What is the doorman Fallacy?
I recently read the book Alchemy by Rory Sutherland and was struck by his brilliant parable of the doorman fallacy. For those who are not familiar, this is my summary, with liberties taken:
The Parable:
Around the late 1970's the owner of one of the most sought-after apartment buildings in London decided to install a brand-new automatic door. This effectively eliminated the job of the complex's doorman. He was subsequently fired. After all, what good is a doorman if you have automatic doors? After another year had passed, the owner began to notice that something had changed. His once high-demand apartments were now going vacant for much longer; there was a decrease in the rents being paid, and more complaints from the tenants than usual.
Like any good business owner, he decided to visit his once-prized apartment building to see what could be done. As he walked in the lobby, he noticed that it was not nearly as nice as it had been one year ago; the furniture was dusty. Trash was collected in the corners. Lightbulbs had not been replaced. A tenant walked in, and he asked her how she felt about living there. She replied that she intended to leave once her lease was up. When he asked why, she said that packages left in the lobby were occasionally stolen, vagrants would sometimes be found asleep in the lobby, and where she had once felt welcomed when she entered the lobby, it now felt cold and sometimes threatening.
The Moral
The doorman was more than someone who just held the door. He was the caretaker, security, hospitality, and luxury that once made this apartment one of the most sought-after residences in London. The automatic door was not a suitable replacement.
The application
I see the same thing happening in companies all over the country. AI and tech help us do our jobs better and more efficiently. But it is not a replacement. Before swapping out systems for people, It's important to ask, "What is being done that is ancillary to this role?"
I once worked with a company that only wanted to focus on marketing channels that had a clear causal relationship. The philosophy was 'we spend 1 dollar here, we need to prove we get 3 dollars back.' ROAS (Return on Ad Spend), and that's a great ratio to track. It worked too, for a while. Until the business started to slow. The ROAS didn't change much; the volume did, as the channels began to be maxed out. The owner was trying to find out what happened. It wasn't a market shift; it was that branding efforts that didn't have a clear and defined ROAS had been cut. Customers didn't have the extra touchpoints that kept them front of mind and aware of the business. They fired the doorman.
How it applies
When considering your marketing mix and channels, it's important to ask yourself, 'Who are my doormen?' What branding activities do you use that don't have a clear ROAS but act as a broad brand ambassador for you? These are usually sources like radio, broadcast television, and billboards. Tracking is great; metrics are wonderfully informative. But don't forget what the doormen do that the highly trackable sources can't.
The shameless plug
If you're having trouble seeing the doormen in your business. This is what Aris Marketing excels at. Get a FREE consultation today and find out what we can do together.
Leave a Reply