Robert B Cialdini (00:00)
great.

Pax (00:00)
Chaldini.

Okay, great. All right, Dr. Chaldini, so great to have you join us today. I have to say I've been looking forward to meeting with you and getting a chance to ask you some questions based off of all your research and your writings. Thank you for joining us.

Robert B Cialdini (00:18)
Well, I'm looking forward to the opportunity to interact on these topics.

Pax (00:23)
⁓ So I'd love to, you know, as I was preparing for this, was thinking, ⁓ what are some of the questions that I could ask Dr. Cialdini today that the Dr. Cialdini of 20 years ago could not answer? One of those questions is, tell me about the impact of all your writing and all your publications. What have you seen happen? Because I think

your what you've done is really foundational to sales and marketing and beyond. I'd love to hear just like what have you seen change in the world because of what you've put out there.

Robert B Cialdini (01:05)
I think what I've seen is that somehow the information about the seven principles of influence has become more popular, even though the book that I first wrote about it is quite a few years old. The citation rate is going up. And I think I could explain that in terms of the rise of AI.

and technological ways of moving people in our directions and people trying to see how they might best fit those principles of human behavior into the patterns that ⁓ you will ⁓ hear in response to a request for information from a bot or an AI agent or one or another LLM. ⁓ Those questions being integrated

into the kind of responding ⁓ that you get has caused ⁓ a lot of people to say, well, how do we best ask that question so that we get the best response from this new source of information about how we present something, the style we use, and of course, the content that we present?

Pax (02:25)
So, know, influence, like I was saying, is so foundational, I think, to everything in marketing and in general, like it's a foundational business book to the point where, as you say, AI knows the principles, AI knows the content. And I want to know, like your perspective, how do you feel about that? Are you happy that that's just spreading more of the message or?

Do you feel a sense of, listen, this is meant for humans. It's not meant to be scraped and then distributed that way.

Robert B Cialdini (03:00)
You know,

I'm not opposed to ⁓ enhancing the effectiveness of a persuader, provided that the work that's being ⁓ employed arranges for an ethical use of those principles of influence. That what we have to focus on is being responsible in the presentation and persuasion.

domains so that ⁓ everyone benefits from the outcome of that. Otherwise, people aren't going to return to us if they haven't had a good experience, if their outcomes haven't been properly ⁓ appreciated and attended to by the communicator in giving them information that leads them in ⁓ proper directions.

adaptive ways to behave, then they're unlikely to want to come back to that communicator or that route. So we have to lace whatever we provide, including that which comes from technological systems, with an ethical component ⁓ to make sure that this is ⁓ something that allows for both sides to ⁓ derive positive outcomes.

Pax (04:25)
You've drawn a lot in interviews that you've done this clear distinction between ethical influence and manipulation over the course of your career. Do you feel like AI is making that line harder or easier to hold? Or is it simply just amplifying intent?

Robert B Cialdini (04:42)
It's me.

No, it's just it's making it harder to hold. don't, you know, AI doesn't make ethical judgments. We have to make those judgments based on what we receive as with whether this is not just the right way to increase ⁓ the likelihood of persuading somebody. ⁓ That is, it's not just the way to to generate. ⁓ Yes.

It's the way to generate yes in ⁓ a morally acceptable ⁓ ethical way so that both sides do benefit. That's our judgment. We can take that ⁓ information and decide ⁓ whether ⁓ it can be tweaked to be more ethical or even discarded if it's not going to be ⁓ ethical in its approach. ⁓ The other thing is

We have to make sure that the information that we get from an AI source is indeed ⁓ the most valid information that we can employ to determine how to best influence others. ⁓ So when I think about what the best way for a communicator to determine what persuasive appeal is going to be optimal,

It's not simply to ask the question of the model. Well, what can I do here ⁓ that will best sway that individual in my direction? It's to add the addendum according to the research on the topic. That narrows the band of information that you're going to be getting.

