Why do I do this? It would be easier to me to leave my tray on the table for an employee to clean up — it is someone's job, after all. I think I do it for two reasons. First, it's a social norm. Other people do it, so I feel like I should do it. Second, I feel bad for the fast-food employees because they do a tough job for a tiny wage, and I feel a little better about myself if I help them out (although by this logic, I'd start tipping the guy who gives me fries, so maybe my motivation is more due to social norms than outright altruism).
At any rate, throwing out one's tray tends to be the unwritten rule at fast food outlets, which is why I was surprised to see it written out explicitly at the Ikea cafeteria in Ottawa:
This sign struck me as being ridiculous. It's a real-world illustration of the prisoner's dilemma, the most classic game-theory problem. In the prisoner's dilemma, two individuals can choose to either co-operate or defect. The best combined outcome is when they both co-operate. The catch is that if you co-operate, then I can defect and be better off. That leads game theorists to predict that both individuals will defect, even though they would each be better off if they could agree to co-operate.
The same thing holds for my Ikea tray. If everyone co-operates (by clearing their own table), we're all better off because Ikea can keep its prices low. But if I know everyone else is going to clear their own table, I'll leave mine in a mess because I like being lazy and because one table in isolation is not really going to affect Ikea's prices. If everyone thinks this way, no one will clear their table and Ikea will presumably have to jack up their food prices. This free-rider concept is also why we see a lack of action on global warming.
Ikea's sign is trying to appeal to the game theorist in us — it's trying to tell us that our dominant strategy (to use the game-theory lingo) is to clear our tray. But that's precisely what is so ridiculous about the sign; if we think about the game theory, as the sign urges us to do, our dominant strategy is actually to leave a heaping mess at our table for some poor employee to clean up.
Rather than try to appeal to people in terms of dollars and cents, Ikea would probably have better luck appealing to people's sense of social norms. A sign along the lines of "Don't be rude — clear your food!" would probably be far more successful at getting people to clear their trays than the existing sign.
This notion has been demonstrated empirically with the Israeli daycare study, which you might remember if you've read Freakonomics or Predictably Irrational. Economists figured more parents would pick their kids up from day care on time if the parents were fined for being late. But fines resulted in an increase in late pick-ups, presumably because the fine caused parents to no longer think in social norms ("I better pick my kid up on time because I'm supposed to") but to think of things in economic terms ("I can squeeze more time at work and only have to pay a few extra dollars to the daycare? Not a bad deal").
When you try to get people to follow a social norm by getting them to think about a problem in an economic sense, it can backfire.
Interesting.
ReplyDeleteI found the case study about the Israeli daycare fascinating. I actually found the whole Freakonomics book fascinating. I borrowed it from the library here in Japan (but they don't have SuperFreakonomics yet).
ReplyDeleteTo answer the question from your previous post: Perhaps other big-box outlets don't offer cheap food because people already come to their stores for ridiculously priced goods (I'm thinking Wal-Mart here). Wal-Mart's customer base is already people to whom cheaply priced food would appeal. If the people to whom cheaply priced food appeals are already in the store, what's the motivation to offer cheaply priced food?
"Wal-Mart's customer base is already people to whom cheaply priced food would appeal. If the people to whom cheaply priced food appeals are already in the store, what's the motivation to offer cheaply priced food?"
ReplyDeleteTo maintain those customers and/or to attract more of them? It would think it's better business for Wal-mart to target its existing target audience with products they like (cheap food) than it would for Wal-mart to try and reach out to a new demographic of customers by, for example, launching a high-end clothing line or putting in an upper-scale food chain such as Milestone's.
"To maintain those customers and/or to attract more of them?"
ReplyDeleteDoesn't Wal-Mart maintain its customers by continuing to offer its low prices? Wal-Mart is the incumbent in the office of cheap crap and I don't think anyone is threatening to push them out the door. In this case I think offering cheap food as a loss-leader would just be a loss.
The case for attracting more customers is more plausible but I don't think people will suddenly start shopping at Wal-Mart because they offer $1 hamburgers. Everyone knows that Wal-Mart sells cheap shit - I don't think they need to offer cheap food to get people to come and buy it.
One of IKEA's distinguishing traits is its frankness. By being surprisingly blunt, they get customers to trust them, flatter their intellects, and attract attention.
ReplyDeleteAlso, you should have a look at The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.
It's that practical Ikea concept that keep welcoming in customers. They know the target market and good food that's not just another food-chain adds to the ploy. The one in Richmond BC is exceptional at drawing people and it comes to be a part of many 'days off' for folk around town. I recall the day care was also a hit while people shopped. Both Wal-Mart and IKEA hit these target markets hoping the illusion of cheap prices won't be dashed. The G&M cited IKEA as the world 4th biggest wood consumer, and yet few think of IKEA in the same terms as Wal-Mart. That's the fantasy bubble that keeps the fans loyal to the brands.
ReplyDeleteHope things are good out there past the lake country.
The sign is fine and it makes sense. Also, it is NOT the "social norm" to bus your own trays in MANY countries, particularly in Asia, where I have seen this exact sign. Only a retard would suggest a sign that says, "Don't be rude..." Not only would that result in people being "rude" for the sake of it, it would also result in a loss of customers. I really hope this "blogger" isn't typical of Canadian intellect, though considering Canada's economy and place in this world, it wouldn't be surprising.
ReplyDeleteTwo thoughts: The blogger suggests a crude "Don't be rude" sign would be "far more successful," but is there even a problem at this IKEA? He uses big words like empirical, but I read no empirical data to show a lack of compliance on the part of the diners. Indeed, it seems he observed nothing beyond the sign. Perhaps the cafeteria at his Ottawa Ikea resembles Chuck E Cheese on the eve of Armageddon, but I've eaten at IKEA cafeterias in the States and noticed a shared responsibility in this regard that might reinvigorate one's faith in humanity, if the clean and pleasant cafeteria and it's momentary inhabitants could indeed be viewed as a grand social behavioral experiment, and not simply a place to eat. The game theory thing was mildly intriguing but poorly applied. But something tells me this grand blog began less as an attempt to solve an actual problem and more as an attempt to regurgitate highfalutin concepts and other people's work.
ReplyDeleteFreud said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." And sometimes a pleasant sign is just a sign.
The food at Ikea should remain to be cheap not for the kindness of the customers clearing the table but for the bad quality. It's cafeteria food similar to the kind we all had during high school. The food is not really cheap; a small slice of apple pie is $2.50; you could buy the entire pie at your local grocery store.
ReplyDelete