It’s an outcome that almost defies mathematics. Give away food, and people will buy more of it. A lot more of it.

by Jim Kozak

This is what consumer behavior researcher Kare Anderson discovered in July 2001 as she conducted her “bonbon experiment” at two Northern California multis. Lines at these cinemas – the CineArts triplex in Sausalito and the five-screen Rafael Film Center in San Rafael – were descended upon by young women wearing cinema uniforms and brandishing complimentary chocolate-and-ice-cream treats.

Patrons in line for an early-evening show received the treats. Patrons at the next show did not. The people who received the free bonbons spent a whopping 26 percent more on concessions.
On another day, the timing was reversed. Those in line for the later show received the free bonbons, those waiting for the early show got none. This time concession sales for the later show were 25.5 percent higher.

In Focus spoke to Anderson – a former Wall Street Journal reporter and an Emmy-winning TV commentator who now publishes the “Say It Better” online magazine – about the details of her experiments, their ramifications, and other aspects of consumer psychology and behavior.

Couldn’t the results of these experiments revolutionize the way moviehouses do business?
They could. But, you know, the biggest barrier is that people have never done it that way. My experience has always been until the first one does it the others are largely unlikely to change how they do business.

Were the bonbons given to people in line at the concession counter?
No, they were in line outside.

At the box office?
Yeah. Your goal is to get them at the time when they are most bored or restless. Once they’re inside they’re moving and the momentum turns toward getting into the auditorium.

So you were giving them to people waiting in line to buy tickets?
We did it both with people who had their tickets waiting to get in, because that’s one line, and people who didn’t have their tickets. The sooner you do it the better. Because then they’ve got the taste in their mouth and they’re waiting, they want it, they want it right now. So, in other words, if I’m waiting to buy my tickets, we had a higher response rate than if I’d already bought my tickets.

Did the people handing out the bonbons identify themselves as employees of the theatre?
They did by inference; they were wearing those shirts that have the cinema company’s logo embroidered on them. See, our goal is to say as little as possible because even tone and style can affect it. Some people are naturally warmer than others. They hold out a tray and say, “Would you like one free bonbon – the kind you can find inside?” We didn’t want to say “sell” because we didn’t want to sound coercive.

So one shouldn’t say “sell.” Is it OK to say “buy”?
Neither “buy” nor “sell” because that’s like I’m trying to get you to do it, and there’s an initial resistance to that.

Do you think it would have made a difference if the person handing out the bonbons was identified as a representative of, say, the bonbon company instead of the theatre company?
I don’t know. I think not. I think it’s about knowing it’s safe. If they were not identified as relating to the theatre, I believe in today’s world there will be hesitation about taking something to eat. But as long as you are identified as someone who is “legitimate,” it’s safe.

There are other variables. The more attractive I find the person handing out the treat, the more I will like it. We’ve done several studies that support this, but we’re not the only ones.

We also notice it helps if you can smell the food as well as see it. Bonbons you can’t smell, so we were actually experimenting with freezing them and then heating them up lightly just before we took them out so you had that wafting smell of chocolate. My perception is you want multiple positive multi-sensory cues. For example, the sense of sight and smell is a multiplier; it’s not just double.

I’m going to try a similar experiment soon where one can smell the food before one sees it, because that pulls me, makes me curious. And if people are curious about something and their curiosity is not satisfied, I believe the desire increases.

You mention the level of attractiveness of those handing out samples. Did you pull your bonbon dispensers from the theatre staff or … ?
In this case we didn’t have “good-looking,” they just weren’t ugly. I actually work with Dominican College, which is a private college in [Northern California’s] Marin County, and I teach a course on marketing and another one on communications. So I asked people in the class who were about the right height. They’re just well-groomed women and they were young. My instinct is that when someone looks pleasant to you – that is, they’re smiling, not broadly, but they have a warm face – you tend to like what happens more because you feel better about yourself.

Did you say something about height?
Yeah, I believe that slightly shorter would be better, and I believe opposite-sex attractive will increase your chances for a positive response.

Interesting. Are shorter men preferable as well?
I don’t know. In fact I don’t know by the research where I could even extrapolate. Because it’s a 2-sided thing by the way. Shorter men, in some ways, are safer for women; taller men may be more attractive. So, there’s a 2-level thing that will happen. There’s also research that suggests I want someone who looks more masculine at certain times of the month.