Right. Because the AI is preloaded, not just with research, it's preloaded with opinions and speculations and hunches that people have written about ⁓ in their own works. And that's been involved in the response that the AI gets back. It takes a look at all of that information, even the stuff that's just not true, just based on

a one-time example that somebody remembers or misremembers even. It's the gold standard, which is properly conducted, properly controlled research that allows us to say with confidence, this is the causal factor that's likely to be successful in this particular situation in bringing about a sent to a. ⁓

to a request.

Pax (07:42)
You've, you've talked a lot about the, ⁓ you know, your, your field of researchers. You've talked about how, you know, the government through grants will fund all this research, but the, you know, a lot of people in that, ⁓ kind of slice of the economy, they, they share stuff among themselves, but they don't share among the general population. And, ⁓ I find that in, the marketing world.

You have some set of marketers who will go through this very formal education. You know, they'll get master's degrees, some, some doctorates, and then you have a huge percent of people in marketing that fell into it. They studied something else. They didn't study anything at all. And they're kind of living by the seat of their pants. They're just like, yeah, just give me the same when I run with it. And so you, you get a lot of kind of maybe sometimes improperly understood.

Robert B Cialdini (08:33)
Hmm.

Pax (08:41)
item or tactic and then they just run with it, but they don't have necessarily like the time or the breathing room to study it and consider all these different variables that you often get on the research side. Is there any of your principles either from the seven principles or just something from your writing that you've seen people latch onto in and maybe take it in a different direction that you're like, wait, you don't really, you haven't fully grasped this yet.

⁓ that, that you would love to like set people straight on, Hey, this isn't the proper application of whatever this principle is, or this, this idea.

Robert B Cialdini (09:12)
Yeah.

Right.

I think that the place I see it most often is in the principle of authority, ⁓ where people don't make a proper distinction between being in authority versus being an authority. And being in authority is a matter of power. You can coerce or you can bribe or you can penalize or you can ⁓ push.

or draw people in a particular direction. But it doesn't last. People don't like being pushed around. They don't like being the object of a power maneuver with them as the subject. And so when you're not around, if you don't have that ability to exercise your authority over them, the other way of thinking about

authority is being an authority, someone whose knowledge and experience and expertise they can rely on to make a good choice. And that person's advice will stay with them even if that person isn't there any longer to ⁓ implement that advice. That's the thing.

The difference between power and persuasion is in being an authority ⁓ for ⁓ persuasion versus being in authority. And people make that mistake, especially inside organizations. Managers, team leaders, executives, and so on ⁓ make that mistake. And I think that's the one I see most often in my own observations.

Pax (11:09)
Is, is being an authority, is it all about what you know? Is that how you amplify?

Robert B Cialdini (11:16)
Yeah, that's really a good question because it's about that and one other factor. It's about your perceived competence, experience, know-how, and so on that allows people to say, well, I want to listen to this person because this person is going to reduce my uncertainty about what's the best thing to do here. This is an expert on that topic. So that's the one thing. And the second is

trustworthiness of that expert information. Your credibility is determined by your expertise on the one hand and your trustworthiness on the other. And so being an authority isn't just the knowledge and the experience and the credentials you have, it's the perception that you're not trying to line your own pockets with this expert information you're giving.

out, but you are trying to accurately depict reality for your audience with that expert information. If you can get those two things operating in concert, no one can beat you as an authority communicator. Around the world, that's what we found. If you have those two things in combination,

No one can beat you as a communicator. All other things equal, right? So that's the combination, ⁓ the conjoined energies to project and to honestly provide ⁓ in your appeals.

Pax (12:49)
⁓ Right.

I, I heard this quote recently about, the, the world won't trust you until you trust you. And I'm curious as you, know, in your research, have you, have you run across people who in terms of this authority, they know what they're talking about. They're trustworthy, but they haven't yet built that self confidence.

And how does that relate to these principles of influence where it's like they do check those boxes, but they just doubt themselves and that detracts from their ability to influence.

