phys Ed” take-home on this megastudy. “Find small ways to reward ourselves when we exercise as planned. Drop a dollar into a bowl for every workout, for instance, and let the proceeds mount.” Better yet, make an appreciable monetary bet with a friend that you will keep up your workouts. Along those lines, why not make it mutual? Fun!
Since this study only involved people motivated enough to join a gym, it would be a stretch (fitness pun?) to expect similar results for those remaining anchored to their couch. Perhaps attaching a dollar bill to a reeling fishing line might lure these slackers into moving about a bit. Worth a try!
*A neologism (newly coined word) becoming popular in these pandemic times of chronic overeating meaning “appalled over how much weight you have gained.”
Being kind pays off—wear a mask for the sake of others and earn positive returns
Posted by mark in Consumer behavior, Uncategorized on July 6, 2020
Last month I reported the positive news that people really do like to help others. I figured it would be best to focus on the kind behavior seen even in the most troubling times of tensions here in Minneapolis and around the world.
Since then the coronavirus flared up across the USA. Despite this, many Americans remain adamant against wearing masks, even though this would be kind to their fellow citizens.
I get it—no one likes to be told what to do and the face coverings create a lot of hot and bother. My approach, being committed to kindness, is to always wear a mask in public indoor spaces while steering clear of anyone going without one, choosing times and stores that provide plenty of maneuvering room.
Two books coming out this month provide some hope that mask-averse people may come around to kindly covering up on Covid-19: Survival of the Friendliest and The Kindness of Strangers. They generated a buzz for kindness that got amplified by the Associated Press last week in their report on Not so random acts: Science finds that being kind pays off.
“Doing kindness makes you happier and being happier makes you do kind acts.”
Economist Richard Layard
For those of you who seek data on why people are kind or unkind, check out Oliver Scott Curry’s Kindlab. I love the graphic showing the scientist measuring the height of the “K: Check it out for laughs! Then follow the link to “doing a kind act has a significant effect on well-being” for results gleaned from 27 experimental studies.
There are some caveats, however. The effects reported by Curry et al are small. Also, the individual studies tend to be underpowered—averaging only about a third of the number of subjects needed to detect effects of interest.
Furthermore, it’s clear from Kindlab and other sources (for example, my prior blog noted at the outset of this post), that many people lack a motivation to be kind.
For example, a twenty-something bar-hopper is very unlikely to wear an unfashionable, drink-inhibiting mask. Why bother to protect his or her peers from a disease that probably won’t kill them anyways (never mind the grandparents).
How can this dangerously unkind behavior be turned around?
Positive news for troubling times: People really do like to help others
Posted by mark in Consumer behavior on June 19, 2020
Being Minneapolis based and seeing all the strife these last few weeks, it was heartening to see that this Large-Scale Experiment Shows People Want to Help Each Other, Even When It Costs Them Something.
“It [prosocial behavior] means doing something for someone else at a cost to yourself. One example would be paying for the person behind you’s order at the coffee shop. Or right now, wearing your mask in public. It’s a cost to you; it’s uncomfortable. But you contribute to the public good by wearing it and not spreading the virus. From an evolutionary perspective, it’s kind of perplexing that it even exists, because you’re decreasing your own fitness on behalf of others.”
– David Melamed, Associate Professor of Sociology at The Ohio State University, lead author of “The robustness of reciprocity”, Science Advances, 6/3/20
The experiment, which involved 700 people, showed prosocial behavior persisted no matter what the mix of motivators. It is very sweet to see anyone of any age, from toddler to senior, help one another. I don’t know of many things that give me more satisfaction than lending a hand. Come on everyone, be nice—you will feel better for it! It’s time we turned all the frowns upside down.
Count on placebo effect to counteract colds this coming season
Posted by mark in Consumer behavior on November 23, 2018
In anticipation of seasonal sniffles and hacking coughs I restocked my supply of throat lozenges today. The selection ranged from generics at less than one dollar for a 30-count bag to brands going for several times that price. I see on Amazon a popular choice called “Thieves” that go for $40 for the same quantity that I bought for 97 cents!
Evidently (per National Institute of Health) cough medicines’ effect is mainly placebo. If you do not believe this, go ahead and buy the most expensive lozenges—it will surely make you feel better: Belief enhances the power of a placebo, which means “I shall please” in Latin. You also should consider stocking up in a costly painkiller called Placeberol—laced with Inertaminophen that’s featured in the New York Times Magazine earlier this month* (just kidding).