You say you only used women?
Well in this case because there are only women in that class. It wasn’t a choice, it was they were the easiest to get and they would take instructions. We practiced on a tape, the modulation of their voice, because I wanted it relatively warm but not hyper-friendly.

Was there any thinking about having a mix of men and women handing out the bonbons?
Cross-sex works better then same-sex, we find, as long as they’re medium to very attractive. Otherwise there’s too many other variables.

How many people did you actually have handing out the bonbons?
We used 12, but we used them in rotation because we wanted them to come out slowly. We wanted the moviegoers to see the [bonbon dispensers] coming out. But we’ve also done it with just one.

Did you say 12?
Yes.

That’s a lot of people.
It is, but we had them floating. In other words, they came out and you would only see two at a time and you’d see them coming. Motion draws attention and heightens emotion.

Where did you get the idea to do the experiment?
I was standing in line and I just had finished some research where the younger the group of people, the shorter the attention spans, the less likely they were to want to wait. I thought, “Well, how can you appeal to them then? Because as restless as people are when they have to wait, give them something else and they’re more likely to think about it. And so where are the places to wait?”

At which movie theatres did you conduct the experiment?
There were two; they were in the county of Marin, which is my county. One is in the town of Sausalito and one is in the town of San Rafael. We covered over 300 people in each theatre. Sausalito is real upscale. San Rafael has a whole mixture; it has a lot of Vietnamese, Hispanic, from several parts of Latin America, as well as WASPs. That’s why I wanted San Rafael, because of the high Hispanic content. Many of them don’t have nearly the same income as others but a lot stronger family bonds.

Was there a lot of difference in the results between the two theatres?
There wasn’t, and that startled me.

Was there any skepticism on the part of theatre management over the viability of all this?
They didn’t see any downside in it, and they became really interested. They said, “You’re not going to charge us for doing this?” I told them I was doing it because I wanted to study it for my own purposes; it wasn’t research for other people. So I tried to anticipate the questions I would ask if I were in their shoes, about things that might cause some concern. Whenever I do my research, I want people to feel comfortable, so that when I come back they’ll be open to having a follow-up.

Have you conducted other experiments in movie theatres?
No, but if there is a cinema owner who would like to work with me. I have about four variations I’d like to try relative to the experience inside a theatre.

The cinemas at which you tried the free bonbons, do they continue at all to hand them out?
They’ve done it erratically; they’ve done it sometimes I gather. I haven’t gone back there much to ask, but I’ve seen it twice. One would need to create a system to set it up on a regular basis, and in my experience few people think systematically. I mean I could sit down and come up with a system for them that would allow them to use existing staff just by rotating them differently.

In my experience, institutions – even in enlightened self-interest – rarely make major changes until a competitor does. And I’ll bet if I worked with one of the theatres in the same geographical area on how to make it systematic – not needing more staff, but changing the tasks and the order in which they did them – then the other theatres would adopt it in that market area.

So the lack of a system kept these theatres from continuing with the bonbons?
I think they went back to business as usual. It faded from their minds.

So people, even when you approach them with proven data, are still reticent to change?
They’re not reticent, that’s the wrong thing. They go about doing business. Everybody has a job to do. I believe people don’t change the way they do business.

Well it happens slowly. I guess you know that you can get cappuccino in theatres where you couldn’t 15 years ago.
True, but I don’t think it changes slowly. Once cappuccinos were offered in one theatre I bet a lot of competing theatres began offering it too. Researchers who have been studying this for years say that the biggest motivation is when your competition does it, even if they dont do it well.

Is there another catalyst? Is it enough that a competitor simply does something new, or do they have to see some sort of special success with it?
No, I think they have to see it happen elsewhere and then they get the idea. “If they’ve done it, oh, I can do it” or “I can do it better.” It can’t work poorly, it just has to work somewhat. And they have to see it with someone near them, someone they feel is on their turf.

Do you think theatre owners would do well to hand out bonbons all day, every day?
They should try different times. I definitely think the early evening, when the movies start around 7 p.m., would be good because some don’t eat or eat enough then. But [exhibitors] should do it for two weeks, to see if it works better at some times than others. You get immediate feedback on cash. Figure out the pattern that works for you.

