 Hello, good afternoon. My name is Judith Mason and I'd like to welcome you to today's webinar Express, the darker side of nudging organised by the CIM Charity and Social Marketing Group. Before we get started, I'd just like to go over a few things so you know how the event will work and how to participate. The presentation will last for approximately 30-35 minutes followed by a short 10-minute Q&A session. You'll be able to post any questions you have by typing into the Ask a Question chat box in the Q&A panel, which you'll see on the right hand side of your screen if watching on a laptop or across the top if you're watching on a tablet or smartphone. You can send in your questions at any time during the presentation and will attempt to answer as many as we can during the Q&A session at the end. If you want to share your thoughts on social media, we're using the hashtag CIM Events. The webinar is being recorded and we'll share the link to the recording with you over the next few days. And finally, you'll also be emailed a short feedback survey after the event, which we'd love you to complete. It'll only take a few minutes and all survey responses are anonymous, so please do let us know your thoughts. So I'd now like to hand you over to Liz Barnes, who is our guest speaker today. Over to you, Liz. Hi, welcome. Well, I wish I could be with you right now, but I'm just going to have to give you a virtual wave instead. So my name is Liz Barnes. I'm a fellow of the Chart Institute of Marketing. I'm an experienced marketing professional and a qualified behavioural scientist. So the business that I run specialises in behaviour change and we use many different disciplines to inform this, which you can see in the diagram below. Our main services include strategic marketing, customer experience strategy, social purpose marketing and behavioural insight. So first of all, I'm just going to introduce the idea of nudging. What is it? Well, of course you may realise that we don't all make decisions perfectly and I'm afraid that's all of you because no one is exempt from this. And this is because we're not walking spreadsheets. I mean, I can't and I'm sure you can't either calculate every decision, every option that you have and all the consequences of the decisions you make. In fact, what you may not realise is that most decisions are actually made without conscious thought. So when you pick up the keys or your phone in the morning or you smile at someone and nudging exists because we sometimes need help to make better decisions. Let's look at some terminology now. So choice architecture is the physical, social and psychological aspects of the context that influence us. It's the way we organise the context in which people make decisions. Now the next one you'll see is a definition of nudge. I'll just let you read that. So what nudges are doing is that they're steering us towards behaviour. They're creating environmental conditions that trigger a shortcut or heuristic strategy. And often the objective of nudging is to influence choices in a way that will make chooses better off as judged by themselves. So nudge marketing, well it's a new-ish term but it's not necessarily a new concept. Nudging was popularised by the behavioural economists Thaler and Sonstein in 2008 and it's primarily being used by governments to influence behaviour. For example for savings or organ donation. But in fact marketers of course have used the tools and tactics of nudging for many years and have a look at that countdown timer there. That's a classic example of something you might see online. Or a button, these easy click buttons, one click button that always makes us buy possibly without thinking. And of course nudges are used right across the marketing mix. Nudges can remind us, so notifications that drop through all the time or a notification from a hairdresser or a notification about a cart abandonment. They can reassure us and you'll get to see those notifications saying other customers have bought this, which is about social proof. Of course they can educate and inform us and show us what speed you're driving at for example. And often they use basically to nurture us as we progress along our journey. So things like cross-selling, up-selling and personalising the content to make it easier for us to buy. So why do we nudge? Well it's often cheaper, more effective than advertising promotion. And the advantage is that it avoids costly processes, regulation and bans. So we're going to have a look at dual process theory and cognitive biases and heuristics. Marketers actually want to encourage certain behaviour and that's where nudging comes in. But of course with every judgement or decision that's made there's a battle between our intuition and logic. And as I mentioned we use our intuitive systems and our intuitive way of thinking more than we realise. In fact we've got kind of two systems in our brain working in it complementarily. So we have system one which is our fast, automatic and intuitive brain. And the system two which is slower, analytical, reasoned, responsive type thinking. Now what's interesting about system one is that there's actually systematic biases in the way that we think. And this means that we can actually predict some automatic behaviours. It means that we can identify how and why people deviate from rational thinking. And this is what we mean by a cognitive bias, it's a systematic error in our thinking. And a heuristic is a cognitive shortcut that makes decisions easier for us. And this is because we as humans actually are quite lazy, we prefer convenience over rationality. And what nudging is doing is it's capitalising on this by making our decisions feel more natural or automatic. And it's important for you to understand this because marketers and nudgers tap into these biases and heuristics. And as we know marketers have actually done this for a long time. So here's a question for you. When are we actually simply using these biases and heuristics to help people make better decisions? And when