The Legacy of Boaty McBoatface: Beware of Customers Whi Vote by Michael Blanding Companies that encourage consumers to vote online should be forewarned—they may expect more than you promise, according to research by Michael Norton, Leslie John, and colleagues. In 2016, the National Environmental Research Cou (NERC), a quasi- {overnmental agency in the United Kingdom, decided it would be fun to let the public vote online to name the country’s newest research vessel “The agency was less pleased when it saw the winning entry: Boaly MeBoatface Overruling the public's wishes, NERC narned the craft after British naturalist Sir David Attenborough. The public was outraged: newspaper editorials decried the lack of democracy, and citizens protested the unfairness of it all on social media, So much for having alittle marketing fun with the publi Boaty blowback highlights the potential danger of giving consumers the power to vote, even, though customer engagement is a primary goal of almost every social media strategy The problem: Even though NERC never explicitly premised it would name the boat after the inner in the online poll, the agency implied that it would respect the public's wishes, say Michael Norton and Leslie John, both professors at Harvard Business School “When firms conduct online polls, people frequently submit ridiculous entries; and with social media, those entries will go vial,” says Norton, Harold M. Brierley Professor of Business Administration. "But even when firms never guarantee that consumers will choose the winner, consumers infer an implicit contract and are upset when that contact is violated.”Norton and John examine the pitfalls of those implicit eantracts in a new working paper, Procedural Justice and the Risks of Consumer Voting, written with Darden School of Business Assistant Professor Tami Kim and Harvard Kennedy School Professor Todd Rogers. Name this space These days, firms encourage customers to vote on everything. You can thank online polling for such products as blue M&M's, Spicy Street Taco Dorto chins, and even a sat Ist for the band Metallica. The practice is appealing to companies for several reasons, Norton says For one, internet-based polls generate near-instant results. ‘Before, fms had to conduct these ‘campaigns via the mail" Norton says. "With social media, responses are immediate." Also, votes allow companies to perform consumer research cheaply, generating new ideas for products or flavors, or testing consumer preference for options it might be considering. "Firms ‘can essentially outsource product development,” says Norton. Allowing consumers to vote also engenders brand loyalty by giving users more of @ sense of ‘ownership over products. (Once a company opens those floodgates, however, they are essentially making a series of promises with consumers, whether they know it of nat Norton and colleagues divi and nen-suparession, 1ose promises into three categories: representation, consistency, Representation refers tothe fact that i customers are given input into a product choice, they expect it to count as much as—if nat more than—the company’s own input. In one experiment, participants were given the chance to vote on the Super Bowl Most Valuable Player award; they Were told their votes would count anywhere from O percent to 100 percent ofthe final outcome, will the rest ofthe vote decided by a panel of experts. In another condition, participants were told their feedback wouldn't influence the vote at all The researchers then asked participants to rank from 1 to 10 how satisfied they were with their votes, Those who had been told their votes wouldn't count at all ranked thelr satisfaction at 5.47, much higher than the 4.04 satisfaction score recorded by participants who believed their voles would count 10 percent. In fact, participants’ satisfaction didn't match the “feedtack* condition until after they were given 50 percent or more input “As soon as fitms intreduce voting, they are implying a cifferent relationship: We are working together on this," says John, Marvin Bower Associate Professor. "Therefore, consumers believe their votes should be counted equally.” AA similar phenomenon occurs with eonsisteney. Once a company asks for feedback on one choice, consumers assume that they will be able to offer input again inthe future. To test this condition, Norton ang his colleagues created an experiment featuring a fake Kickstarter ‘campaign for a company called Ozzie’s Organics and allowed some consumers to vate on the company’s product lines, Afterward, those participants were told either that the company would continue to allow consumers to vote or it would be taking the vote away, Those participants who lost the vote subsequently rated their approval forthe company lower than both those who retained the vate and these who never had it. The last category, non-suppression, is the principle that was violated in the MeBoatface incident, Norton says. For this experiment, the researchers read the NERC case study to participants, in some cases giving them the real vote totals of Boaly McBoatface at 124,109 votes, and David Attenborough at 11,000 votes, and in some cases reversing them. In a third condition, they were told that NERC named the boat without a vote. In all vee cases, they were told NERC named the boat after Attenborough, Mirroring realty, participants were significantly less satisfied with the outcome when they felt NERC overrode the vote—3.63 compared to 4.80 when told they abided the vote, and 4.58 wien told they held no vote. In addition, they were less satisfied withthe firm itself, 3.26 compared to 4,80 and 4,38 respectively, 's offensive because consumers feel as though the firm broke the contraThe right way to run a poll For companies lacking t let consumers vote on choices, Norton and John recommend that they be very explicit about how they will consider the voice of consumers before the vote begins, For texample, ifthe vote isa one-time event, the frm should be sure t let consumers know that beforehand, to save on disappointment if they aren't asked for input the next time. In addition, companies can limit the fallout from off-the-wall choices by pre-selecting acceptable outcomes on which consumers can vate—or culling options from consumer suggestions without publicizing the actual number of votes for each. “Ifyou love one that only ‘one person suggests, you ean include it without offending anyone,” Norton says Lastly, companies can set up same kind of sereening process, by which only actual customers can vole, but giving out a voting code attached to products, That way, those voting are more likely tobe invested in the actual outcome an may be less likely to deliver inappropriate responses. li worse comes to worst, you can always just give people what they want That's what the Australian government thought it was doing when it named a new ferry in Sydney Fory MeFerryface, telling the public that the people had spoken. It was later revealed that the government had chosen that name over the actual winner, an environmental activist, Despite the fact that the government thought the humorous name would be more popular, once ‘again, an implicit contract had been broken, and outrage ensued POST A COMMENT 1m erat be pubs, comments must be api ard el in tee, with name alge pasa tacks, Year comma maybe eo clay a eet4 Comments GT sein tne tscussion. loom wns casionurwmaiseus @ Like this article? ‘Subse to Werking Knowledge to receive dy updates ofthe atest article dred tight a your box 2 Eres emaiiassress share Newest oldest a significant point is missed here- all partes were happy nthe end withthe naming ofthe NERC research ‘yesse!- compromise was reached naming the exploratory submarine that it cartes as “Boaty Meaoatiace Reply + Shares be - ‘Stategy 10 lesson: Oni ask questions in which any possible answers acceptable to you. When Isold pots and pans ivhome’ when we got to the close the question was NOT would youlike to buy se” rather “which set would you lke, the standard or the expanded”. Sure, sometimes the answer was nether but most times people will choose between the answers presented, Reply + Shares Hg tans sben - ‘Very goed writeup on the key factors involved in setting up sucha vote. In essence, communicate clearly, alow only vested voters to vote and contractually flow though tothe end. The Boaty MeBoatface fiasco can be attributed to letting norvested voters to vote, B - Reminds me of two important lessons from my youth. Do not promise what you cannot éelver Donot ask the question if you donot want the answer Reply + Shares Privacy Do Not Sell My Data