So you encourage them to experiment?
Oh yeah. For example, who knows if people’s attitudes aren’t different when it’s really cold? What snacks for this time of day, and for this time of year, would work? During the summer certain kinds of snacks are going to be more desired than others, and they can tell that from what they buy inside.

Bonbons, being chocolate-covered ice cream, obviously may not work as well in winter. What’s your instinct about other types of free snacks one might hand out?
This guy at the Food Marketing Institute, he and I are going to be doing a study about saltiness and men, and we think that there are certain times when men like salty snacks much more than women, and we don’t know who initiates the buying. If a woman’s on a date, a man may take the initiative where a woman may be more reticent.

I would pick the snacks that people might otherwise want to be having for that time of year and time and place. If it’s really cold out, they could warm up mini slices of something that’s warm that they can buy inside. It all depends on what they are offering inside.

Perhaps something that is baked locally nearby, so that it’s low-cost. [Exhibitors] could do partnerships with other businesses; give away mini-slices and offer larger versions inside. Or they can pick something with a longer shelf life.

The whole goal in my mind is to get something that people don’t mind sitting in a chair and eating, or walking with and taking it to their car. I would set up criteria for ideal snacks, because I want them to buy it in the theatre and to eat on the way home and to eat later on, because I want them to have three reasons to buy.

When you talk about “slices,” it makes me think of pie or cake.
Oh no, not pie or cake, that would be messy. Something that’s pre-sliced by the food provider. I want to keep this as simple as possible. People are baking cookie bars, bars that hold together well without crumbling.

One assumes exhibitors utilizing local bakeries should seek out bulk discounts?
Just as any other retailer would. If I was a theatre owner I’d be going back to the bakery and saying, “Be my partner in experimenting, so we both make more money.”

But I’d want to try different kinds of snacks. I’d want to see salty, sweet, even offer both as samples. I’m not a bakery expert, so I’d ask, “What are some of the most popular salty-type snacks you have? What are some that hold together well so they won’t spill if they choose to take them in the car.” In other words, share with my partner, the baker, or candy-maker, or whatever it is.

How big a sample can you hand out without ruining a moviegoer’s appetite?
It depends on the nature of what it is you’re eating, but we want to have small samples.

Just big enough to leave them wanting?
It’s called a sample; it’s a taste of it. “Get a taste of this, to see if you like it, there’s more inside.”

See, that’s friendly. Saying “You might want to buy this when you get inside,” that’s forceful. I want it friendly, not forceful. We say taste, so if you’re getting it free you can’t be betrayed. If they say “Can I have another?” “Yes, there’s more inside.” You stay warm but you play fair and say “I want to make sure I have enough for everybody.”

Do you have any other ideas that would be applicable for movie theatre owners, other things they can do to increase profits?
You can do an “exposures audit,” which means that you visualize the set of exposures customers have to your theatre: literally from first line of sight, what do they see? Usually what they see is the theatre marquee of what’s showing, but they don’t see anything about a luscious snack to have inside, they don’t see any pictures of it. So you don’t get people to start salivating soon enough. Why not have it be an elegant picture that matches the marquee and the rest of what you do. The quality of the pictures of the food should be relative to what people are seeing in other venues.

What constitutes a good picture of food? Should it be larger, or more colorful?
Something photographic. Look at all the food displays in most of the good food magazines now. The standard of food photography is stunning, and relatively easy to obtain. Have a picture taken by someone who takes pictures of food. An ad agency here in San Francisco has a whole section of food experts; all they do is food photography. It’s not, ironically, that expensive for something you want to have at eye-level when people are walking by, and it can show all your products in one luscious display.

Most of the stuff is rather low when you go into the theatre to buy it. So why not have something down the center. Give them more ways they can see it easily. Glancing up, glancing over. Also, photos of food behind the person taking tickets.

Multiply the number of things I see, smell, taste or touch, so if I’m able to taste it, and if I’m able to see it at eye level when I’m walking in, if I see it as I’m approaching, if I see it as I’m driving by – even if I’m not going to the theatre – that means it’s going to be more in my mind.