Viewing entries in



I am inordinately fascinated by ordinary habits.

I had coffee recently with a guy in my swim squad who has swum the English channel.

When I expressed my horror at the sheer distance of the channel (21 miles across at the shortest point!) he said, as if it were nothing, "Anyone can do it, if they put the work in to train for it."

Advertising is about changing behaviour. I think we can learn something from humans' ability to form habits. Specifically, good habits. By harnessing the neuroscience behind habits, we can affect change.

Unfortunately I am not an expert on neuroscience. Fortunately, I can read books by people who are. I've been reading The Power of Habit lately by New York Times reporter and author Charles Duhigg. I used to think of habits as something people did when they were stuck in a rut, afraid to get out of their comfort zone. After a lot of thinking I now view habits as the keys to success - or failure - for individuals and organisations. Habits are way more commonplace than you might think: a 2007 study from Duke University found that more than 40% of our actions are the result of habits. 

If there's anyone who cultivates habits well - it's athletes. Channel swimmers. Marathon runners. Olympians. Cyclists. Putting the work in, day in, day out. Training. Routine. Visualisation. So how do they do it?

How Habits Are Formed

There is a part of our brain, close to the brain stem, called the basal ganglia. This is the part which controls routine behaviours or habits. MIT researchers discovered a loop that occurs in this part of the brain that forms the core of a habit. Every habit loop contains these three elements: a cue, routine, and a reward. 

  • A cue is an event, location, time of day or message that consistently triggers a routine. For example, you get a little bit tired and bored at 3:30 in the afternoon.
  • The routine is the behaviour itself. Walking to the shops with a colleague in search of chocolate, a Diet Coke, etc. 
  • The reward is the most important part - and the hardest part of breaking bad habits is pinpointing what the reward is. For example, Duhigg says, you might be rewarding yourself with socializing with a colleague on the walk, instead of the act of eating the cookie itself.

But once you crack the psychology behind the habit loop - the world is your oyster.

Habits Breed Success

Habits are actually more than just a 'nice to have', like making your bed every day. The trait of self discipline is scientifically proven to be a better indicator of future success than IQ. A 2005 study from the University of Pennsylvania analyzed 164 eighth graders and found that self discipline in students was a better predictor of their future academic performance than IQ. And the best way to strengthen self discipline? To make it into a habit.

Michael Phelps' swimming coach, Bob Bowman, believed that for swimmers, the key to victory was creating the right routines. When he first met Phelps, he could see that he had the obsessive nature that would make him an ideal athlete. This part was not coachable - it was inherent. But what Bowman could teach Phelps were habits - habits that would make him mentally the strongest swimmer in the pool. Bowman taught Phelps the habit of visualising his performance under an array of conditions - some favourable, some not. "Put the videotape in," he'd tell Phelps, which was the 'cue' for Phelps to begin his race routine. In the 2008 Olympics, Phelps' goggles began to fill with water during the 200m butterfly. Phelps, instead of panicking, remained calm. He had visualised not only what the perfect gold medal swim looked like, but also how he would react if things went wrong. He went on to win the gold medal for the race (one of 11 he would win). 

When asked by a reporter who asked him what it felt like to swim blind, Phelps replied, "It felt like I imagined it would."

"Champions don't do extraordinary things. They do ordinary things, but they do them without thinking, too fast for the other team to react. They follow the habits they've learned." - Charles Duhigg

Brands and Self Discipline

So that got me thinking

Habits are really powerful. They're powerful in enacting change. People would kill for the discipline needed to journal daily. Exercise regularly. Follow a budget. This stuff is hard. But it is possible to cultivate these habits.

Technology creates new opportunities for brands, people and marketers to solve people's problems.

Apps like Strava, Day One, and Mint are the perfect examples of using the habit loop to turn a product into a cue, using customers' intentions into actions and then rewarding positive behaviour. This reward can come in the form of 'sharing' with social networks, completing a beautifully formatted journal entry, or logging onto your bank account to see a very favourable balance. Once you receive positive reinforcement, you're well on your way to cementing a habit (remember - cue, routine, reward is the magic habit forming formula!). What brands like Strava, Day One, and Mint do well is identify the desire in customers to establish a behaviour, and then provide the reward.

We're in the business of behaviour change. Habits are a massive part of that. So the question we should be asking ourselves is not what habits do we want to create in people - but what habits and routines are people trying - and failing - to establish - and how can we help them succeed?

Because if they succeed, we succeed.






Screen Shot 2014-02-13 at 10.47.28 PM.png

Did you know that in 2013, 51% of the Australian population tried online dating? That's double the percentage of online dating in 2010. Online dating is a $108 million industry in Australia. Globally the online dating market is estimated to be worth about $4 billion

So it's a big market. With a big demand.

Why the demand?

Simple. Men and women are actually terrible at communicating with one another. Specifically, mean re terrible at reading women's body language. Think back to the last time you were in a bar. What percentage of the time do you think women are the ones to put out signals to let men know they are interested?

Ninety percent. Ninety percent of the time flirtacious encounters are initiative by a women through a mix of subtle eye contact, body and facial signals, according to body language experts Barbara and Allan Pease in The Definitive Book of Body Language (great read, by the way). 

Here's the problem. Men are terrible at picking up these signals.

"Any man who crosses the floor to chat up a woman," says Mr. Pease, "has usually done so at her request after picking up her body language signals. It just looks as if he made the first move because he made the walk across the floor. Women do initiate 90% of flirtacious encounters but it is done so subtly that most men think they are the ones taking the lead." 

Cue Tinder, the dating app that has taken the digitally savvy single set by storm.

There's been a judgemental strain of negative media attention given to the app's 'fast food' approach to dating, calling it 'disgusting,' a contribution to college 'hookup culture', and predictions that Tinder will bring about the eventual downfall of the human race. "If you're not capable of holding real-life conversations in the hope of eliciting romantic outcomes, then you should not be allowed to use technology to cheat," one indignant columnist declared. Whilst I'm sure there are a number of folks Tindering away to make up for a deficit of social skills, I take issue with said columnist's accusation that technology is 'cheating.'

Technology isn't changing human behaviour. It's actually revealing human behaviour. 

As Sean Rad, Tinder's brainchild, told the Guardian, the app was created out of necessity - he and his friends wanted to meet new people and found it problematic, stumbling through firsthand experience into the barrier that most men face in talking to women: reading them.

"One thing we hear all the time, particularly from women on Tinder, is that in the real world when somebody approaches them, they could be the most interesting guy in the room - they feel like their personal space has been bombarded, and they feel overwhelmed. As a result, the people who are the pursuers sit back and decide to be introverts and not really pursue that relationship."

And the recipients of all of this attention - women - face a different, but related problem, as Vogue's Karly Sciotino wrote here:

"Girls don't need an app to meet random men. We need an app to get them away from us. If you're a woman living in New York City, and you're at least moderately attractive, it's hard to even buy a tub of hummus without some guy awkwardly trying to flirt with you. You could probably just stick one leg out of your apartment and someone would offer to buy it a drink." Thus, the market for Tinder: "TInder, however, evens the playing field, positioning both sexes as equally lustful."

Like Uber, Amazon, and other successful internet companies, Tinder is the digital solution for a human problem, making a case for using human behaviour as the indicator for the success of technological and digital products. As The Guardian put it,

"We tend to overestimate the impact of technology on human behaviour; more often than not it is human behaviour that drives technological changes and explains their success or failures."

The question for me isn't how Tinder (or any technology for that matter is changing human behaviour. It's how human behaviour is shaping the technology we're seeing today. 

Life doesn't imitate technology. Technology imitates life.