Ever the forerunner of co-branded initiatives, Gilt has now partnered with Klout for a specially curated sale.

The Gilt sale features Klout prominently in a few ways. Most interestingly, the Klout sale section gives Gilt members who are also on Klout additional discounts dependent on their Klout score. Presumably, the better the Klout number, the more discounts. This is interesting as it encourages people who have many social ties to wear the brands that are offered through the sale. Since these people are socially prominent, presumably the brands they wear are noticed more than if they were worn by a wallflower.

Playing the wing-man, the Gilt sale advises non-Klout Gilt members to sign up for the Klout site in order to receive additional discounts.

Additionally, the sale is curated by the four highest ranking Klout members. Curated sales are not new to Gilt, but it’s interesting that they think by getting people with high Klout scores, but still unrecognizable names, will pique interest.

I have seen Klout-related events, but this is the first Kluot-related online sales event I’ve seen. The partnership seems fitting, Klout is about being popular, and Gilt is about wearing the most popular designer brands, so I’m interested to see how it grows and if it will expand to become a more regular offering. What else could Klout be good for besides reducing Gilt?

Watch it.

PSFK CONFERENCE NYC 2011: Joe Gebbia from Piers Fawkes on Vimeo.

• One who tells you the truth no matter how harsh (e.g. you don’t check into the gym enough, your dress-sense is subpar)
• One who encourages you to be truthful to yourself and stop practicing self-destructive behaviors (e.g. your propensity to digitally stalk new/old flames/friends)

Already by your side,  your smartphone could serve both roles.

frog design wrote a great article featured on PSFK questioning the future role of our devices in the mitigation of our interaction with our environment and situations, and relationship with other social actors. They wonder: should we use our devices to encourage us to stay honest and prevent actions that have negative consequences?

The notion of intuitive, honest devices is interesting. When I read this article, I immediately thought of facebook and the way people use it to monitor former (and potential) paramours, in a way that prolongs the fixation. What if your smartphone could chide you from doing this, thereby helping you move on? Google Mail Googles for the emotionally drunk.

I am for technology as a reinforcing mechanism-friend who nudges me to be a better person, or find happiness, or at least encourage me to avoid actions that have ill effects. Bring on the feeling machines.

Read it: frog design: How Honest Should Smart Devices Be?

Where to eat and who to meet!

The conclusions that can be drawn in a new study about the effects of facebook are limited, if not erroneousness because the task given the second test group do not allow for meaningful analysis.

A recent study by Cornell’s Gonzales and Hancock published in a cyberpsychology and social networking (?!) journal asserts that using facebook can increase self-esteem as it allows users to stylize their social identity. While I don’t dispute that facebook might increase positive feelings about the self (and fuel narcissism), I do not think that the research methods used in their study allow us to draw that conclusion.

The researchers compared the self-esteem scores reported by three groups, after they each completed a different “self-focused” task. Group 1 was the control and their task was to stare at a blank screen. Group 2 was a test group and did the self-focused task of staring at a mirror. Group 3 surfed their facebook page and associated pages. Each group did completed the assigned task for three minutes and then completed the self-esteem measure.

The test groups in this study should all have had the same end goals, namely the ability to shape one’s persona. While looking in a mirror is a self-focused activity, it is not an engaging or active self-focused activity like updating ones profile, looking at pictures of the self and friends, or pursuing passions’ fanpages. I think a more comparable self-focused activities should have been used as a test groups. For instance, having respondents write a description of their personality and interests, as if describing themselves to a new friend. Related to the mirror idea, another test group could apply make-up or style their hair in front of a mirror prior to taking the self-esteem survey. Similar to the facebook group, I think the other test groups tasks should all feature the ability to actively preen one’s social appearance – physical and personality.

By comparing the self-esteem scores of these two test groups and the facebook group, we can see if facebook creates the change in self-esteem, or if it ability to choose how one is represented in the social sphere that increases self-esteem.

Only once equivalent groups are created can we start to analyze and understand  how social network usage affects users’ psyches.

I must note here that I haven’t read the paper, but if anyone wants to forward, I will gladly read.

