There is no reset button to press at mid-night on 31st December 2020

“The upheaval of our world and the upheaval of our consciousness are one and the same”, Carl Jun - It is fair to say that COVID 19 has universally disrupted lives. Simple liberties like visiting friends and family, attending church, which we take for granted, have been curtailed by lockdowns. As a result, human beings have adapted their behaviors.  

“Consumers don’t think how they feel. They don’t say what they think and they don’t do what they say”, David Ogilvy - What people worry about may not be what they need to worry about and is very likely different from what gets reported in the press. The image below has data which is morbid, and a bit dated, but makes the point. Heart disease is the biggest killer in the US but amongst the least researched and reported.

The business press is awash with predictions of the “new normal” and I will use all my self restraint to resist the temptation to provide another prediction. Instead I will provide a framework for how human behaviors might evolve.

“The world is a contradiction; the universe is a paradox”, Kedar Joshi - As a student of economics, one theory that left an imprint on me was Karl Marx’s theory of dialectic materialism. At its core, it is a philosophical approach to change. In layman’s language it postulates that there is an existing thesis which is challenged by an emergent anti-thesis and the collision of the two results in a new synthesis. I like the framework of dialectical thinking since it is a form of analytical reasoning that encourages one to view issues from multiple perspectives to arrive at a reconciliation of opposing views and perspectives.

Human beings are fundamentally irrational and don’t follow laws of behavior like Newtonian laws. The irony is that Newtonian laws do break down when applied to the complexity of sub-atomic physics. Surely this pandemic is the human behavior equivalent of sub-atomic physics when it comes to complexity.

Not all the behaviors adopted during COVID are going to endure and equally a lot of Pre-COVID behaviors continued through the pandemic and will endure into the future. For instance, even during the height of the lockdowns the married dating site Ashley Madison actually increased its user base. At first glance it is counter intuitive – why join a dating site (and a married data site at that) if you are unable to physically meet people. Clearly, the pressures of working from home have exposed fractures in relationships and people are looking for an outlet or looking for just someone other than the spouse to speak with. It is classic human behavior that has survived the ages and will survive COVID as well.

“If curiosity killed the cat, it was satisfaction that brought it back” Holly Black – My belief is that the recent “new” human behaviors will fall into a spectrum ranging from those that will unwind ASAP to those that will endure. I think that with satisfaction with the current behavior will be the determining factor.

In the immediate aftermath of Singapore going into Circuit breaker, I remember we had a number of “zoom parties”. In fact “zoom drinking” seemed to be a decent thing - you save time travelling to the bar, the drinks are cheaper and you get to interact with friends. If all of humanity computed utility from activities the way Sheldon Cooper in the TV series, The Big Bang Theory does, “zoom drinking” would endure. But alas…..Fast forward to today and even with restrictions of 5 per table, no alcohol served off premises etc all bars and restaurants are packed to capacity. Clearly, “zoom drinking” was way less satisfactory than catching up with friends in person.

Walking around Singapore’s eating hot spots like Amoy street, Arab street I am amazed at the fact that restaurants are back to being full (albeit with social distancing). I was on leave this week and I myself have eaten out 5 times – thrice with the family and twice with friends and on each occasion the restaurant has been full. I would predict that the restaurant business will bounce back as soon as restrictions are eased.

At the other end of the human behavior spectrum you have contactless delivery. Before COVID the act of receiving a home delivery from a restaurant involved checking the items were as per order, the food was “warm” and possibly tip the person delivering the food. Fast forward to today and the ringing of the door bell and a text message indicates a delivery has been made at the door and needs to be picked up. The fact is that even if the delivery does not match the order or is cold, the delivery guy can’t do much. Given that most of them belong to syndicated services like Deliveroo or Grab, they can’t or won’t even take the order back. Grievances need to be taken up directly with the restaurant.

Human interaction is important (as seen in the restaurant example) but only if it is has value – even if social or psychological. In the case of home delivery there is no “value” or “utility” to the human interaction. Hence, the new behavior of accepting contactless delivery is likely to stick around. The same extends to vast tranches of ecommerce shopping. I am not suggesting that malls will be ghost towns in Singapore anytime soon but a lot of things will continue to be bought online and ecommerce is likely to continue to grow.