are we using them for our own ends or dark purposes? So why is nudging under scrutiny at the moment? Well, the talk was entitled the darker side of nudging, but it's not just to point out bad practices and make you think whether you're guilty or not of these. It's also about why nudging might not necessarily be the most helpful tool because of its darker side. We know much more about how people are making decisions nowadays. So this is one reason why it's under scrutiny. And nudgers and marketers have taken advantage of these biases, unfortunately, and not always honestly and not always with the recipient's best interests at heart. And of course transparency is sometimes lacking and this has become a main ethical concern of nudging. We might have disregarded individuals' preferences. And the one that's really bothering me at the moment is the power of AI algorithms because they come more common, but of course they're hidden both from the recipients and in reality they're often quite hidden from the marketers that are applying them. And this means that we are nudging in directions that we don't fully know about and can't always control. Now, this is a reason as well because AI is learning from customers' past behaviours and their revealed preferences. But when you think about it, customers may not necessarily be acting in ways that benefit them all the time, may not have their best interests at heart. And first, second and third order preferences come in here, but that's a debate on all the time I think. But what I'm encouraged by is that marketers are actually going to benefit from the ethical debate sitting around here because it is an opportunity for us to clean up our act. And of course we actually also need to get more knowledgeable about ethical practices. So let's just have a quick look at marketing ethics here. Well, I'm sure we all want to be on the right side of that line. We want to think as marketers that we're happy with persuading and informing rather than manipulation or coercion. In fact, marketing practitioners rank manipulation of emotions among the most unethical behaviours, particularly when we're manipulating fear, shame, anxiety or guilt. And here's just another reminder that there is a continuum of ethical practice. On the left, this is about our legal obligations as a very minimum and then all the way through to the right where we're trying to apply the highest ethical principles, which is going to give customers the greatest confidence and satisfactions. Also customers are demanding more these days regarding ethics if you think about ethical sourcing or fair practices. And we do have ethical code of conducts. And here's one, for example, for marketers from the American Marketing Association. So that's the background of marketing ethics. Now we're going to look more specifically at nudging. So I'm going to take you into an area which describes type one and type two nudges. Now the vertical axis here is showing the rational system two decision making at the top and at the bottom, the system one intuitive decision making. And the horizontal axis is showing transparency on the left and conversion on the right. Now interestingly, type two nudges actually, which are deploying the rational thinking, they generally have greater public approval. And what they are doing is they're working on the choices, whereas type one nudges are working on the behaviours. So I'm just going to take you round here and show how it works. So we'll look at number one. These are the transparent type two nudges, which prompt decisions which empower people to make informed choices. So the sorts of things you'll know about is footsteps encouraging you to take the stairs rather than the lift or the fly in the urinal or even seatbelt alarms. So not really many problems there ethically. We start to have a few more challenges at number two and choice architects again have a big responsibility here because recipients can't choose to avoid the effects of the nudge. And this is because the behaviour response is automatic. So the intent of the nudger becomes really important here. The nudge is actually only apparent after the fact. So an example here would be road illusions that help you to drive more slowly or relaxing music or the lovely coffee smell that may encourage you to buy more. Number three, now we're starting again to have more challenges ethically. So there's going to be a need for tighter boundaries. And this is because the nudges are no longer transparent to the citizen and they're automatic. So it's a bit of a danger zone if we're operating here. And in fact, many dark patterns in user experience have actually crept into this area. But it's actually number four, which is potentially the most controversial. And this is because if it's used with bad intent, it's deemed ethically wrong. You see recipients here have been prompted to make conscious choice in a way in which information is presented is covert and therefore it could deceive. And this might result in behaviours that deviate from a person's best interest. In theory, up here, they're still free to choose, but the lack of transparency means that it's unlikely. Now marketers are definitely guilty of this at times. I'm just going to take you into another area, another bit of terminology. We've seen one classification of nudges, but there are many. And some consider those to be nudges, whereas others don't. And the reason for discussing these is that boosts is that highlights some of the weaknesses of nudging. So nudges alter the choice architecture and they tap into our cognitive limitations, whereas boasts actually help people overcome such limitations. And you'll see that from the diagram over there. Nudges are working on the choice environment, the heuristic, which determines the behaviour. Boasts, on the other hand, are actually helping people improve their ability to make decisions and nurture their competences. If you like what we're doing is we're upgrading our repertoire of decision making skills because we're working on