One major property of money is that it is fungible. To put things
simply, any amount of money is perfectly
replaceable by another equal amount of money. For example, if you have a 20
Euros bill in your left pocket, that amount can be replaced by the ten 2 Euros
coins that you have on your desk.
If you have to go shopping for
groceries you can take and spend either the 20 euros bill or the ten 2 euros
coins. Each will buy exactly the same things.
The human brain, however, has some shortcomings when it comes to fungible
things. Even if we know that any 100 Euros can be replaced by any other 100
Euros, when we make judgments about
spending money and judging how much to spend on this or that, somehow money
tends to not be fungible any more.
To better understand how in our minds money loses the fungible
property, imagine the following scenario. You live on a limited budget and
all your income is in cash (coins and bills). In order to not get into trouble,
you come up with a really smart and low
cost income management system. Your main expenses are: rent, groceries,
transport, communications and leisure. Your
smart management system consists of 5 jars (like the ones you keep jam in).
Each month when you get your income, you fill each jar with the amount for each
spending. First, you fill in the rent jar, then the groceries jar, the
transport and communications jars. If there is anything left, you put something
in the leisure jar.
Your golden rule is to use the money from each jar ONLY for the expenditures
they are intended for. You do not use the money from the rent jar to pay
your phone bill, nor do you take money from the communications jar to cover
expenses on food.
Although rudimentary, this money
management system is quite effective in getting you from one month to the other
without overspending and without having unpaid bills in each of your main areas
of expenditures.
This management system, however, violates the fungible quality of money.
In essence if you would pay your groceries from the “rent jar”, then what
remains in the “rent jar” plus what is in the “groceries jar” can be used to
pay the rent.
However, this opens the door to overspending (assuming that you pay more for
rent than for groceries) which in turn may lead to you not being able to pay
the entire rent this month.
The role of the “jar based” money management system is to prevent the
eventual shortcomings in self-control. In essence the jars are not a money
management system as much as they are a self-control enhancement mechanism.
Nowadays most people don’t have a
“jar based” money management system, but one thing we still have, namely our
mental jars. Even if we don’t have
physical jars for our expenses, we still have our mental accounts for most
types of expenses.
Take for example the case of
Patrick planning a holiday trip. Patrick
is thinking of going to Macedonia and the plane ticket costs 400 Euros
(which is quite expensive for a flight within Europe). Patrick’s mental account (“mental jar”) for airplane tickets within Europe
has room for about 250 Euros. Patrick might say that the 400 Euros is a high
price and subsequently make the decision to not go to Macedonia.
At the same time, in Patrick’s “hotel room” mental account there
is space for about 70 Euros per night. Thus, a hotel room that costs 35 Euros per night will be perceived by Patrick
as cheap.
When it comes to the mental account of “overall holiday
expenses” Patrick has about 1000 Euros. How this amount is divided between airplane ticket and accommodation (hotel)
is perfectly irrelevant. However, because the plane ticket costs more than
it is reasonable in Patrick’s mental account, he might ignore the fact that
because accommodation is cheap (costs less than what he has in his “hotel
mental account”) the overall cost is within his “holiday expenses” account. Patrick
might decide to not go to Macedonia for his holiday.
Since we are talking about
airplane tickets, we should mention the pricing policies of low cost airlines
and the extension of these practices to regular airlines.
The low cost airlines gained a
lot of market share due to the low prices for flight tickets. However other
services such as transportation of luggage, serving food and beverages, using
the toilet in the airplane and even using established airports (ones that
actually close to the big cities) are not included in the flight ticket.
The marketing communication “trick” in this case is that most travelers
did not have mental accounts for services such as “luggage fee” and their focus
was on the “plane ticket fee” account. Thus, communicating that the “flight
ticket” is below what is one’s “flight ticket mental account” made people
perceive low cost airlines as very cheap viable alternatives to regular
airlines.
What has happened in the case of
low and regular cost airlines is that learning
occurred. People who have used low-cost airlines learned that there are additional
prices (and inconveniences) to be paid and
subsequently new mental accounts were created for things such as “luggage fee”.
