The psychology of convenience
Since my last post was all about the psychology of the “cheap mooch” effect, I thought I’d follow with a post about the psychology of convenience.
One of my early assumptions was that among friends, the hand-off would be pretty convenient—just bring the item next time you were going to see each other anyway. Turns out it’s unlikely that this event would occur by the time you need the item. Then I thought friends would happily schedule a coffee or lunch around the hand-off. Turns out they would not. (Also, sometimes people just want the item immediately.)
This means that most people would have to pick up the item, which is hardly convenient (even if the other person lives close, conflicting schedules make it difficult).
(These conclusions are from market research, I am awaiting enough data from real user test of the prototype to further validate.)
I’d implicitly assumed that urban environments like San Francisco are a great place for this kind of marketplace because:
- Given the marketplace for borrowing is infrequent, greater density of population helps create more use cases
- The likelihood of a hand-off being convenient increases given the greater concentration of items and people in a smaller geographic area
But as we’ve just seen, the latter is not necessarily true. Recently, I spoke with Mike Novi, founder of Sharehammer a similar initiative that focuses on tools and operates out of Raleigh, North Carolina. His perspective was fascinating. He thought that the Raleigh area was better suited for such an initiative because people are so accustomed to driving themselves around to do errands.
I realized this rang true even for me. Living in the sprawling suburbs of Houston, my friends and I have driven 10+ miles to pick up stuff. Yet in San Francisco, I rarely want to go the 2 miles into the Richmond for anything (I live in the Tendernob).
Our definitions of convenience are tied to our expectations and decisions on where to live. People who choose to live in cities do so because they want things to be close by; people who choose to live in suburbs do so recognizing they need to drive around. I wonder if, in our minds, there is a relative scale for how we define convenience, as below, that is independence of actual distance. For example, “convenient & close” may be actually be 1 or 30 miles away. (I also wonder if the shift toward delivery, from Amazon Prime to potential drones will further minimize what’s considered “convenient & close”). In my interviews, I’ve been told that even going down the street might be to far!)
This insight has been valuable because now, I have identified a potential value-add offering (delivery/return service) as well as a watch-out (how to foster interpersonal relationships if people aren’t physically meeting). And, if I ever pursue an Urban Studies degree, perhaps I can add a unique perspective to the existing research on this topic!
This blarticle was written in the context of building a product that helps people borrow occasional-use items (e.g., camping tents, electric drills) from their friends & neighbors. Check out the prototype here.