Robert B Cialdini (13:46)
Yeah, that's you put your finger on something with the word confidence because what the research shows is that people who ⁓ portray and ⁓ who deliver a sense of self-confidence on a topic are more persuasive, holding constant what they say. making that the same, if you've got somebody who projects that with confidence versus

without that same level of confidence, you get a significant difference. It's not just about the facts. It's about the perception of you as being ⁓ knowledgeable about those facts to the point of being ⁓ self-confident in your presentation of them. Now, so the thing that you can find, for example, if you are that person, but you're a little, you do know these

Pax (14:35)
I'm curious.

Robert B Cialdini (14:44)
these positives and negatives about the topic that you're considering. But you're not projecting as well as you should be. There's a small behavioral device you can use to increase that perception. You increase your rate ⁓ of speaking by like half. ⁓

standard deviation. you increase it by like 20 to 25 percent. Not a lot. That's enough to cause people to perceive that what you are saying is something you're not having to question yourself about. So you can practice that. Yeah.

Pax (15:31)
Wow,

that's a good tip. Speak a little bit faster and that projects that confidence.

Robert B Cialdini (15:36)
A little bit faster. If you

speak too fast, come off like ⁓ a sideshow salesperson, you know, a little too facile. And that doesn't produce the successful results. A little faster, that's the sweet spot.

Pax (15:44)
Mm-hmm.

I'd imagine in ⁓ the year since you first published ⁓ Influence ⁓ that you've seen or heard stories of people putting the principles into practice. I'm curious, what are some of your favorite applications that you've learned about over the years?

Robert B Cialdini (16:18)
Okay, let's take the person who I consider the most successful financial investor of our time, Warren Buffett. So when it turns out that I get his annual letter to shareholders every year where he talks about what happened during the previous year, ⁓ what the outcomes were of various decisions and so on.

And he does something to produce that credibility feature, the trustworthiness feature. ⁓ Every year on the first page, he describes something that went wrong, something that he was mistaken in their choice. So he tells people, I'm going to level with you. I'm not going to hide any

Any information I'm gonna give you the straight screw scoop. We did this wrong We've learned from it that will never happen again because we've recognized what we've done. All right, but we did make a mistake here and then he says but or however or Nonetheless or at the same time he uses a bridge

to the things that went right that year.

And the wall of uncertainty and distrust that might be there is down now. And you believe what he says about the strengths more deeply and more fully than if he hadn't mentioned the weakness and then dispelled it and say that won't ever happen again. But we're human. ⁓ but I'm going to I'm going to tell you what went right and what went wrong. I am.

I am competent enough to know both of those things and I'm honest enough, I'm trustworthy enough to tell you both sides of the story. I read that every year and I say to myself every day, wow, this guy's being straight with us. This is an honest broker of information. What's the next thing he's going to say? And that's where he puts the strongest arguments. After he's

after he's enhanced his credibility so that I'm sure to believe the strengths of his case and process them as deeply as I need to. So that's, he's amazing. Yeah, he's amazing.

Pax (19:05)
I

love that. Yeah. I love that. That's very much showing that you can trust me instead of saying you can trust me, which is seems to be like a very common phrase right now is like, Hey, just being honest with you or to be honest, just say like that implies that you weren't being honest before versus him. He's not saying, Hey, I'm to be honest with you. He just is honest. And then goes on. Yeah.

Robert B Cialdini (19:14)
Right.

He just is in

a way that you wouldn't expect anybody to be who is trying to hide something from you. So no, he's not that guy. And the other thing it does is to differentiate him from every other ⁓ CEO who writes an annual report where they bury the negative stuff in footnotes or at the end of a

He brings it up first to establish that persuasive lever of trustworthiness so that people will believe the things that he wants them to truly focus on more fully.

Pax (20:14)
In your experience, what are you seeing right now? Like is the biggest gap between what the science actually says ⁓ influences people and what you see marketers doing?