By the way, the opposite of placebo is the nocebo effect—a belief that an inert ingredient will cause harm to your health. It can be a killer according to this report by the BBC that you can think yourself to death.
My prescription is to maintain a positive attitude to the efficacy of cough drops but pay as little for them as possible. While awaiting the cure for the common cold, I don’t see any alternative.
Marketers trick math-challenged consumers with ploys on percentages
Posted by mark in Consumer behavior on August 5, 2018
WSJ’s “The Numbers” columnist, Jo Craven McGinty, advised readers “To Shop Smart, Mind the Percentages” in this weekend’s issue. It turns out that, as I blogged back in 2007, percentages are puzzling to many people. Put yourself to this test from McGinty: You can buy a regular container of ice cream at 33% off (option 1) or pay the usual price for a 33% more of it as a free bonus (option 2). If you picked the first option without any hesitation, you go to the head of the class. Those of you—likely the majority of the general population–who went for option 2 are the target for the marketers.
“People always go for the bonus.” – Quote in WSJ from Akshay Rao, marketing professor, University of Minnesota and co-author of When Two and Two is Not Equal to Four: Errors in Processing Multiple Percentage Changes
The remainder who withheld judgement until they do the calculation get full credit for knowing that percentages require thinking to work out their effect. Kudos to you for being math-savvy.
“To be statistically literate, one must be able to form arithmetic comparisons of any two numbers.”
– Milo Schield, Department of Business, Accounting and MIS, Augsburg College, Minneapolis, “Common Errors In Forming Arithmetic Comparisons”, Sept 1999, Association of Public Data Users, Volume 1.51 Journal Of Significance
Breaking free of standard practices that no longer make sense
Posted by mark in Consumer behavior, Uncategorized on October 20, 2015
Building off my previous blog on “Why no one wants to monkey around with how things have always been done” I am passing along an insightful anecdote by David Morganstein, President of the American Statistical Association, about his wife’s standard practice to slice a quarter inch off of every ham and toss it in the trash. Read this amazing story and others like it in “The Slice of Ham, How Do You Know?”.
Most of our assumptions have outlived their uselessness.
– Marshall McLuhan, famed for predicting the World Wide Web almost thirty years before it was invented.
Fewer kids, more pets—what this world is coming to
Posted by mark in Consumer behavior, pop on August 28, 2015
NBC’s Today show posted this album yesterday of an Australian dog named Humphrey posing as a newborn baby. Unbelievable! This is what the world is coming to—far fewer children and many more animals being welcomed to families.
The latest issue of Bloomberg Businessweek tells this story of a German pet store with a quarter of a million animals—the world’s biggest—to meet the ever-growing demand of empty nesters. I cannot decide what fascinates me more, the video of 32 weird animals for sale, or the “They Never Talk Back” graphic showing how many countries everywhere have increased per capita spending on pets. The United States leads the way with an arrow point well past $120 per person spent on their loved ones, that is, household animals.
“After food, clothing and medicine, the fourth item is cosmetics and the fifth is pets. That’s serious.”
–Pope Francis
Fisher-Yates shuffle for music streaming is perfectly random—too much so for some
Posted by mark in Basic stats & math, Consumer behavior on July 28, 2015
The headline “When random is too random” caught my eye when the April issue of Significance, published by The Royal Statistical Society, circulated by me the other day. It really makes no statistical sense, but the music-streaming service Spotify abandoned the truly random Fisher-Yates shuffle. The problem with randomization is that it naturally produces repeats in tracks two or even three days in a row and occasionally back-to-back. Although this happened purely by chance, Spotify consumers complained.
Along similar lines, I have been aggravated by screen savers that randomly show family photos. It really seems that some get repeated too often even though it’s only by chance. For a detailing of how Spotify’s software engineer Lukáš Poláček tweaked the Fisher-Yates shuffle to stretch songs out more evenly see this blog post.
“I think Fisher-Yates shuffle is one of the most beautiful random algorithms and it’s amazing that such a complicated problem can be solved in 3 lines of code in some programming languages. And this is accomplished using the optimal number of operations and optimal amount of randomness.”
– Lukáš Poláček (who nevertheless, due to fickleness of music listeners, tweaked the algorithm to introduce a degree of unrandomization so it would reduce natural clustering)