the heuristics. We're trying to encourage people to make a better shortcut. Boasts are aligned to individual goals and they're necessarily transparent. So there are examples which are things like, I might say to myself, don't eat after 6pm or catch phrases like hands, face and space. And boasts are actually assuming that people have the motivation and competence to engage. Now it reminds me of something called fuzzy trace theory, which you might have come across, where heuristics are referred to as gists. And in a study by Rainer and Mills, they showed that youngsters who were encouraged to memorise easy, catchy gists about the risks of certain sexual behaviours actually managed to improve their behaviours more versus those who had standard sex education, which was all about the facts. And this was because it was improving and boosting their heuristic repertoire enabling them to change their behaviour. So just a point about a darker side of nudging, therefore, the longer term effect could be that nudged behaviour may revert. And this is because recipients' competence hasn't actually necessarily improved. The nudge has bypassed the rational deliberation, whereas boosted behaviours should persist because we've helped people to develop new motivational skills. And with the boundaries, nudges may violate autonomy and transparency. Boasts are transparent and require cooperation. So in short, nudges steer, but boasts empower. Now we did say we'd look at the phrase of sludge and dark nudges. Sludges actually increase friction and discourage a behaviour in a person's best interest. And it might also be self-defeating behaviour. Now, just a point here, there are different people have different terminology in this area. So some people call those dark nudges. Some sludges have a bad intent. And we know, for example, how hard it is to cancel a subscription sometime. And I've got an example in that little box there. I had 10 steps to go through constantly grade out the easier option, or sorry, the option that I wanted to take and made the alternative option much brighter and more compelling. But I did get there in the end, you'll be glad to hear. Sludges, some people actually say that a sludge can have good intent, although people are concerned by the terminology there, because we could design in friction such as a cooling off period, or the way Twitter asks us, do we really want to share that content? So sludges could be considered good. They might be intentional, either good or bad, or they might be unintentional. And this happens quite often such as the bureaucratic formfilling or onerous privacy checks. Dark intent sludges actually often exploit biases. For example, inertia, or we talked about subscription renewal or gym membership, and present bias, because we're encouraged to spend now rather than later. But what is a nudge for one person that may be a sludge for someone else, and it depends on our preferences and circumstances. Now, another term we might want to look at is this one dark nudge, and it's often defined by the intent of the nudger. And a phrase I used earlier was these dark patterns, and this is where the user interface benefits the provider and not the user. And it's very common in UX design. And this is because we lack full attention, isn't it, when we're online? We're skim reading, we're making assumptions, and it can be quite easy to trick us. So sometimes dark patterns are coercing us or steering us into making unintended decisions, and they're sometimes harmful. So I'm going to just show you some example sludges and cognitive biases associated with these. So this is just a very brief snapshot of a study of 11,000 online retailers where they found 15 dark patterns, and 11% of them were using some form of sludge, and they were mostly covert, deceptive or hidden. Now, what was scary was that actually 180 retailers even presented false information. For example, fake countdown timers, or random number generators to show how many people were currently viewing. So I'm just going to show you or have a quick look at the top four by the number of instances here. So that first one, low stock, we're going to run out, or there's only one room left on this booking.com website. And of course that's appealing to our fear of missing out, isn't it? The countdown timer, as I mentioned earlier, again feeling appealing to a scarcity bias in us. And then mentioned the social proof, where if we see that a lot of people are looking at something or that have approved of something, we're more likely to buy in. One that I do want to draw your attention to is this horrible word, confirm shaming. And it's where we're using language and emotion, particularly shame to steer people away from making a certain choice. Now, have a look at that example over there in the corner. So subscribing to a healthier magazine. Do I want it delivered to my inbox daily? The big bright blue, yes, I want to live healthier. Or the little unsubscribe here. I don't want to be healthier. And that's trying to shame me into taking the right response. But it's also an example of asymmetry. And this paper actually talks about the measures that they use to assess these particular nudges. So asymmetry is when we're giving unequal weight, for example, in terms of position or colour. Coversion is the effect hidden. Are we steered without our own knowledge? Deception is when we're being led to believe something falsely to induce an action. And hiding information is where information is maybe obscure right until the end. So we're not able to make the best decisions there. And then of course it could be restrictive, which is limiting our set of choices. So let's look at the ethical considerations that sit behind this. Nudges can be considered manipulative. They might undermine an individual's ability to make their own decisions and it assumes what's good for you. So here we just have some examples of most of the ethical considerations with the motives. Does it only serve the interest of the nudger, for example profit or cost reduction? Now