How Learning Works

In 1930 Burrhus Frederic Skinner had a noble idea: He believed that all living organisms had this innate desire to stay away from things which caused them displeasure and move, instead, towards things which caused them pleasure. A simple hypothesis, bu­t one which would be used for decades to follow.

Skinner started off by testing successfully this hypothesis on lab rats and pigeons and his theory has since been used on a wide set of applications - from training a dog to perform a particular trick through to the aversion theory as is the case with alcoholics (a theme central to the Kubrick’s adaptation of A Clockwork Orange).

The principle is simple and only two possible operators exist. Either the subject (be it rat, human or business) should be positively reinforced when the desired outcome takes place (with food, attention etc.) or, secondly, the subject should be negatively reinforcement when an undesired action is taken (be it through electric shocks, the infamous cold shoulder or diminishing profits). Historically this model has predominantly been applied to the world of living things, but as I’m spending more time consulting small and large brands alike I’m seeing the opportunity for the same thinking to be applied to various business applications.

Operant conditioning relies on two fundamental premises:

• The reinforcing party (be it dog trainer or the public) are largely consistent in reinforcement.
• The reinforcement is applied soon after the action.

In 2009, McKinsey Quarterly reported that 66% of brand touch points are controlled by the consumer (a terrifying statistic for almost any traditional marketer). Research also shows that this year Gen-Ys will outnumber Baby Boomers and that 96% of this younger generation are on Social Media sites. Consequently, we can happily predict the end of content consumerism and the beginning of something quite different – content cocreationism (yes, I made that word up).

This new era requires that brands approach their new environment with a certain reserve, but it need not all be negative. Consider this, brands are continually performing two activities (at MASSIVE expense) - strategy formulation to position themselves for the future work environment and market research to understand this environment better to know where to position. Unfortunately, both have suffered a terribly misgiving. Strategy, because the variables change so frequently that prediction, is near impossible and market research because the turn-around times required mean that by the time the results are reported the environment has often changed. A tricky position indeed.

This is where Online Reputation Management (and operant conditioning) comes to the fore. ORM equips brands with the insights to understand their current environment in near real-time and identify what consumers are positively and negatively reinforcing within moments. Subsequently, they can adapt their behaviour to increase the positive outcomes (be it profit, staff happiness or client satisfaction) while removing the negatives (client drop-off rates, declining share prices or lost staff).

The principle can be applied internally to increasingly empower staff to understand their environment and modify their own individual behaviour. In the past, we have implemented this in interesting ways ranging from streaming all conversations onto a projector in a call centre through to a horn going off in a board meeting whenever a negative conversation was found. Both reinforce the individual in a way which serves the business needs.

The consumer doesn’t escape this model and brands should remember that the same philosophy can be applied to consumers. Due to the hugely connected digital environment, training can be applied throughout the network at very little effort. This is how it is performed:

Decide on what action/set of actions you’d like your consumer to perform.

1. If anybody even so much as demonstrates a hint of moving towards that goal, positively reinforce them through engagement (ideally stay away from financial/product reinforcement – see market vs. social norms).
2. Slowly increase the amount of action required by the consumer to gain the positive reinforcement until people are performing your desired outcome.
3. Rinse and repeat.

As an aside, most brands don’t see the role of this client education and typically reinforce the wrong activity. All too often I cringe when I see a consumer rudely complain/shout online and the brand jumps in and reinforces it with 1) attention, 2) resolved problem and 3) social proof/status. This is obviously going to reinforce that action and get others to do the same – essentially setting social norms in the process. This isn’t to say that you should ignore everybody, rather, brands should be willing to pick their battles.

In today’s environment, knowing the “what” and “when” something is going on in nearly meaningless as information is so abundant. Understanding the “why” it is taking place and the “how” to modify business behaviour to maximise the positive while removing the negatives will increasingly be the key differentiators within business. This isn’t to preach to death of PR but rather that the role of PR/social media/communications/marketing should be to communicate what the brand is doing to resolve problems – not put a sugar coating on it. It’s a two-way street.

Both brands and consumers need to mature a little and start behaving in mutual best interest. We do, after all, still need each other.