Robert B Cialdini (20:28)
So here's what I think it is. It's asking themselves an initial question, which is, what do I know works on persuading people in the kind of situations that we're in? What do I know works? And it could be based on research.

versus what do I know works to persuade people in this situation that's an inherent part of this situation? That is, if I know scarcity and urgency, is scarcity and urgency a genuine feature of this situation? That's the one I should use. How about social proof that I've got a big market share or a

a trend in my direction. Is that true? That's the one I use. How about if I've got a lot of experts who have testified in my behalf that my product or service is a worthwhile one? If that's true, that's the one that you bring. So I just had an email exchange with a woman who had finished a large scale training her company had with a big

⁓ a customer, hundreds of people, managers, and they were trained in the seven principles of influence and asked to employ them. And at the end of the experience, they did get the kinds of changes they were hoping for, but almost always to a greater extent.

if the principle that was being used by the manager was one that was inherent in the situation, all they had to do was point to it. They didn't have to manufacture it. They didn't have to create a scarcity. didn't have to find something or counterfeit something. No, they just pointed to it. And that was so much more effective than

constructing a situation so that there was scarcity or a rush or urgency or something, rather than one where that was truly the case and they could just honestly point to it. And that always would win the day. Yeah. So that's the one I would say. Think of the principles of influence you know about. They don't have to be my principles of influence. And ask.

If they're truly present in the situation, that not only allows you to be effective when you point to it and raise it to consciousness so that it can take flight, it makes you ethical. You haven't, yeah. Yeah, you haven't fooled anybody. You haven't coerced anything. You've just educated them into a scent.

Pax (23:32)
That's interesting. Yeah. So, ⁓ sorry, go ahead.

Robert B Cialdini (23:49)
You've informed them into assent. Both sides win under those circumstances. And people really appreciate that. That's the point of being an authority. Yeah.

Pax (24:06)
So the Act Now, there's only three left, or you only have seven minutes to book this thing. Where does that sit on your scale?

Robert B Cialdini (24:20)
Yeah,

if it's true, if you have real time constraints where you have to get something sold by a certain time or only a limited number of items and so on, bring that to the surface. There was a study of 6,700 online commercial sites where they looked at factors that ⁓

worked. If you included one, this factor, you got more conversions than if you took it away. And I'm happy to say those that were at the top were the principles of influence. But of those at the top was scarcity. True urgency, true dwindling availability, true ⁓ either limited time

or limited number ⁓ of items. ⁓ And by the way, what they found is what other research has found. Limited number works more powerfully than limited time to make a choice. Because if there's a limited time, let's say you've got two weeks, or let's say one week. Do this in one.

Well, but you don't have to do it now. You can do it on Thursday and it'll still be there. So people delay under that circumstance and sometimes they forget to come back on Thursday. But limited number means if you don't act now, it might be gone. Other people will have swept the field and you won't have it at all.

Pax (25:51)
Yeah.

Robert B Cialdini (26:17)
Because of that component of rivalry that exists within limited number appeals that doesn't appear in limited time appeals, if you have a choice, choose limited number.

Pax (26:35)
I love that I heard in another interview you talk about ⁓ a McDonald's study. Is that something that you could share here?

Robert B Cialdini (26:44)
Yeah. There were, it was a, ⁓ it was a study done in the countries of Columbia and Brazil, McDonald's locations there. And ⁓ they did something that I thought really ⁓ applies to the rule for reciprocation. It says people want to say yes to those they owe, which means that we need to give people benefits and advantages and information and effort.

First, not after they've signed the contract and say, ⁓ that's a nice thing. Now here, let me give you a reward for ⁓ being one of us or ⁓ at the end of an exchange providing a nice ⁓ reward. Do it before they decide, which makes them more likely to decide. Here's the study. ⁓ For one week.

Every family that came into one of these McDonald's, each child was given a balloon. For half of the families, they were given a balloon as they left as a nice thank you gift for ⁓ frequenting McDonald's. The other half were given a balloon as they entered.

and those parents bought 25 % more food.

They had been given something first. They were grateful. There was an obligation to be, well, I have to give back. If you give something to my child, you have given something to me. And so they gave something, and spend of the wallet went up by 25%. It was the same balloon. But what went first was crucial.

Pax (28:44)
It's quite an ROI, I'm sure, on those balloons.

Robert B Cialdini (28:47)
Yeah, and those balloons, right?

