Joseph Stalin once said that a single death is a tragedy, while a million deaths is a statistic. Behind this apparently callous statement, is an invaluable lesson about how the human mind works, and how it can be manipulated for good and evil…and more pertinently  for our purpose here – for profit.

A recent study, reported in Social Psychology and Personality Science (Doesn’t everyone read that before bed?)  found that when volunteers were asked to judge the most appropriate punishment for people having committed a crime, the proposed sentence seemed to change in inverse proportion to the number of victims. So when the crime had just three victims, the volunteers  recommended a prison sentence a year longer than when there were thirty.

When the researchers took the study a stage further and looked at real life legal cases, they found something pretty astonishing. – in the real world, with a proper, fully qualified judge, a similar inverse relationship was in evidence.

So what’s going on here, and how can we use it?

To really understand this, we need to look at the work of charities. Now I’m not suggesting that the people running charities are avid students of Stalin, but there’s little doubt that they recognise the truth of what  he said…a single death is a tragedy while a million deaths is a statistic.  How do they know?  Because the results of their fund raising efforts prove it.

Think back to the last time you received a fund raising letter from a charity. Did it focus on the macro picture…the thousands of people  that were suffering as a result of famine, disease, abuse or neglect? Or did it focus on specific individuals who are representative of the problem. If it was an animal charity, did it ask for money to deal with the problem as a whole, or did it say that your money would go to help a specific animal?

Charities have found that Stalin was right…people are more generous and empathetic (and that is the key) when they are looking at things on an individual level, rather than when they’re looking at groups en masse. Appeals featuring individual victims  pull in far more money than appeals featuring large groups. People can empathise with individuals, but they can’t empathise with groups nearly so well.  Paradoxically, the bigger the problem that’s presented, the less emotionally affected are people by it.

Can you see how these things are linked.?  One problem (a crime) has a bigger impact on someone influenced by knowledge of  it (a judge) when there are a small number of  identified victims of the crime. Another problem (a disease) has a bigger impact  on someone influenced by knowledge of it (a potential donor) when there are a small number of identified sufferers.

In both cases, the reason seems to be that those influenced are more able to empathise and identify with victims/sufferers when their number is small and manageable.

Now I know you’re probably not in the business of dealing with negative events such as the most appropriate punishment for a crime or the reasons why charities need to raise funds, but let’s turn this on its head for a moment. What about positive events? To paraphrase Stalin…

A single birth is a joy, while a million births is just a statistic.

You see, exactly the same psychological processes come into play when talking about positive things – that is, when talking about gain and opportunity.

The implications for the marketing of any product or service are huge, and I’m sure you’ve figured them out by now. Let me spell it out though. When you’re writing about, talking about, photographing or filming persuasive marketing messages, you need to focus heavily on how individuals are benefiting from what you’re selling, rather than crowds or groups. People identify with, and empathise with, other people. They are affected on an emotional level by the pleasure and satisfaction experienced by individuals, far more than that experienced by the market as a whole.

Many successful sales letters and advertisements concentrate on telling the story of how one individual, or a small number of individuals, have benefited from using a product or service. This has far more impact than an advertisement that effectively says, thousands of people have used this and they all like it. That can certainly be used as a back up argument, but the primary focus should always be on individuals with whom the potential customer can  empathise and identify.

To paraphrase Stalin again

A single satisfied customer is persuasive. A million
satisfied customers is just a statistic.

So take a little time out to look at your marketing messages. Are they focussed on the individual or on the crowd. If it’s the latter, a  subtle change (and it needn’t be that hard) could give a much needed boost to the response you get.

In the spirit of political balance, I’d like to end with a quote from another Dictator but from the other end of the spectrum this time, Benitto Mussolini.

The mass, whether it be a crowd or an army, is vile

So there we are. I just brought communism and fascism into total accord.

Is there no end to my talents? I seriously doubt it.