people who are nudged are more likely to be critical of nudges based on selfish motives, for example profit versus nudges with pro-social motives. But they're more likely to object to nudges because they don't benefit them personally. So can you see the irony there? We also need to think about the preferences of the nudges, of those who are nudged, but who actually judges the best interests and how do we know what preferences we have? We need to look at fairness, different circumstances. So some people who are less economically secure may benefit more or less from a certain nudge. If autonomy, do the nudges truly preserve choice? Are they easy to opt out of? And do our nudges protect privacy? Transparency is not a defence in itself, by the way, if autonomy and dignity have been flouted. People may feel manipulated if they have perceived loss of autonomy, even if their choices have still been maintained. What about excessive convenience? Because if people are in a tentative state, then their active choice may have been diminished. We need to consider agency. So type one nudges may reduce our ability to make decisions, or we might be reducing our ability to self-control or self-regulate. And there is an argument here that nudges can be infantilising. So it's important that we preserve dignity and respect. And finally, the effect of nudges. We need to sustain behaviour change. Quick word on manipulation. So this is what Sunstein says about manipulation. Do take a look. Certain nudges may therefore be considered manipulative. But much advertising promotion actually appeals to system one. So we're kind of used to it. And sometimes we may consent to being manipulated to speed up our decision making. I love taxing my car online and the easy processes that I am nudged through to enable that. And I will therefore allow or expect it under certain conditions. For example, we're happy to see graphic warnings on cigarette packages to steer us away from smoking. So just for a bit of fun, we're going to show you a few more examples of practices with dark potential. There are many, many out there. And we're going to give you a reading list and some resources in a few days' time. So you'll know about the decoy effect. So this is where we introduce an irrelevant product which is maybe it's got a high price point or it's poor value. But the point of it is it makes the others look good. So it nudges us towards the standard regular one which makes us a good amount of money. Now we accept it with coffee, but just at all, what about charitable giving or pro-social behaviours? Then there's anchoring. Now when we're in a restaurant and our waitress says to us, we'll have to wait 30 minutes for our meal and then it arrives in 20 minutes. Guess what we're delighted and we'll give a big tip. But it's a form of anchoring. Another example, there was a study that showed that you can get people to donate more by giving different base reference points. So if you have a base reference point of 10 pounds, do you want to give 10, 50 or 100? Versus do you want to give 20, 50 or 100? Then people give more when you put the baseline higher. There's the sunk cost fallacy and this is our tendency to continue an action that we've invested in, even if it makes us worse off. So this would include time investment. You've been busy shopping for a while online. You've got everything in your basket. You've had to make a lot of decisions and then you suddenly see that shipping charge at the end. And guess what, you'll probably pay it because of all the effort that you've invested. Visual cues and directions. Well, I'm just going to show you a benign one here, but it could be used for harm. So there we are. We have an emotional response to babies. We love looking at their faces. And this eye tracking study shows with the red where we look most, it gets our attention. And the green is areas of less attention. But look what happens when we change the way the baby is facing. Now looking up at the text, we can encourage people to read more because of the direction there. And lastly, I'm going to look at framing. So there are examples here about proportions. A charity donation, if a message is 5 in every 1,000 suffer, that gives us some idea. But if we actually converted that to 0.5%, it wouldn't be so interesting. And of course we would never say, well, 995 people don't suffer. So how a message is framed is vital in nudging us. And then there's loss frames. You probably know that people sense a loss more than a gain. And there was a study showing that a message talking about preventing death rather than saving life led to more blood donations. And then we talked about emotion in that picture already. So why might these be problematic? Well, we gave you examples in the previous slide there. It could be that they're frictionless. We've made things too easy for people. And also if we're appealing to impulsivity, inattention, or immersion, there could be some challenges. So now I want to move into the area where we can help you, OK? Giving you a couple of frameworks here. This is one from the BVA Nudge Unit, who say that it's not good enough just to say ethics is a grey area and not deal with it. They actually want us to score ourselves. Are we on the light side or the dark side? And their recommendation is that we put purpose first because if you're planning to deceive and you've got bad intent, well, there's probably not any need to go any further with this checklist. It also looks at the beneficiaries, preserving choice, outcomes. And will you stand up to scrutiny? You will need to monitor and report to be able to check on that. There's a simple, useful checklist here, and you'll find it in the references. Another one is the For Good framework, which covers similar ground and has a very strong academic underpinning. I just want to highlight two additional aspects here, which are quite important. It considers whether nudging is actually the best tool or should you be looking at other tactics? And it also asks us to look at the role