Somewhere in the middle of the spectrum is gym going and fitness. In fact, it is a microcosm that reflects the spectrum. On the one extreme, if you were going to a gym only to attend a spin class, a virtual spin class with your newly acquired peloton is a good option. But if you need a trainer to show you the moves an online class is less than satisfactory. After all instructions on the other end of a call don’t really help you alter your posture.

I have an irrational fear of hurting myself with a wrong posture doing weights or yoga and so have never done an online class. Once circuit breaker was over, I went back to working out with my physical trainer and went back to the Yoga class. It probably explains why gyms offering Muay Thai and Yoga seem to be back to being full. Another reason for going to the gym is to use heavy duty equipment which is impossible to store and use at home. Yes there was a mushrooming of “do it at home” alternatives but none of them were “the real deal” especially for those seriously into pumping weights.

I think gyms will survive but in a different avatar. This new avatar will probably not just survive but thrive alongside the pelotons and other in home fitness programs / mechanisms.

“The future depends on what we do in the present”, Mahatma Gandhi – The old adage of if a behavior sticks for 21 days it will stick has been broken by the extreme turbulence. Remember “zoom drinking” was a habit for circa 6 weeks but came unstuck before you could say abracabada.

I don’t think we should ask people to determine what they are likely to do – no one knows and a rational response may not match actual behavior. A better way to predict the future is to observe current behavior and satisfaction with it.

For instance, I run long distance races as a hobby and register for one a month. (To clarify anything north of 10Km counts as a long distance in my lexicon.) This year the races were initially postponed and finally converted to “virtual races”. The idea is that you cover the distance, send the organizers proof of having done the run and voila you get your medal and other paraphernalia like the finishers T-shirt. But it misses the point of running an organized race. I mean, if I want to run 10Km I can do it on my own. I pay the race organizers not for the medal or t-shirt but for the experience – the joy of running with strangers, the thrill of seeing the timing at the finish line, the feel of the medal against the sweat drenched skin….. none of this is rational but hey what’s rational about wanting to cover 10km, 21 km or 42km on your feet especially on a Sunday morning.

Virtual races don’t offer the same satisfaction and hence I don’t think virtual races will survive in the long run.

Running along the East coast park of Singapore over weekends, I am amazed at just how crowded it is. In fact so crowded are the beaches of Singapore that the government has introduced a mechanism to “book” your slot in advance and yes no booking, no entry. The beaches of Singapore pale in comparison to Bali, Phuket or even Bintan but the fact that they are packed is a sign that people are longing for the beach. I would predict that as soon as air travel opens and the government allows leisure travel, we will see a return to travelling for holiday. Business travel, I am not so sure about.

Predicting which behaviors will stick and wont is a challenge the business world is grappling with. The task is more onerous given the added unknown of the economic impact of the impending recession. One thing is for certain – there is no reset button that is available that can be pressed at mid night on the 31^st of December (while we are enjoying a socially distanced New Year's eve celebration). 

Its 2020 – I still eat food but have not yet had a 3D printed Ice cream; What research needs to do is to Drive Empathy with People rather than Sympathy for People

In 2005, the renowned inventor and futurist Ray Kurzweil predicted that by 2020 it will be possible to consume nanabots that will be capable of nourishing human body cells. That would mean that we would no longer need to eat. Having just returned from a holiday in Goa I can tell you that the famous Goan Sausages continue to be consumed in copious quantities while the nanabots are still not on the menu.

“The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable”. John Kenneth Galbraith

Predictions gone wrong - Every market researcher knows that making predictions is a difficult task and fraught with risks. It’s made even more difficult when you throw in factors like development of the technology, the legislative environment, whether you have an entrepreneur with the ability to commercialize the technology etc. That’s probably why futurists prefer round numbers like 2020 or 2025 which are ideally around a decade out – not too far out but reasonably far out.

So come 2020 and there are plenty of predictions with expiry dates looming. A leading management consultancy had predicted that by 2020, 3D printing would spur a second industrial revolution with print at home food and a range of products including toys. Well this Christmas I had to make do with toys from “Toys R Us” (its still up and running in India) since 3D options are not available. And yes, while I continue to enjoy Ben & Jerry’s Ice cream, I am yet to taste a 3D printed Ice cream. The failure of 3D printers taking off seems to be attributed to them being not user friendly. Irrespective, 3D printing is still not leading to a second industrial revolution.

