I Would Like to Thank The Academy for Reminding Us That More is Not Better

By Maria Perille
July 7, 2009
It seems that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences just fell into the same trap as the producers of The Bachelorette (See previous blog). According to The New York Times, “The Oscars just got a whole lot bigger.” Instead of the typical five nominees for best picture, the Academy recently announced that it will now nominate ten films for the coveted title of best picture starting next year.
The change is the Academy’s attempt to rejuvenate interest in its annual show since ratings have been declining. Most of the nominees under the current structure are more sophisticated, obscure films instead of the big blockbusters that we all know and love, such as last year’s The Dark Knight. By accommodating more nominations in the best picture category, the Academy hopes that more blockbusters, independent films, animated films, and comedies can become nominees, which will in turn attract more viewers, especially young people, to the annual broadcast. All of you college kids, would you rather watch an awards show with There Will be Blood or Iron Man? Yep, the Academy thought so.
The Academy’s main marketing concern is that films are normally advertised as being nominated for or having won the enviable best picture nomination, and now it is easier to be nominated. Therefore, the category loses esteem. Sadly for the Academy, their marketing concerns run much deeper than that…
Contrary to common belief, more does not always equal better. As we know from behavioral science, while having more options at first seems appealing, larger choice sets are actually more difficult to choose from and result in greater regret and less satisfaction. With more options, individuals are often left wondering “what if” they had chosen one of the many other alternatives. Smaller choice sets do not invoke this same “what if” syndrome in decision makers.
Given this well-known behavioral insight, why would the Academy increase its choice set of best picture nominees when reduced choice sets are more preferable? For the sake of argument, let us just say that the show’s ratings increase as a result of the change. Well, that is fabulous. However, now all of the movie-goers supporting the nominees that do not win will likely suffer from the common “what if” syndrome. They will be left thinking that their favorite movie was so close to winning and as a result experience more disappointment. The Academy itself will also have a harder time deciding among the larger number of nominees and may suffer from more regret and difficulty in pinpointing a winner. Both parties thus suffer to some extent; movie-goers and the Academy alike will be plagued by “what if” and its resultant regret and dissatisfaction.
The misconception that more is better extends beyond Hollywood Boulevard. Our society as a whole is obsessed with this notion. For the most part, we prefer to shop at large stores such as Costco over the local neighborhood market because of the wide selection of options and products (myself included). We prefer to frequent specialty stores like Best Buy that have hundreds of versions of the same product rather than the general store that has just a few of everything. We like Starbucks so that we can have the freedom to choose from seemingly thousands of different alternatives to the standard coffee. In other words, at first blush we like having more options, so we inherently assume that it is better for us. This is where we are terribly mistaken.
Our “more is better” obsession may actually impact more than just our everyday decisions on where to shop for electronics or where to go for that venti caramel macchiato with no whip. The irrational craving for more may be negatively impacting our wellbeing and overall happiness. Not only do we have more difficulty making individual decisions among larger choice sets and perhaps suffer from more regret, but our overall life satisfaction is being negatively affected.
As Bill McKibben argues in his best-selling book, Deep Economy, we as a society are under the perception that more economic growth is by definition better and thus will make us happier. Not so. There is a certain tipping point, estimated around $10,000 per capita, beyond which more income and growth actually makes us less happy. All we really need are simple goods, such as food and clothing, to fulfill our basic needs. Beyond that point, we get weighted down by the irresistible desire to keep acquiring more inessentials that are not bringing us any significant utility or increasing our life satisfaction. Not to mention that our expanding need for more is dangerously hurting our environment and contributing to alarming rates of climate change and degradation.
From the depths of importance around climate change to the surface importance of the ways in which we entertain ourselves, more does not equal better. The Academy’s decision to increase the number of nominees to ten may be especially troubling for those in the movie industry who resist change. Yet, it is equally, if not more, troubling for those of us in the business of behavioral insight. The decision has far reaching implications beyond just who will win next year’s Academy Awards. It once again highlights our society’s perceived need for more and the misconception that more is better.
The question of the day is: if we seek greater life satisfaction, how can we further understand where the mistaken association between “more” and “better” stems from, and what are the best methods for raising awareness of this decision trap in the general population?
References
Cieply, M. (2009, June 24). Oscars Will Nominate 10 for Best Picture Instead of the Usual 5. The New York Times. Retrieved June 25, 2009, from http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/oscars-to-go-with-10-nominees-for-best-picture-instead-of-five/
McKibben, B. (2007). Deep Economy. New York: Henry Holt and Company, LLC.
  • Share Insight

Archives

Categories

Contact us for more information about Sentient Decision Science and our groundbreaking research.