Satisficing Over Maximising as Default Lens

“Most people, in most fields of consumption, most of the time are NOT maximisers at all. They are something completely different. They are satisficers (bit.ly/tEL7). What they are doing is not using insane amounts of mental energy to attempt to optimise every decision. They are instead simply trying to avoid making a decision that is actually bad or which might cause them to look or feel foolish. For those people, good enough generally is.  Most important of all, they are not using their brand choices to compete with their fellow man, or to draw distinctions between them and their peer group. They are using them to fit in. To conform, not to outdo. You go to the films your friends like, you read the books your friends like, you listen to the music your friends like. It’s safe, after all. And you drive the car your friends drive. Because what you are driven by is not the idea of choice optimisation, but (in behavioural terms) the much more powerful idea of risk aversion.”

“There’s the mode of human behaviour which …to make a gross generalisation—if you’re preparing a wedding or a wedding anniversary and you’re choosing a restaurant, you’re probably much closer to maximising: what’s the best, most memorable, remarkable place you can take people to? Alternatively, when you’re just on the road and you’re stuck in Sheffield City Centre and you’re bloody hungry, you get a McDonald’s, and that’s satisficing. Right. It’s probably not the best experience you could possibly have but actually it’s far from being the worst experience you’ve had. The worst experience you could have is being mugged or getting food poisoning, and so on that scale of absolutely brilliant to shite, McDonald’s is still at a 7 or an 8. The reason it does well is because when you’re satisficing, your question isn’t really what’s the best meal you can possibly have, it’s also actually, “how can I avoid having a crap meal.””