Pax (28:49)
Yeah.

So where do you think brands today could look at the reciprocity, especially with that in mind where it's like give early. ⁓ And especially given that like balloons don't necessarily have anything to do with McDonald's. It's more like. Delighting the kids, helping helping the family to have a more fun time. ⁓

I don't know if it's like this in other areas, but I do know like in Mexico, least often McDonald's is like a celebration kind of meal where that's not as much the case in the U S. Um, so how, how, because the immediate application is, okay, well, I'm going to just, you know, I'm going to, anyone who calls my business, I'm going to give them a, a free gift or something. That's just unrelated or a gift card. Um, does it matter what it is or does it, does the context matter? Does the, the.

It's relation to your offering matter

Robert B Cialdini (29:51)
Yeah, it does. So for example, at another fast food chain, there was a study done where people waiting in line for their order were given either a nice ⁓ cup of yogurt, a little cup of yogurt while they were waiting, they got a cup of yogurt. ⁓ The other people got ⁓ a nice key ring.

at the same price as that cup of yogurt.

Economists would say those people who got the food, the yogurt, would buy less food because they already had some. The opposite happened. Because why do people go to a restaurant? Because they're hungry. If you give a favor that's directed toward the needs of the person you are

you are gifting, if you think about their challenges, what it is they need in that particular situation, whatever their preferences are, if you give something that's tailored to their current situation, they appreciate it more. And that's what happened in that fast food restaurant. People bought significantly more food.

if they were given something to reduce their hunger. So what I always say about the rule for reciprocity is what you give first should be something that is meaningful to them, is tailored to their particular situation, and is unexpected there. Then they say, wow, these people really care about me. I didn't expect to get this.

on what I am here for, and it's meaningful because it helps me solve my particular state of hunger that I'm in at the time in this situation. So that's what we should always think about, what's meaningful, what's unexpected, and what's tailored to their particular preferences or needs.

And by the way, another thing is just giving information that would be valuable to somebody in this particular ⁓ arena. So let's say you work in financial services. The first thing you could do is send them a piece of information about what to look out for in making choices among ⁓ financial ⁓ instruments of one sort or another.

⁓ what mistakes that people make, right? Not directed toward your company, just a general piece of information that they're interested in because otherwise they wouldn't be there looking for financial services. Give them a tip sheet, right? To start out with, they'll feel grateful and they'll feel that you have just demonstrated your knowledge on the top.

Pax (33:22)
Yeah. Throughout these years, do you feel like ⁓ as, you know, generations ⁓ or I guess as culture has shifted, do feel like human psychology has changed to the point where some of these principles

I'm not sure, like become more or less effective over time or do you feel like these are foundational to the way the human brain works and no matter what technology comes and goes, perhaps how we apply the principles might change but these are how we function as humans.

Robert B Cialdini (34:01)
Yeah,

I'm going to choose that one. But I am going to say that certain kinds of technologies allow particular principles to be more accessible to us to use. So let me just begin by saying we have evolved over thousands of years, thousands of years, these proclivities to ⁓

to defer to experts, to follow ⁓ similar others, to seize scarce opportunities, to live up to our commitments and to give back to those people who have given to us. All of those things have evolved and they don't change because we've got some new ⁓ technologies around. They don't change the power of the principle, but certain technologies allow

particular principles to be more accessible to us and to be more useful. So social proof is the example that we follow the lead of what those around us, like us are doing or have been doing in a particular situation. Well, in the old days before the internet, we didn't know what a lot of people are.

Now, we can look on, we can see star ratings, we can see all kinds of opinions and feedback and groups that ⁓ correspond with one another on a particular topic. We get that information from a few clicks. So we can get social proof anywhere, easily. And that's the one that's going to work, I think, very

powerfully because people can access it so well. So one of the things we have to be sure we do is to tell others, those people we're interested in, what other people like them, comparable others, have said or done with regard to your product. What kind of ratings they've given, how many stars, what comments they've provided, what testimonials.

they've agreed to let you ⁓ use and so on. ⁓ And so, but here's the little.

deviation from that. Instead of saying, we have just in the last year, 255 star reviews. Say, in the last year, we've had 255 star reviewers.

