On Portions, Prawns, and Persuasion
10th February 2010
Since 1991 I’ve been a member in good standing of the Health and Safety Research and Salvation Cabal. The Cabal’s stated purpose is to save the world from itself while having those fabulous buffet lunches at NIH meetings. (Are they still serving the chilled prawns with that light red sauce? Hey, taxpayers, if you want to recruit world class scientists you’re gonna have to break a few shrimp shells.) As a communication and persuasion guy, Cabalists frequently asked me to advise them on one of their big guns: Warning Labels. They stopped asking since I always told them the best warning label is the one you can’t see. Of course, I’m an idiot because every real scientist in the Cabal knows that Warning Labels really work because they work really well. They left me alone after awhile which was okay because I was usually standing by the prawns!
Lately I’ve been mocking the FDA for its warning label actions – small and large, real and metaphoric – on a variety of issues like claims on cereal boxes, smelly aspirin bottles, and Off Label dermatologists. Today, I’ll mock them for their newest warning label rescue effort: Portion Sizes! The FDA is requiring new, front of the box warning labels about nutritional contents with a new big gun: Calorie Counts for How People Really Eat!
“If you put on a meaningful portion size, it would scare a lot of people,” said Barry Popkin, a nutrition professor at the University of North Carolina. “They would see, ‘I’m going to get 300 calories from that, or 500 calories.’ ”
I don’t know Barry Popkin from Rupert Pupkin, but neither of them know anything about the effects of these kind of labels on behavior which can easily be expressed with one number: Zero! And why should Professor Popkin know anything about this? His degrees are in economics and he’s got a great CV. Lots of NIH type entries, so I bet he knows about the prawns. But, if you scan his CV for terms like “warning” and “labels” guess what? Nothing. Nada. Zilch, zed, and zero. His appointment at UNC is in nutrition and he’s a nutrition expert which, it appears, automatically means he passed the comprehensives questions on persuasion and behavior change (psst, Transtheoretical Model. Or Health Beliefs Model. Anything with prawns.)
I’ve noted this before, the arrogance of the Cabal for going wildly beyond their expertise to explain how to save the world from itself. Here’s an expert in metabolic disorders offering his Salvation Plan for the obese, 1-800-IAM-FATT. Any parent with children in the house of any age knows more about what works than these Cabalists. Yet, their advice and support drives these foolish and ineffective FDA efforts.
“We are actively looking at serving size and evaluating what steps we need to take,” said Barbara O. Schneeman, director of the F.D.A. office that oversees nutrition labels. “Ultimately, the purpose of nutrition labeling is to help consumers make healthier choices, make improvements in their diet, and we want to make sure we achieve that goal.”
Good for you Barbara Schneeman! Bet the Nudge guy, late of UChicago now with OMB, is on your Fav Five Calling Circle. Dr. Schneeman is an emerita professor from Cal Davis with a doc from Berkley who’s a nutrition expert with the standard expertise in warning labels, although again if you search her distinguished record, you don’t find much with the terms “warning” and “label” on it, but how can that matter? She’s in the Cabal, knows about those Models, and the prawns. Although I’ll bet she’s disappointed that the FDA is not in the NIH about right now. Not even little frozen shrimps at the FDA buffets, I’ll bet.
Why do content labels fail to change behavior?
1. Information is not influence. Hey, Al Gore has a slide show that proves Man Bites Climate, but beyond Oscars and Nobels for Mr. Gore, how’s the behavior change side of that going? Facts, scientific or otherwise, rarely motivate behavior change. Consider just one practical proof of this assertion: People rarely elect intellectuals to political office.
2. Labels elicit Reactance. Labels may imply or demonstrate a perceived unfair restriction on the consumer’s free choice. It does not matter the content of the label, if it implies or demonstrates a restriction on free choice, you have just pulled the trigger on the Reactance revolver. In such a state people normally move to remove the restriction which means removing the restrictor which means you. They do not move to eat less.
3. Labels elicit fear. Eat and Ye Shall Die doesn’t make you feel pretty; it scares you. Fear rarely produces a sophisticated, rational, and careful analysis of behavior contingencies. Fear appeals elicit fear which is a motivational state typically accompanied by simple thoughts like “Run!” Worse still, fear is a great element for classical conditioning so that everything immediately associated with the fear (like the FDA that sponsors the label) gets connected with it. Just what you want from citizens. What’s the first thing they experience when they hear FDA? Fear. Groovy.
4. Labels require lawyers. If anything goes wrong, you’ve got a tricky legal position because you sold something with a warning which sounds like some kind of admission of risk already. And, yeah, sure, you can call the FDA to the witness stand to take the rap for requiring the warning; I’m sure that Schneeman is available.
5. Labels violate expectancies. Hey, I’m just looking for something to eat and now I’m computing calories per serving against the USDA recommended daily allowance of carbs and proteins. I didn’t expect there to be any math on this Exam.
Of course, these are ridiculous concerns and the smart guys in nutrition are way past this. Recall that I’m an idiot who doesn’t have a degree from Stanford or Yale in a scientific field like pediatrics, metabolism, or nutrition. I’m just a communication dummy. Pah, persuasion, everyone knows how to do that . . . would you pass me another prawn, please?
Remember the Rules!
All Bad Persuasion Is Sincere.
If You Can’t Succeed, Don’t Try.
It’s about the Other Guy, Stupid.
Power Corrupts Persuasion.