For the Love of Marketing: What The Bachelorette Has to Do with Choice Availability

“Gentlemen, the final rose tonight,” Chris Harrison, the host of The Bachelorette, dramatically intones.

It is the dreaded moment for any contestant on the hit television show but especially for the current Bachelorette, Jillian Harris. At the end of each episode, Jillian must eliminate another suitor in her quest for “true love” and the perfect husband. She tearfully cries, “This is the hardest decision I’ve ever had to make.” But she said that last episode. And the one before that. And on the first episode. How can voting off a gentleman that she has known for less than a month and has barely spent any one-on-one time with be so emotionally trying? Does Jillian really have such strong feelings for each of the thirty initial bachelors that saying goodbye to each one causes agony? I find this hard to believe…

Perhaps Jillian’s intense personal distress and turmoil actually stem from loss aversion and having to close the door on another option, regardless of whom it is. By eliminating a dashing eligible man, Jillian is left thinking the infamous words that plague us all, “But, what if?” This “what if” mentality is rooted in our intrinsic need to want to keep our options open and have a large number of choices (Ariely, 2008).

Individuals do not like to feel restricted and want to have the best chances to find the option that most aligns with their preferences. In Jillian’s case, she wants to ensure that she finds a soulmate among the bachelors. In the case of a consumer shopping for a high-definition television, he wants to make certain that his purchase will impress his friends on Super Bowl Sunday. Regardless of what it is that we are searching for, we tend to prefer large assortments with greater choice availability so that we have more freedom and options from which to choose.

In fact, one of the most publicized surprises on this season’s The Bachelorette was that Jillian was the first person in the show’s history to have thirty suitors rather than the standard twenty-five. The producers’ decision to increase the pool of men suggests that more is necessarily better. The implication is that Jillian will have a better chance of finding true love with more bachelors. However, this may not be the case.

Less may be more. Larger assortments are not necessarily beneficial to the consumer. In one study, participants chose from a small assortment of six Godiva^® chocolates or a large one of thirty (Broniarczyk, 2008). People choosing from the larger choice set reported that the process was more enjoyable but also that it was more difficult to choose from the larger assortment, highlighting a contradiction associated with greater choice availability.

Most importantly, these individuals also reported being less satisfied with their chosen product and experiencing more regret since they were left wondering if the many other rejected options could have been more preferable (Broniarczyk, 2008). Thus, while consumers prefer larger assortments, they have adverse effects.

In The Bachelorette world, this evidence suggests that Jillian will actually benefit from having fewer options when it comes time to choose a husband. In the real world, ladies do not have to choose from the thirty men drooling at their feet (literally, in the case of the suitor with the foot fetish). So what is all the crying about?

Closing the door on the bachelors is beneficial. It would not be feasible to choose a husband among the men without first eliminating the choices down to two. Additionally, having thirty men from which to choose may increase Jillian’s confidence that she will find a soulmate, but it may actually intensify her regret and tendency to ask “what if?” down the road, as it did for the chocolate shoppers.

How do we resolve this seeming disconnect between wanting greater choice availability initially but then suffering from it later?

As marketers, we need to counteract the intrinsic desire to crave more options by providing consumers with many choices but contextually presenting only a few of them at a time. In this way, individuals benefit from easier decisions but do not feel trapped by fewer choices. With corporate web design, this means that instead of having every possible computer model appear on one page, the number of choices should be preserved yet the decision process simplified.

The computer models should be presented based on similar characteristics so that consumers can focus and search for what is the most important attribute to them while still having access to other options. What seemingly appears to be smaller choice availability may translate into more purchases, greater satisfaction, and reduced regret associated with “what if?,” as it did with the chocolates.

In regard to the emotional rose ceremonies, Jillian must understand first and foremost that closing the door is in her own self-interest, and there is no need to cry over what could have been. She should not feel restricted by eliminating men and then having a smaller potential husband pool since it will help her in the end.

Regardless of what few options are explicitly present to her, there is a nearly unlimited pool of husbands out there. Still, choosing a husband is a high consequence decision that is permanent and may instill fear and more regret. Reducing the emphasis on finding a soulmate may help Jillian feel less trapped by her decisions and make her more willing to shut some doors, or in this case leave men without roses.

For the love of marketing, Jillian, stop crying over reduced choice availability.

References

Ariely, D. (2008). Keeping Doors Open. In Predictably irrational (pp. 139-153). New York: HarperCollins.

Broniarczyk, S.M. (2008). Product Assortment. In Handbook of consumer psychology (pp. 755-777). New York: CRC Press.

The Bachelorette. (n.d.). ABC, Inc. Retrieved June 11, 2009, from http://abc.go.com/primetime/bachelorette/