Being Consistent

In many cultures, consistency is viewed as a desirable personality trait. People who behave predictably and routinely are seen as stable and dependable, whereas people who are inconsistent are generally seen as having little focus and direction.

Psychologists have known this since the 60s because it applies to many routine behaviours, but the principle of consistency is, ironically, consistently misapplied in advertising.

Consider gambling. When it comes to betting on horses, people are more confident just after they have placed a bet than before they place it. Why is this? Rationally, the level of confidence should be the same both before and after the betting takes place, as the act of betting on a horse does not increase its chances of winning. 

But confidence does increase, because we have a need to justify and rationalise our own actions. Our desire to appear consistent in our choices drives us to do certain things again and again.

The misapplication occurs because many people tend to assume that things we do consistently are beneficial, or otherwise make us happy. It is uncomfortable to think that some people consistently do things purely because they have consistently done them, and not because they are beneficial in any way.

Addictive behaviours such as smoking are the obvious example. Long-term smokers especially will tell you how they don’t enjoy smoking anymore. They only do it because they have always done it.

Smokers take comfort in the fact that, no matter what hardships befall them – debt, loss, relationship breakdowns – they will always have smoking to fall back on as a consistent, routine behaviour.

Despite anything else, they will always set money aside for cigarettes (which they are likely to smoke at particular routine times) because the act of smoking reinforces a sense of stability in their lives, and stability breeds comfort and therefore reassurance.

This idea of consistency also applies to non-addictive behaviours. It is not uncommon to hear of two people remaining in a relationship simply because it is convenient, despite neither party feeling fulfilled or appreciated.

It’s not that they are unhappy, but they are not happy either. They are just comfortable. They have routines. They don’t have to spend the mental energy evaluating every decision they make.

When people buy things, particularly commodities, they do so out of a sense of consistency. If it takes less mental expenditure for people to do what they have always done, then they are likely to do just that.

We don’t need to have an intimate, authentic, exclusively positive experience with a brand in order for us to buy it again; we just have to not have a bad experience. As unsettling as it may be, most of us are perfectly satisfied with mediocre products so long as they are familiar and bring us comfort.

It’s a far cry from the claims that authenticity, engagement, and benefit-beyond-the-product are what people really want from brands. In most cases, people just want products that do what they are supposed to do. People want products that are just convenient enough for them to slot into a pre-existing routine.

Consistency is not analogous with happiness, benefit, or satisfaction. What it is, is pure comfort and familiarity. Say something loud and often and people will believe it. 

a.ce