Most interestingly, regular airlines such as KLM took advantage of this change
in consumer mentality and will start charging a separate fee for luggage. Of
course, KLM could have increased the prices for “luggage included” tickets, but
then their prices would have not been competitive in the battle fought within
the “flight ticket” mental account.
Another implication of mental accounting is related to gift giving.
Gift giving is one of the social practices deeply rooted in human nature.
Despite this, quite often we are faced with the problem “what gift to get” for
someone. A hint on this issue comes from mental accounting.
Each and every one of us has “mental jars” for different purchases.
This implies that for some purchases we are not willing to pay over a certain
amount. Gifts are a very nice way to bring joy to someone by braking the
celling of a certain “mental jar”.
For example, if you know that the
person who will receive the gift would never pay more than 100 Euros for a
coat, then it is a good idea to give as gift a coat that costs more than 100
Euros. This way the gift receiver will get something that she would never buy
on her own, whereas the gift giver would succeed in making a nice gift.
Most interestingly the
proposition above is valid even if the gift giver and receiver are sharing
financial resources. Putting things a bit simpler, if a husband makes a gift in
the form of a coat that costs more than 100 Euros to his wife, by paying from
their shared account, she will still be happy because she would have not bought
the coat on her own by paying out of the same shared account.
Mental accounting explains also why some products are condemned to
remain cheap (at least in some markets) whereas other products have a much wider price range. Take the
example of books. If a book costs around
25 Euros it is already considered an expensive one (in the mainstream
market). However, people pay more than
25 euros for products that in my opinion are a bit more frivolous than books.
Think about Mark who is a university
student. He sees a book that he considers buying and reading, but he is not
keen on doing so. It is not mandatory reading for any course, but its topic is
related to his field of study. The book costs 25 Euros. After thinking a bit about this purchase he decides that 25 Euros is
too much to pay for a book that is not mandatory reading, even if it might be
interesting.
The next evening, Mark and some
of his colleagues decide that they deserve a treat after a prolonged study
session. They go out to a nice pizza place and enjoy the evening spiced with a
couple of nice Belgian beers. After all, what can be better than Italian pizza
and Belgian Beer? Mark’s share of the
bill is 25 Euros. He thinks it is a bit more expensive than the usual pizza and
beer, but still within the limits his mental budget of maximum 30 Euros for a
nice evening out.
As you can see, Mark was unwilling to pay 25 Euros for a
book because the price was a bit above the limit of his mental account of “book
purchases”. At the same time he had no problem in paying 25 Euros for Pizza and
Belgian Beer because this amount was within the limits of his mental account
for “evening out”.
The example of Mark may seem a
bit frivolous to some of my readers. To a large extent I agree that missing on
a book in exchange for a nice evening out can be overlooked. Most likely the
impact of this tradeoff on Mark’s life is minor. At the same time, such tradeoffs between different mental
accounts may have significantly larger implications in one’s life.
Take the example of Miriam who is a young woman in her late
20s. She grew up in some difficult times
when medical care and healthy food were not largely available. Thankfully
things have changed and now she has a nice social and economic status. She
is not rich, but for sure she can afford more than most people can. Miriam and her husband are considering
having a child and she as a smart young lady knows that during pregnancy
medical interventions, including dental works, are not recommended. Also the
risks associated with dental problems such as infections during pregnancy are
high. She decides to go to the dentist and fix some of her problems caused by
the unfavorable conditions during her childhood.
Miriam goes to a dental practice and after the doctors examines her, he
proposes a treatment plan and makes a cost-estimate. The estimate is quite high
– around 5000 Euros. She thinks that the cost is too high and decides to only
get treatment for whatever is urgent and wait on the non-urgent problems.
As you may know dental problems do no simply go away by waiting. If anything,
they get worse.
At the same time, Miriam and her husband are considering changing
their car. They want the best for their future child and even if their current car is spacious
enough and in good condition they think that a SUV would offer more
protection than their current sedan does. After all, what parent is not
concerned with her child’s safety?
They go to a car dealer and find a nice second hand SUV. They ask
the dealer how much they would have to pay if they would give their current car
as buy-back. The dealer makes some calculations and comes up with the 15.000 Euros sum. Miriam and her husband think that this is a good price to pay for a SUV
and decide to make the purchase.
