Why Humans + Maths = Need for set process
The reason you tend not to see ‘Third Pounders’ on the menu at fast-food chains apparently has more to do with poor arithmetic than healthy eating
One of the foundation stones of behavioural economics is the recognition the human brain is hardwired not always to act in investors’ best interests.
Sometimes the instinctive mistakes that result are quite complex – for example, the ‘narrative fallacy’ underpinning people’s fondness for stories, which we have discussed in pieces such as No place for ‘Once upon a time’. And sometimes they are rather less so.
The 'third pounder'
Take the curious story of the ‘Third Pounder’ burger, which we recently came across while reading Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion by Paul Bloom.
Since it was launched in 1971, the McDonald’s Quarter Pounder has taken its place in the pantheon of fast food staples – and, while it has had to see off a lot of competition along the way, human nature has apparently helped.
In the early 1980s, as Bloom recounts, a US fast-food restaurant chain called A&W launched its ‘Third Pounder’ burger.
This was not only generally rated more highly in taste tests than the Quarter Pounder but, being the same price, it was clearly also better value as it contained more beef. At least … we say ‘clearly’ but the US burger-buying public seemed curiously unconvinced.
A&W was so perplexed as to why nobody was interested in its better-tasting, better-value burger that it ran extensive market research.
Initially, it was reluctant to accept the principal explanation that kept surfacing from its surveys and focus groups but eventually the weight of evidence grew so strong there was no escaping one simple conclusion – people kept getting their fractions wrong.
3 is smaller than 4
Yes, the reason A&W’s Third Pounder failed – and why no other chain, including McDonald’s, has made it work either – is apparently because, as three is less than four, many people see a Third Pounder as smaller than a Quarter Pounder.
Typically this provoked the response: “Why should we pay the same for a third of a pound of meat as we do for a quarter of a pound of meat in McDonald’s? You are overcharging us.”
And since the customer is always right – even when they are arithmetically wrong – the Quarter Pounder, with or without cheese, reigns supreme.
Back in the world of investment, meanwhile, the story stands as yet further evidence that, whenever you are mixing people and money, it is important the human element follow a set and repeatable process and have other humans around to sense-check their conclusions.
Fund Manager, Equity Value
I joined Schroders as a graduate in 2005 and have spent most of my time in the business as part of the UK equities team. Between 2006 and 2010 I was a research analyst responsible for producing investment research on companies in the UK construction, business services and telecoms sectors. In mid 2010 I joined Kevin Murphy and Nick Kirrage on the UK value team.
The views and opinions displayed are those of Nick Kirrage, Andrew Lyddon, Kevin Murphy, Andrew Williams, Andrew Evans, Simon Adler, Juan Torres Rodriguez, Liam Nunn, Vera German and Roberta Barr, members of the Schroder Global Value Equity Team (the Value Perspective Team), and other independent commentators where stated.
They do not necessarily represent views expressed or reflected in other Schroders' communications, strategies or funds. The Team has expressed its own views and opinions on this website and these may change.
This article is intended to be for information purposes only and it is not intended as promotional material in any respect. Reliance should not be placed on the views and information on the website when taking individual investment and/or strategic decisions. Nothing in this article should be construed as advice. The sectors/securities shown above are for illustrative purposes only and are not to be considered a recommendation to buy/sell.
Past performance is not a guide to future performance and may not be repeated. The value of investments and the income from them may go down as well as up and investors may not get back the amounts originally invested.