data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8c528/8c528ed53729695109f3a7b553d5d98a090a03f3" alt=""
Someone recently stuck this up as a case study.
It’s the dispiriting tale of how a company dramatically reduced the number of cases of men weeing on the floor by painting a fly onto the urinals.
While I respect their achievement, I can’t help feeling humanity is poorer for this story.
It's depressing on many levels. Not least that men can’t manage to hit what is, after all, a pretty big target without a carefully reproduced insect to focus on.
Also, I feel sorry for the poor bloke who had to paint them all on.
But worst of all, that faintest of nagging memories that I too, guided by some primal fly-dousing instinct, have aimed carefully at that fly. I seem to recall vaguely wondering why it was there and why I couldn’t stop aiming at it.
I wonder how far they went in testing the efficacy of a fly above all the other options? For example, did they experiment with other insects, a wasp or bee perhaps? Or even an invertebrate? I for one would welcome the opportunity to wee on a millipede.
And of course there's no reason to restrict ourselves to small creatures. Why not stick a picture of ITV's World Cup pundits in there? Or the entire cast of Hollyoaks? The mind boggles at the glorious weeing possibilities.
The old fly in the urinal story. This is mentioned with some detail in a book called Nudge (http://amzn.to/acn90Q).
ReplyDeleteI recommend you give it a try, especially if you're at all interested in usability, information architecture, or generally just interested in the science of swaying peoples' decisions with the slightest adjustment to their environments.