of the designers and the policy makers, and also the basis for their authority and expertise to be deploying nudges in the first place. So this slide, really, is a summary of nearly everything I've said earlier. So you can look at this at your leisure. The basic principles, though, according to Thaler, are that nudges should be transparent, they should be easy to opt out of, and should improve the person's welfare. Just a couple of things to highlight, though. Do justify why your nudge is necessary, and remember that you need to determine the preferences and goals of your target audience and with their best interests in mind, as judged by themselves, which might mean that you need to do additional research. And finally, just having a thought about unintended effects, make sure that you assess the costs and benefits of nudging to both you and to those that you nudge, and please look at majority audiences as well as minority audiences. So going forward, well, in November 2020, the UK announced that it was going to set up a digital markets unit, which is a tech regulator to oversee digital platforms, and that has been done partly in response to these growth practices. So what I want to urge you to do is to examine the empirical evidence. There is a lot out there in the academic literature. It will show you which nudges work, how they work, whether they're causing adverse behaviours and reactions. They'll look at all the different types of cognitive biases that are being tapped into, who they work for, any unintended consequences, and also sometimes comparisons with other tactics. So that's a really good starting point to go back and look at empirical evidence. And you can also test your own nudges, different nudge types, other tactics, and consider reporting and publishing your findings, because really you should be willing to defend your nudge publicly. And the sludge audit. This is where you go back and do a deep dive and look at your own practices and what you're doing and which ethical boundaries you might be crossing over. So use a couple of those examples, the cheat sheet or the full good framework to help you do your audit. And also let's support one another. So Rob Chesnart, who was the former chief ethics officer of Airbnb, has written this book called Intentional Integrity. And in it, he talks about how Airbnb encouraged staff to become volunteers, volunteer ethics advisors on the ground. And their job was to support other staff with their day-to-day ethical challenges. And it was meant to be a non-confrontational way because what they believe is it shouldn't be left to just one person at the top of an organisation or the boardroom that actually we can all help each other and work together on solving some ethical challenges. So just encourage you to discuss these internally. And of course we can make use of communities of best practice. And the good news is that this CIM group here would be an ideal way to do that. So thank you for listening. Here are my contact details. And as you know, this has been brought to you by the CIM charity and social marketing group of which I am vice chair as well. This is how you can join the group, that link there. And of course do please come and join us on the LinkedIn group and follow us on Twitter. Thanks very much Liz, that was great. We're now going to have a 10 minute Q&A session. As a reminder, you can still submit your questions via the chat box in the Q&A panel. We've got quite a few questions already coming in and I'll start off with the first one. Are dark nudges more of an issue in B2C or do we see this sort of behaviour in business to business to the same extent? Oh, good question there. My instinct is that they are all over the place. However, it's possible that in B2C we have learned or we understand perhaps more about consumer behaviour. And so we've used tactics and tools that are more prevalent in the consumer world. We're learning from one another as well about dark practices. So my instinct is that they're possibly more noticeable in consumer behaviour, but I certainly don't think that they are unused in B2B. Could you give an example? There's a follow up question on a similar topic. I think so many of the ones that we saw earlier can be applied to B2B as well. So digital nudges, even for example when we're encouraging people to buy with the urgency messages, the scarcity, all of those apply in a B2B context, don't they? We ask people to book by a certain time in B2B. We ask people or we tell that there's say there's only one place left. So I think many of the consumed ones are also used in B2B. Right. I might think of something as we progress. Sorry, it's difficult when you can come back to that if you need to. And the next question. If a nudge is pursuing a good welfare purpose, such as helping people to be healthier, does that override the ethical concern of making them transparent? Oh, lovely question. OK, do you remember I said that transparency in itself doesn't trump everything else? So I think you need to go back to these frameworks that I directed you to say to look at each element of those, because of course it may have good intent, but we need to examine all the subtleties and the nuances here. It's good intent for whom, in which circumstances, what are the unintended consequences for particular groups. You can't assume that just because it's transparent, although it has good intent, it will always be a good nudge. It may actually deceive in some way. And how do we find that out is an important issue. I really would recommend that you are careful about when you're deploying nudges, that you do some research. You can do experiments as well, but market research where we talk to customers, find out how they feel about being nudged in a certain direction and what the unintended consequences could be. OK. And then the next question. I think we're all probably aware that we're being told to behave in certain ways, particularly this last year. The question is if people are more generally aware of nudging techniques, do