Lexicographic Choice and Trains (Don't leave! This is interesting! Honestly!)

In my previous blog on Rory Sutherland, I talked about how when we make a choice with multiple factors, we approach it in a linear fashion, rather than weighing up all options.

What does this mean? Simply that if there are 2 factors in a decision, let's call them A and B, then we look for the option that scores the highest in A, and choose on that basis alone. We only look at the scores for B if there is a tie in A. If one option had a massive advantage in the B column, it wouldn't matter, even if it was only just beaten on factor A.

A quick example - choosing wine. The first factor is very often "red or white". Then, having eliminated the unwanted reds, we move onto other factors (price, familiarity, recommendations, etc) to choose between the white wine. The decision to have white wine is stuck to, even if they are a little pricey and there is a great bargain to be had in the red wines.

This is Lexicographic Choice. And it suddenly occurred to me that you can apply the theory to our old friends London Midland. I previously talked about how their tendency to promote trains from London to Birmingham on the basis of 3 factors rather than 1 broke the basic rules of positioning in marketing.

But we can see they break the rule of Lexicographic choice, too. Look at the page. There seems to be an implicit need to put ALL the information in front of the customer, so when they weigh up and combine these factors, they would surely conclude that London Midland is the train to choose.

But people don't think and act like that. The factor may vary, but most passengers will have just one value that they use to select which train to get to London. It might be price, speed, or frequency. But once they've found a winner in their chosen category, they are statistically unlikely to let other factors change their mind.

So saying that they have trains up to every 20 minutes is pointless, because other companies offer a more regular service. Mentioning the 20 minutes they've shaved off the journey time is pointless, because it is still slower than their competitors. These things are only worth mentioning as supporting factors to their one true advantage - their price.

The only people they are ever realistically going to attract are those who are looking for the low-cost travel. Anyone looking for, say, high speed travel is unlikely to say "well London Midland is slower, but it's cheaper, so maybe I'll put up with the journey time".

But then train companies are very often run by engineers, so what can you expect?