Cognitive Dissonance

Every now and then I experience cognitive dissonance.  The definition I find the most precise when talking about this is to consider the hypothetical scenario where you hold two conflicting beliefs, you can't accept both at the same time, as a result you're left with an inability to choose. 

The best example of this I can give is free pizza.  The immediate response to this is happiness, and a feeling of validation to an extent.  How do you get free pizza?  Well in this case a local Pizza chain offers a loyalty programme where for every pound you spend you earn points.  When you collect points they can be exchanged for discounts, as well as other offers including vouchers for free pizzas and other things.  I am someone who loves pizza and orders it quite a bit - I'm on their Christmas card list, that's not a joke, I'm actually serious.  Getting free stuff is great, it makes me happy, and it does somewhat validate me because it makes me feel as though they appreciate my custom.

On the flip side, I have very little control when it comes to food, but not in the sense of a complete lack thereof - I can discipline myself when I want to, I have gone months at a time without eating any take out or junk food.  I have very little control when there's no motivation to have self control, and in most cases that is my immediate response, I satisfy my immediate needs and desires rather than thinking long-term.  There are many reasons why I display this behaviour, most of which I fully understand, and I will write about them at some point. 

Offering someone like me an incentive to keep eating, is going to do exactly that.  I'll keep ordering and keep eating.  That is what most loyalty schemes are for after all.  I should point out here I am not singling out this Pizza place which is why I haven't named them.  I really do like their business and will continue to support them.  I feel no guilt however in naming other companies that have similar practices.  KFC here in the UK have a loyalty scheme known as the Colonel's Club and again as you spend money ordering food you earn points, in this case referred to as 'stamps' and once you accrue enough, you get free sides, free meals, or discount, so again there is an incentive to come back and to continue eating.

The cognitive dissonance arises from the question of whether or not this is actually ethical.  Now, for a family or for people who are budget strapped, arguably this is a good thing as it reduces the overall cost and makes things more affordable in the long run.  For an individual who isn't as strapped, this is solely about returning customers, that is to say they keep coming back.  The question becomes whether or not a company that sells food should really be encouraging people to eat more.  I know McDonald's in the past was placed under scrutiny for their "super-size me" practices which led to a documentary film by Morgan Spurlock of the same name, looking at the impact that had on people.  Whilst some might argue that these schemes should be ended entirely, they are not only limited to unhealthy food or junk food, they do apply to other retailers who sell food too.

Coffee shops, Juice Bars, Sandwich shops, Doughnut shops, and even supermarkets in general have loyalty schemes that offer customers points for their purchases which can be redeemed later for discounts.  Most of these outlets make no stipulations as to what you can spend those points on however.  Take Sainsbury's, a supermarket in the UK, their loyalty scheme is part of the Nectar franchise which allows 500 points to be turned into £2.50 discount.  You can spend those points on almost anything in the store and there's nothing to stop you from say buying a kilogram of lard and eating the entire block just as it is.  That wouldn't be a very pleasant experience but it demonstrates the level of unhealthiness you achieve through the scheme if you really wanted to.

There is another argument that can be made as to whether or not those retailers should restrict what you can buy with your discount only to that which is healthy, but that infringes on your freedom of choice and I think for most people would actually discourage them from participating in the loyalty scheme to begin with.  Take Marks and Spencer, another retailer in the UK that sells food and clothing, they have a loyalty scheme known as Sparks - from the nickname "Marks and Sparks" that people use as slang to refer to the chain.  Their loyalty programme is less successful than other retailers primarily due to the fact that points do not have any cash value, you are given offers instead which are tailored to you based on your spending habits in the store.  This does encourage people to come back and does encourage you to spend more, but it is less effective due to the restrictions of what you receive discounts on.  You also have to activate offers with their loyalty scheme they are not automatic.

The real purpose of loyalty schemes are to encourage you to come back, as well as enabling the retailer to profile you.  Loyalty schemes allow retailers to associate all purchases with a single identity that they can use for data mining and analytics.  How this factors into a take-out store isn't so easy to figure out.  They have a limited range of products that don't change much if at all, and in most cases you order online or by phone so there is already a means to collate your orders and activity with the retailer so the only merit of a loyalty scheme that still applies upon closer inspection is the attempt to get you to keep coming back.  For me at least that would happen anyway, whether you offered these rewards or not.

There's no conclusion I can draw here, as I said I am conflicted.  I can see both sides of the argument, as to why you would be in favour and as to why you would be against and I can't decide which side to take.  This to me is in many ways like the Sugar Tax that was introduced here in the UK on fizzy drinks.  It was meant to reduce the sales of fizzy drinks but for me personally the only effect it had was to encourage me to buy multi-packs of those drinks instead, I haven't looked at the amount I drink in much detail but off hand I would say it is more or less the same as it was.  As I said before the tax was introduced the only effect it would have would be to increase the price, it wouldn't actually influence consumption. 

On the topic of the sugar tax, one thing that irked me most of all was that many manufacturers took the decision to reduce the sugar content of their drinks to avoid the tax, and in the process made their drinks taste horrible.  Companies like Coca Cola decided to retain the same recipe and sugar content and accept a price rise, and to date their sales have not suffered for doing so - other manufacturers however were met with backlash from the public, the most notable being Lucozade who met a wave of criticism and plummeting sales, surprisingly some of it came from health campaigners who advocate for the rights of patients with Diabetes who often rely on Lucozade as a quick fix for easy access to Glucose which the reduction in sugar content made much more difficult.  Therein lies the crux of this conflicting opinion, choosing a side can have unintended consequences.