marketers need to do more to stand out from the rest of the crowd of other competitors, for instance? Yes. So this is important because do we just deploy more nudging techniques because they're going to get better results potentially? But then we have the issue of are we going on to the dark side because we're trying to compete in a way that we shouldn't. So again, your ethics framework should guide you here. Should you be doing more or should you be doing the right thing? And I would encourage you always to say, is there an alternative from nudging that you could look at? Could you use standard promotional tactics? Could you use advertising in some way? Yes. Of course, you can use things in a combined manner. I wouldn't necessarily say that just using more and more nudging will necessarily take you in the best better direction because you're quite right. There is a lot of evidence out there saying that we're learning what tools and tactics are influencing us. I mean, most of us these days, when we try and book something on Airbnb, well, actually we've been told yesterday that we can't book any holidays, haven't we? But when we start booking holidays again and we see all the nudges that are taking place, you know, only one room left, et cetera, we have learned some of these strategies. So actually just deploying more of them isn't going to necessarily make the world a better place and it won't necessarily help you. So I would encourage you just to go back and look at the reason why you're doing it, what other tools and tactics are out there and also to examine what your customers say about it. Right. Thanks, Liz. Now we've got a few questions on the theme of regulation. The first question is any thoughts on the need for regulation around AI and marketing such as the gaming industry? Another question, how can we regulate dark nudging or apply a code of practice? Any thoughts on that, Liz? OK, so that's why I said that some new regulation has come in just recently. Well, sorry, it's not regulation. A new board is going to be set up, which it will be helping to regulate this and it's almost certainly on the basis of these dark practices and the dark patterns that have crept in. So, yes, I think we are going to be seeing more of it. We've already started to see it with things like cookie control and the fact that airlines, for example, have had to take more care there. Yes, codes of conducts. It would be something that marketers should be developing more in terms of these dark patterns. That's and AI was your question, wasn't it? Yes, I think gambling is a particularly frightening one there, particularly in terms of the nature of its immersive nature and secrecy. So, I am expecting to see more in terms of regulation and I would actually also like to see more in terms of codes of conduct and sharing on this. Well, thanks. And then we've got a question. How can you segment audiences effectively and reduce the cognitive bias? Cognitive bias, we are all susceptible to it and it's something that we can't control, OK? So, actually trying to reduce it may not be the right question. It might be that we need to either help people become aware of what cognitive bias that they're tapping into and therefore demonstrate which course, which patterns, what options are open to them. There are so many cognitive biases as well. So, you can't generically reduce one. So, it may be a question about helping people become more aware of their biases perhaps. And the point that I was talking about, boosts, which is we develop people's heuristics, their shortcuts and enable them to make better choices. That's a different way of approaching it. So, have a think and take a look at whether your nudge could be turned into a boost instead. OK, thanks. I think we've got time for perhaps one more question. So, we'll finish on a topical one. And this isn't my opinion. I'm just reading out what the question is posted. Is the government's use of emotional and shaming nudging ethical in COVID issues? Well, guess what? I don't think I'm going to answer that personally. I think this is one to the floor. I wish you were all here. I could take a quick straw poll and have a look. Yes, good question, isn't it? Do I have an opinion on this? Are they shaming? At times I feel somewhat embarrassed or shamed. And maybe you too. Does it influence the way I behave? Yes, well there's something called reactants. OK, which is where if we feel nudged in the wrong direction, then that can cause us to react. And this can cause unintended consequences. So I might behave even worse, even more badly, because the government's told me to do something and I felt shamed by it. OK, so yes, they do have to be very careful about messages. And again, friends, this is why I say to you, test your nudges, check what these potential backfire effects could be with your audiences, because you don't want to fall foul of them. So I didn't really answer that question, did I, Judith? I think we've all got our thoughts on that anyway, but it was quite an interesting one to end on in the current climate. And on that note, it's just to say thank you, Liz. We've had some great questions there. We'll be sharing the resources list, Liz referred to in her presentation, along with a link to the recording of this session in a few days' time. I'd like to say thank you to Liz for today's presentation, the charity and social marketing group for organising the event, and thank you to everyone for attending. We do hope you found it interesting and worthwhile. Our next webinar express is focusing your brand and marketing on recovery and growth, and that will be on Tuesday 16 February at 1pm, hosted by CIM Wales. You'll find it listed on the events page on the CIM website, where you'll be able to find out more information and to register for the session. Once again, you'll shortly be receiving a survey on today's event, and we'd really appreciate it if you could provide your feedback. So on behalf of CIM, thank you for joining us, and we hope you enjoy the rest of your day.