Think of the different images you put in somebody's mind. Reviews, things, just pieces of check marks, star rating, pieces of paper, reviewers? That's 250 people like me. That image is the one that you ought to be employing for social proof. It's people.

Pax (37:30)
you

Robert B Cialdini (37:30)
It's

not check marks. Check marks are easily ⁓ done ⁓ and even faked. But if you have the image of a group of 250 people, that's going to be compelling.

Pax (37:47)
Yeah, we've read your book ⁓ as part of our book club here at 97th floor. And ⁓ I'm curious what you would like, know, if marketers could walk away changing the way they think about one thing, what would be, especially right now in this somewhat pivotal time, what would be?

Like one thing that you would want them to walk away knowing or changing the way they think about X.

Robert B Cialdini (38:18)
Because

we have experienced enormous growth in ⁓ technology ⁓ that we use in our lives. We work in front of a screen. ⁓ We shop in front of a screen. We entertain ourselves in front of a screen. ⁓ We get health information, medical information from a screen.

We're being separated from one another by this technology. And we are hungry for connection, human connection. So the one thing I would recommend people try to do in their appeals is humanize them.

provide social connections, personal, human connections within that, within your appeal. So remember I was telling you about this ⁓ study of 6,700 ⁓ commercial ⁓ websites where they were trying to increase conversions.

If they put a welcoming statement on the landing page, they got significantly more conversions before people read a word. Because there was a warm welcome of approval. And we're looking for that now. It's getting stripped out of our interactions. We don't...

We don't have the same human connections as we do. So everything you could do to create that connection, build it into those technological devices and approaches to communicating, build it in. So for example, there's a study that was shown.

of hospital radiologists who were given a scan, images of a patient, right? And they had to judge and evaluate it and make recommendations about future tests or strategies to take given this image. If they were given the patient's picture,

next to the image, they gave three times more recommendations. There's a person there.

And that humanity is very powerful for us. When I send emails, I don't just have my name at the bottom.

of the email. have my picture at the bottom so people know there's a person here. It's not just some typing, some font on an email screen. No, there's a person. Speaking of emails, do you know that if you make the same request by email as in person, you're 16 times more likely to get a sent in person than on email?

Because an email is the most bloodless communication path we've ever developed. No, So email is a great way to send information. It's not a great way to get a send. People are looking for connection there. Now, you can't go to everybody's office.

If you can, do that. But you know how you reduce the ratio from 16 to 1 times more, right? Make a video call. And that reduces it to 2 to 1. Now,

a face-to-face interaction is only twice as effective, not 16 times more effective. So again, we use existing communication strategies, but we build humanity into them. The more that we can do of that, the more successful we will be.

Pax (43:13)
That's a great takeaway, especially, I mean, we've got the loneliness epidemic and it's only growing. And it seems like there's a correlation between the growth of technology and communications and the growth of loneliness.

Robert B Cialdini (43:21)
You're exactly right.

And you know where it's

happening? The greatest increases in loneliness among young people who are showing the greatest tendency to be online instead of interacting with one another, to do everything online. I mean, we're not going to change the advance of technology in our lives. That's like stepping in front of a bullet train. But what we can do is load that train with humanity.

with human connection, and we are more likely to be successful, is the concept.

Pax (44:12)
I'd love to end ⁓ these ⁓ episodes as interviews by asking about who's had an impact on you. and again, because this is a marketing related podcast in the in maybe at the realm of marketing, who has had perhaps the biggest impact on the way that you think about marketing and sales.

