Paying Attention

Feedback loops

Years ago, if someone asked you, “Would more people care to watch a men’s or women’s football game?” the answer would be clear.

Yet in Australia last year, 7 million people watched the women’s World Cup (soccer) finals. And about 4 million watched the men’s Australian Rules Football final. And, in women’s basketball, we saw the same thing just last week. 18 million people watched the USA NCAA (college) women play, versus 14 million for the men. Last year, those numbers were 7 million and 14 million respectively.

So, it’s not just the numbers of viewers of specific sports, but the speed with which this has happened. In just five years, womens’ ‘share of attention’ of all sports has tripled (from 5% of all sports watched, to 15%). Think about that for a moment: in what other areas could you triple market share in five years?

After all, it’s only in my lifetime that women have even been allowed to compete in some sporting events. 1967 was the first year a woman ran a marathon: Katherine Switzer famously had her number (#261) torn from her lanyard by a Boston Marathon co-director. Despite being banned, she finished with a creditable time of 4 hours 20 minutes.

So, how has this happened?

It’s a rise in viewership of women's sports and women's empowerment that are interconnected in a positive feedback loop. Here's how I think the cycle works:

Increased Viewership:

• Role Models: More people watching women's sports means exposure to talented female athletes. This inspires young girls to participate in sports and challenge traditional gender roles.
• Breaking Stereotypes: Seeing women compete at high levels dismantles stereotypes about female athleticism and ability.
• Commercial Appeal: Growing audiences attract sponsorships and media coverage, making women's sports more attractive to viewers.

Women's Empowerment:

• Financial Backing: Greater viewership leads to more revenue for women's sports, which can be invested in better facilities, training, and salaries for female athletes.
• Confidence and Success: The success of female athletes on the field translates to increased confidence and social influence for women off the field.
• Cultural Shift: The popularity of women's sports helps to normalise the idea of women competing at the highest levels, chipping away at gender inequality.

And, back to increased viewership . . . we’ve simply seen the above cycle repeat enough times in 60 years for the virtuous cycle to start to achieve ‘escape velocity’.

And, it’s visible everywhere.

One of the fishmongers I buy my seafood from is a 30-something woman from New Zealand who I caught during a lull in trading watching the women’s basketball. She said to me, “We used to play rugby when I was growing up, and we’d grab each other’s braids and swing each other around by our hair. It hurt like hell, but you’d get back on and keep going. It’s great to see tough women on screen”. Today, she’s an avid watcher of all women’s sport, and her young daughters are glued to screens — and play —- as well.

Question: What feedback loops concerning your customer behaviours can you cultivate and speed up?

Do as you’re told

When you think of compliant countries, what comes to mind? Authoritarian regimes like China? Benevolent dictatorships like Singapore? Invisible democracies like Switzerland? 

What about my own country, Australia? 

We’re famously compliant. We handed in our guns when the government asked us to. During COVID we stayed home, and wore masks outdoors. We stopped smoking, almost entirely, especially when our cigarette packets showed graphic pictures of cancerous lungs and mouths. 

But why do we comply? What’s the quid pro quo?

Even when we complain about regulation, we pay taxes, we observe road rules, and we queue up. So, why does it feel good to comply?

My view is that it’s an ascending spiral of values, like a Maslovian Hierarchy, that are satisfied by complying, rising from the basic to the more altruistic:

• Reduced stress: Predictable environments reduce anxiety because certainty feels inherently safe (“I don’t want to think about it; I just want to do it”).
• Social acceptance: Complying with social norms and expectations helps us feel like we belong to a group. (“I don’t want to be seen to be different”)
• Moral satisfaction: We often have an innate sense of fairness and justice. Following rules that we believe are fair can give us a sense of moral righteousness (“I did the right thing”).
• Helping others: Often our own compliance benefits others directly. For example, following traffic laws protects everyone on the road. (“I contribute to society”).

Each of these layers can be used to stimulate compliance separately. If you clearly signal to people that they’re earning ease and acceptance for themselves, and doing the right thing by others, then they’ll be more likely to accept the ‘rules’. Pack all of these motivational forces together, and you’ll get widespread adoption.

Question: What can you do to increase compliance of your customers (and staff)?

Coincidence? I think not

I fly a lot. Most weeks I’m on a plane somewhere and here’s something I’ve experienced twice in my past three flights with Qantas.

At security, a very friendly but firm (and large) staff member, weighed everyone’s cabin baggage. And, he was strict. I saw him turning people away to check in their bags. Then, on board, they told me I couldn’t have my laptop in the seat pocket during take off. It had to go in the luggage compartment above.

Why this, all of a sudden? Don’t we have enough rules to observe while flying?

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the terrible incident on board Latam Airlines Flight 800 occurred just a week or so prior.

This was a Sydney - Santiago flight, in which the pilot ‘lost control’ of the Boeing 787 and, as the plane suddenly nose-dived, losing 100m of altitude in a few seconds, 40 passengers were thrown around the cabin like toys.

People hit the ceilings, one flew backwards across six rows of seats, and dozens suffered broken bones or severe bruising. They stopped over in New Zealand where 12 people were hospitalised.

It turns out a button on the co-pilot’s seat was accidentally engaged which caused the seat to move forward, pushing the control yoke, which disengaged the autopilot. It only lasted a few seconds, but that’s all it took.

Clearly, Qantas was paying attention.

Now, they don’t want overweight cabin bags flying around. Or, sharp-edged 2 kg metallic projectiles (like laptops). But, I wonder: is this just a reaction? The next time I fly, will things be ‘back to normal’? And, if they’re serious about this, why do they even let me use the laptop during the flight?

Question: Are you ever in danger of restricting freedom of movement as a reaction to an adverse event, even if you know its inconsistently — or illogically — applied?

Please use your dominant clicking finger freely to click the ‘Like’ below. It means a lot to me to know you’re reading.

Until we meet again next Friday, pay attention to the rules around you - including those you impose - and ask, honestly, whether they’re working (and even how they work).

Andrew