From a “cold thinking” perspective this couple’s decision makes little
sense. Miriam decided not to get (all) her dental problems fixed because she
believed that 5.000 Euros is too much to pay for the treatment, while at the
same time they paid 15.000 Euros for an upgrade of their car which was not necessary.
Moreover, their future child is more likely to benefit from having a mother
with lower risks during pregnancy than from being driven in a SUV.
From a mental accounting perspective, this couple’s action is easily
explainable because the “mental jar” for dental treatment is smaller than 5000
Euros, whereas the “mental jar” for (second hand) SUV is larger than 15.000 Euros.
Mental accounting also explains the co-occurrence of savings and loans.
Consider the example of Sophia and Gerri
who are a couple with a young daughter. Gerri received a quite large inheritance
and since they have a good financial situation, Gerri and Sophia decide that the money from the inheritance should go
to their daughter for university education or whatever she will need when she
grows up. The parents think that if they will have another child, the money
from the inheritance will be split between their children. They go to the bank and place the money inherited by Gerri into a
savings account.
A couple of years later, Sophia tells Gerri that she is pregnant.
They are both very happy and look forward to having a new member of the family.
As you may know, a (new) child brings some administrative issues, such as
having a room for the baby. Gerri
and Sophia want their daughter to keep her room and decide that they should get some work done in the house
to make a room for the new-born by “cutting” some of the space in the large living
room.
Getting construction work done is
not exactly cheap and the two parents get some offers from contractors. They realize that the costs are a bit over
their budget. They consider taking
some money out of the children’s account (the money Gerri inherited a
couple of years before), but then they
say that they should not “touch” that money because it belongs to their
children when they will be adults. Thus
they go to the bank and get a loan to finance the construction work needed for
the new baby to have a room.
From a rational point of view Sophia and Gerri’s decision is perfectly
irrational. It is common knowledge that banks pay interest on savings accounts
lower than the ones they charge for loans. After all, that is how banks make
money. So, Sophia and Gerri would bear
lower costs if they would simply take some money out of their (children’s)
savings account and then put it back month by month. By taking a loan, not only
they still have to give the money back, but they also have to pay the costs of
the loan. By taking money out of their savings account they would forgo the
gain in interest from the bank, but what the bank charges them as credit cost
is higher than what the bank pays for their savings.
From a mental accounting perspective, Sophia and Gerri’s decision is
easily explainable. For them the money in the savings account dedicated to
their children is in the “DO NOT TOUCH mental jar”. Subsequently, getting a
loan to finance the building of the new child’s room is the natural thing to
do.
Before ending, I would like to
say once again that mental accounting
has a very important function, namely to increase self-control. For example,
if Sophia and Gerri would take money out of the savings account dedicated to
their children, might later fail to put the money back due to self-control
shortcomings. By getting a bank loan,
they avoid such a problem because somehow banks manage to get people to pay
back their loans. The difference between the amount paid to the bank as loan
cost and the amount got from the bank as interest on their savings account is
in fact a cost for a self-control mechanism.
At the same time, mental accounting can lead to not so fortunate
decisions. If Sophia and Gerri pay the bank to provide them with
self-control, Miriam and her husband are paying extra for a SUV and sooner or later Miriam will have to go to
the dentist to solve her then acute problems. The bill from the dentist will be
higher than it would have been now. By that time, their second hand SUV will be
old and will require costly repairs and maintenance.
The downside of mental accounting includes more than just money related
issues. Because the cost of the airplane ticket is higher than what Patrick
believes it should be, he might not take that holiday in Macedonia, despite the
fact that hotels and restaurants are cheaper than he are used to and the
overall costs of a holiday would be reasonable. Patrick might miss on a nice holiday experience simply because he uses
mental accounts.
Mental accounts are good for increasing self-control, but they can also
lead to bad decisions.
Like it? Spice Up Your Business
This post is documented from:
Thaler, Richard H. (1985), "Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice,"
Marketing Science, 4 (3), 199-214.
No comments:
Post a Comment