Is More Less?

Last Friday, I read an article in USA Today that explored the topic of how Americans are becoming more enamored with CHOICE -- especially as it relates to food choices.

The article references the myriad options consumers have in choosing between 250 different flavors of Dreyer’s Ice Cream and how Tropicana used to only offer consumers two types of orange juice but now Tropicana offers 24 different kinds of orange juice. Also mentioned was how Starbucks, through mass customization, has more than 19,000 ways it can serve you coffee.

Can we, as consumers, suffer from having too much choice?

Author Barry Schwartz thinks so.

In his book, The Paradox of Choice, he argues that more is actually less.

According to Barry, the more choices we have can result in “choice overload” because having too many choices “… can make you question the decisions you make before you even make them, it can set you up for unrealistically high expectations, and it can make you blame yourself for any and all failures. In the long run, this can lead to decision-making paralysis, anxiety, and perpetual stress."

Barry also writes, “… in particular, increased choice among goods and services may contribute little or nothing to the kind of freedom that counts. Indeed, it may impair freedom by taking time and energy we’d be better off devoting to other matters."

Do you think having too much choice is too much of a good thing? Because we have so much to choose from, do we sometimes end up deciding not to decide?

Me? I choose to choose. I am not willing to compromise when it comes to anything and everything I have the power to choose to do. Does that mean that I sometimes spend more time than others would to sift through choices in order to find the one choice that best meets my needs? Yes. You see, I believe choice is what makes life interesting. Without choice, complacency gets the upper hand in life and if allowed to manifest, complacency will obstruct one from achieving the possible.

Complacency bad. Choice good. Thus, I choose to choose.

Comments

[James]

Choice isn't always a good thing. Indeed it may be the cause of the obesity epidemic in this country. Perhaps if government were to restrict our choices somewhat, we would be healthier.

[johnmoore (unitedstates)]

James... I ain't gonna let ya' get away that easy. You made a HUGE statement by proposing that government could restrict our choices in order to help consumers be healthier. Please elaborate. Where do you suggest government start in reducing our choices to make us healthier?

Do you think that the social pressure is having an impact on getting companies to offer healthier choices? Already, Kraft has promised to reduce the trans fats in some of their snack food products and McDonald’s is phasing out their “super size” meals.

My simple take is … with choice, people can choose to eat "healthy" or they can choose to eat "non-healthy." I usually choose to eat healthy, sensible meals. However, sometimes I choose to “reward” myself and those instances call for me to choose foods that most would deem unhealthy.

[Justin Hitt]

In my consulting, I've found that too many choices causes an individual to do nothing. The uncertainty of the decision leaves a buyer frozen or to settle on preferences. When too many choices are available, individuals tend to avoid making a decision.

I covered this in Reasons For Customer Relationships (Inside Strategic Relations, March 1, 2004), here is what I suggested, plus a few more notes relevant to your excellent post:

• Give them tools to make a decision right for them. I work with B2B companies, but this can simply mean that you provide a few options at a time with selection criteria depending on the buyers wants.
• Provide fewer options but ask customers what they want, leaving open the option to get something different if they don't find what they are seeking. This opens the door to custom services and value added.
• Organize your offering into logical segments that cluster choices around the problems customer needs solved.

Choice is better when buyers know enough to make the right decisions. The only time decisions need to be made on a buyers behalf is when they are incompetent to make their own. (I hope that's not what James is saying.)

Thanks for the great commentary on choice, Schwartz's book sounds interesting. Keep choosing to choose.

Sincerely,

Justin Hitt
Consultant, Author & Speaker
Expanding Businesses Through Qualified Relationships

[James]

John...perhaps "restrict" is too radical an idea. Rather, gov't should consider treating junk food much like they've treated tobacco. Don't ban it, but make it difficult and costly to choose it.

Further justification would be to help those most impacted by their preference for junk food; i.e., peoples of color and the economically marginalized. An argument can be made that failure to protect them from their choices is racist.

Kraft and McDonald’s are phasing out certain choices simply because they know if they don't do it voluntarily, gov't will force them for the good of the people.

[johnmoore (unitedstates)]

James… how would you have government define ‘junk food?’

What is ‘junk’ to some may be ‘treasure’ to others. For example, ice cream is ‘junk’ to me but to others, ice cream is a ‘treasure.’ The last thing I think the American government is capable of is defining "what is" and "what isn’t" junk food.

[fouroboros]

Hey, John. Nice post.

Just posted a thought-session graphic from an office project last year. Noted dysfunctional trend: Niche/Choice-paralysis. Curious what others think about the dynamic we were sussing out. Graphic here.

[James]

John..."Junk food" would be defined by experts apointed by government. Experts who know what's best for us. Experts who are comfortable with protecting us from our inability to choose what's right.

[John Moore(London)]

John, interesting post (and comments).

I think choice, like freedom, tolerance, diversity etc etc is a GOOD THING but not an absolute good. One person's choice will impact on the choice of others: for instance, people's choice to drive to work and thus create congestion and smog limits the choices, say, an asthmatic has about where to live.

It's complex, so to be in favour of choice is fine but it does not resolve moral dilemmas. These are solved detail by detail, choice by choice.

Should the government intervene to reduce our choices? You would say NO in the case of hamburgers (me too!) But what about hard drugs?

There is a point at which I support Government in restricting choice, and a point where I don't. There is a tradeoff between structure and freedom; if there is no structure there in no freedom.

I like the thinking of Paradox of Choice, and I think we need to think about Quality of choice as well as quantity. My nearest supermarket gives me a super choice of breakfast cereals packed with sugar, and no choice of cereals without it. I guess that I'd have a better choice at Whole Food!

[hamza]

Freedom of choice is pertinent no matter the circumstance. We are moving in the right direction of "choices" when we can highlight potential "effects" associated with making such choices. Ex. Hard drugs will lead to your ultimate demise!