There are some predictions that have proven even more woefully off target. In 1967, the American Noble Laureate Glenn Seaborg predicted that “by the year 2020 it may be possible to breed intelligent species of animals such as apes that will be capable of performing manual labor”……….

Missed predictions should not be taken as a failure. Inventors should absolutely continue to dream of a better future. Because we don’t have perfectly smart homes or haven't complexly figured out driver less cars does not mean we never will. Technology has indeed made rapid progress – just look at the field of medicine and the number of life threatening diseases from the last century that have now been tamed. Technology crawls forward at a steady pace – look at the development of mobile phones over the last 20 years. It is only once in a while that we see a giant leap forward like the i-phone that then spurs new innovation.

“Predictions are very difficult. Especially if they are about the future”. – Niels Bohr, Noble Prize Winning Physicist.

Market Research missed a prediction - In the last decade, the Market research industry has, quite rightly, invested a lot of resources (manpower and financial) into adopting the latest technologies. The industry has made massive progress – look at the adoption of neuro techniques ranging from EEG to Skin conductance to facial coding to IAT’s.

Despite all the technology at play no one predicted two of the biggest global (democratic) political events of the last decade – Trump and Brexit.

The American society has seen increased inequality over the decades. The average pretax income of the top 10% of Americans has more than doubled since 1980 while that of the bottom 50% has remained flat. This means that four decades of growth has had no impact on the salaries of half the Americans. The American dream of getting ahead is now restricted to the those at the top end of the income ladder who have a 70 percent chance of achieving the dream. On the other hand those at the bottom end of the income ladder have only a 35% chance of doing better than their parents. Back in the 1940’s the chances of getting ahead were not dependent on where you started on the income ladder.

This rising inequality led to a feeling that the “system was broken” and hence Trump. Ironically, Trump (like Brexit) is the reduction ad absurdum of a culture that tasks elites with reforming a system that they themselves created and benefitted from. Just look at the fact that post the tax changes the 400 riches families paid lower taxes than the bottom 50% of households.

“…the research evidence keeps piling up and points strongly to the conclusion that a high degree of empathy in a relationship is possibly the most potent factors in bringing about change…” American Psychologist Carl Rogers

Research needs to drive empathy with people not sympathy for people - I would argue that empathy with the masses would have helped predict the rise of Trump or Brexit. Research today helps to generate Sympathy for people. By highlighting the suffering and angst of people it generates concern and even sadness for their plight. But it falls short of helping marketers to “feel their feelings”. The problem with sympathy is that it will result in solutions with “tools that caused the issues”. To provide real solutions we need empathy with people.

“…the worst slave owners were those who were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of the system being realized by those who suffered from it, and understood by those who contemplated it…” Oscar Wilde

Driving empathy for people - At its core, empathy requires putting yourself in someone else’s shoes and feeling their feelings. Psychologists define two kinds of empathy – cognitive empathy and emotional empathy. Cognitive empathy is about being able to look at the world through someone else’s eyes – a bit like how an actor visualizes a character. Emotional empathy on the other hand is about being able to experience the same emotions as the other person leading to compassion and subsequent action.

Psychologists have found two factors that can hinder empathy – (1) pressure and stress which stimulate the amygdala thus crowding out empathy (2) “rich persons malady” – it is very difficult for the well to do to understand the feelings of the less well off.

Researchers have extremely busy lives. We can develop cognitive empathy by exploring the world outside the office, observe people in their natural habitats, try new experiences….. Remember my earlier blog titled “Long live insights – its now time for outsights” - click here to read.

Emotional empathy is more nuanced and will require the industry to embrace diversity well beyond the normal dimensions of gender, age and sexual orientation (though we seem to still struggle with gender diversity at the upper echelons – see my earlier blog “Is the market research industry – unconsciously conscious or consciously unconscious of gender bias” - click here to read). The industry will need to embrace “cognitive diversity” and ensure we have people from all backgrounds. This is the only way to foster emotional empathy.

Ultimately we must drive empathy with people, not sympathy for people.

“Hope smiles from the threshold of the year to come whispering, “it will be happier”.” – Lord Tennyson, British Poet