Robert B Cialdini (44:32)
Yeah. Yeah. Well, that's

a good question. And I would have to say that I'm not going to give you an answer about a marketer per se, but someone who has redefined how I have to think about marketing. And that is Daniel Kahneman, the Nobel Prize winner in economics of a few years ago for three things that he's done. One is the idea of thinking fast and slow. There are two

forms of the way that we make our decisions. One is quick and automatic and almost without recognition of why we're doing it. And the other is more considered and fact-based and we think rationally about it and so on. We have to think about what it is we are offering and whether that person on the other end

is ⁓ rushed or distracted or fatigued or overwhelmed or agitated, they're going to choose the fast way. That kind of product, for example, one that is based on a style or attractiveness or standing, these kinds of things.

that don't have a lot of facts involved, but they have more of an emotional component. And you have people who are impatient or overwhelmed. They're going to choose the shortcut route. But then if you're selling a computer or if you're, you know, it's something that really, or software, you know, requires that you be thinking. Now you have to think about those individuals in

giving them a logical fact-based ⁓ analysis because that's the opportunity that they're going to take ⁓ to look closely at the data. It's people who ⁓ give themselves the time and the opportunity and have the motivation to ⁓ consider your ⁓ appeal fully. So that's one thing, that those two things, that's a

big difference. The other is the idea of loss aversion, where he in his research on the prospect effect showed that for the same unit of analysis of value, let's say a dollar, people are more motivated by the idea of losing that, to prevent the idea of losing that dollar, then of gaining that same dollar. So for example, there's a study of people going door to door selling in ⁓

insulation packages, and weather stripping and so on. And half of them were told, if you get this package, you'll be able to gain a dollar a day every day. You'll be able to save a dollar a day every day on your utility bill. The other half were told, if you fail to insulate fully, you'll lose a dollar a day every day. It's the same dollar, but

significantly more of those people bought the package because the idea of loss is psychologically more powerful for people. So we should be sure to tell people not just what benefits they will gain, but what benefits and advantages they will forgo.

in if they don't move in our direction. And then finally, it's a quote he was he made after he was asked if there's one thing that you think people would be well advised to know in order to direct their choices going forward, what would it be? And he said.

Nothing is as important as you think it is while you are thinking about it. That is, the idea of focusing on something, on thinking about something, gives it more impact and importance in your mind. So this is the whole concept of pre-suasion that I wrote a separate book about, where what you

focus people on before your message, that is, that when they encounter your message will be found there. Let's say it's scarcity or urgency. If you first focus them on the idea of scarcity, then when they get to your message, it's more important to them. It's been made, it's been raised in consciousness. So ⁓ Norwegian Cruise Line set out ⁓ emails about

⁓ an offer they had that was time limited. It was only for a particular ⁓ number of days. If the emails had two small ticking clock emojis in the subject line, 16 % more people bought the package because they had been focused on

time and dwindling availability and scarcity, a time-limited offer. Then when they encountered it, time was more important to them. The limited offer component was more important to them. So that's the whole idea that he also raised ⁓ to my consciousness, and I researched enough to write a book on what do you do before you send your message that increases

its acceptance before you send it, before people have experienced your message.

Pax (50:44)
I love that. I love that. ⁓ Yeah, he did a lot of great things. I think that research is fantastic. The book, Thinking Fast, Thinking Slow, I think is remarkable. Anyway, yeah, thank you for bringing that up. ⁓ Dr. Chaldini, thank you so much for taking the time to meet and share your thoughts. And thank you for the work that you've done to

have such a big impact and influence on ⁓ my career and the marketing world as a whole.

Robert B Cialdini (51:20)
Well, I've enjoyed our redirection, I have to say.

Pax (51:23)
Likewise, ⁓ so tell us about what you're working on today. Where can we send people to see see what you're doing and? ⁓

Robert B Cialdini (51:31)
Yeah, we have a new company

⁓ called the Cialdini Institute. And it helps people determine how to be more effective ⁓ and persuasive and ethical at the same time. So what are the research-based findings that tell you ⁓ how to become ⁓ more convincing and how to do it in ways that are never unethical?

We offer that. And people can find it at cheldini.com.

Pax (52:06)
Okay, great. Yeah, and we'll be sure to link that in the show notes as well. Thank you so much for taking the time. It's been a pleasure.

Robert B Cialdini (52:10)
Great.

someone for now.

Pax (52:17)
All right.