Look at the following the links for summaries more info about this research:

Our Facebook wall boosts self-esteem, study finds - Cornell Chronicle

This is Your Brain on Facebook – Fast Company

Facebook makes you “Like” yourself better – PSFK

Inspired by behavioral economics theories, this service launched last month, seeks to change consumer behavior through monetary punishment rather than more positive methods of reinforcement. I mention that is was launched last month (December 2010, good timing, corresponding with new years resolutions) because I am curious how long this service will survive. Personally, I would not pay to join a gym only to have the gym punish my bank account when I don’t show as often as planned.

I think  the idea is a good one; however, I think that the reinforcement would work better if it were positive. For instance, if the gym member completes the planned workouts, they get a 15% discount on membership. A small discount as incentive can benefit both the members and their gyms. The members go more often, improving their personal health, and the gym gets increased visitations. At least at my gym, increased visitation means more chances to sell smoothies, workout gear, training sessions, and renewals of annual membership.

For a local grocery store that sells baked goods, veggies, meat, dairy, and household packaged goods, why does my local grocery choose only bakery items to feature on exterior signage?

Do consumers want “bagels, croissants, donuts, muffins” prior to heading to the store or only after they see the sign? (Donuts tried to woo me, luckily I have resisted.)

Would a store that featured “broccoli, cabbage, zucchini, spinach” have different purchase patterns and sales figures?

In the article, researcher Tricia Wang explains how companies are now using  ethnography to connect with their consumers. She demonstrates the importance of ethnography by comparing  social network usage in the west and China by explaining normative digital behaviors in each culture. What I found most engaging were her examples of sites of similar nature that found success in one culture, but failed in the other, and other sites that succeed in both.

The NSF did a Q&A with Scott Rick, professor of marketing at the University of Michigan about his research on tightwads and spendthrifts and their spending during the holiday season. It’s an interesting presentation which covers underlying differences between these two types of shoppers and also gives recommendations about how to market to tightwads to encourage them to increase their purchase consumption.

Given the current economic times and a trend toward reduced discretionary spending, understanding the “tightwad” mentality has become increasingly important. Rick and Lowenstein’s research on the decision making and emotional aspects of spending provides a wealth of information about how consumers shop and the path to purchase.

Check out the webcast of the discussion here or the research paper by Rick, Cryder, and Loewenstein (2008), “Tightwads and Spendthrifts,” in the Journal of Consumer Research.

Because the British seem to support their nanny state, it is unclear to me why they view nudges as being the first misstep that sends civil society into an Orwellian dystopia. (Wouldn’t be the first.) Aren’t nudges just another way that the state can protect its inhabitants from making bad decisions? (Rather than scolding them.) In the program, a few panelists worried that the government would use nudges as a way to manipulate and control the choices that people made. What they failed to understand is that people still have choices that can be freely made.

Just because there is now a picture of a fly in the urinal, doesn’t mean that you have to aim for it.

Just because now organ donation is the default, doesn’t mean that you can’t opt out of it. It just requires that you actually read your driver’s license document before signing it, if you want to make sure that you check that extra box so that your organs are selfishly buried with you. (For something like changing the default, making a choice counter to the default might take a little more thinking on the part of the citizens, but the choice is still there.)

The nice thing about nudges is that they can be unobtrusive, innocuous aids to help us make better decisions. The key is that the decision is still there to be made.

While it is interesting to discuss the morality of governments practicing nudging its citizens and to what level that nudging should be made salient, I am rather more interested learn about nudges that have already been enacted in the real world.

A Volkswagen-branded initiative in Sweden sought to change people’s behavior for the better and have fun while doing so. Their site TheFunTheory.com showcases four great examples of how nudges in the real world can encourage people to perform pro-social actions, such as picking up litter in the park or driving the speed limit, or actions that benefit the individual directly, such as taking the stairs. In these examples, the consumers/citizens/performers are delighted and entertained by the options given.

While The Fun Theory demonstrations are probably too costly to be scaled, their success should encourage governments, companies, non-profits to create and execute  new nudges to encourage individuals to better themselves and their communities.

For additional reading, consult Thaler’s research, the popular book Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness by Thaler and Sunstein, or social psychology research around framing and heuristics.