Music, Marketing and Psychology

14 Dec

brainI started off this blog with the aim of mentioning the music industry quite a bit .  I think I managed it for a little while – I babbled on about insane fans, music piracy and music festivals.  However, somewhere along the way I seem to have got distracted with other nifty consumer psychology themed bits of knowledge for you to nibble on.   For my final post as part of this course, I intend to discuss how, or if, consumer psychology can be applied to music marketing.  As a rapidly changing industry, musicians can only be positively served by learning more about the consumer and how they  behave.


Show me the money!

Different musicians price their music differently according to a wide variety of variables. With the addition of the internet, the music industry has become saturated with countless musicians of many genres. They often devise innovative pricing strategies  just so people will listen to their tunes!

Musicians sometimes sell their music at insanely cheap prices to get their sound out there.  For example, Arcade Fire got to No.1 in the charts due to discounted record sales on Amazon.  Some reckon that selling an album at next to nothing will devalue the music industry, but I think it makes psychological sense.  First of all, a cheap record inevitably means that more units will sell.  This evokes a mere-exposure effect, where people have a greater preference for something, just because they are familiar with it (Harmen-Jones & Allen, 2001).

Some musicians go so far as to release their work to the public free of charge. It’s not as crazy as it sounds. Research by Dan Ariely, (source) suggests that by reducing the price of an item to zero, consumer preferences shift dramatically. This is even evident if they price is already really low. Ariely notes that we will sacrifice more time and effort for something that is free, even if we can buy it in a few hours for 10c or $1.  He states that the extent of this effect is too large to be explained by basic economics.  A zero price increases how much we perceive the products value.  The ‘strength of zero’ can send musicians into the public eye at a faster rate, adding to the previously discussed exposure effect.  The profit is then generated from increased ticket sales and purchase of merchandise.  Future projects are then easier to market when there is a wider knowledge of the musician.

It’s all relative!!! (again)

My last post talked about how we make most of our decisions based on context.  We will choose a product based on its perceived value when compared to another, similar product.  Could this concept be applied to musicians? A fantastic example of this is the study of Joshua Bell and his violin, (worth $3.5 million).  Playing with an orchestra, in a theatre, his shows often sell out at $100 dollars a seat. In a social experiment by The Washington Post, he played for 45 minutes in a metro station. Only 6 people stopped to listen, and he earned less than $40. You can read the full article here.  It’s a long article but a fantastic commentary on social psychology.

This example is, perhaps, slightly extreme, but it serves to highlight the important of context in the consumer decision making process in the music industry.

Context Context Context

In todays’ industry, its relatively cheap for a musician to get a song or album recorded, but this does not often translate into sales or popularity.  This could be put down to context.  Context forms our expectations and then, our preferences.  I think its effect on behaviour could be attributed to a few psychological phenomena;

Cognitive Dissonance

A notion first discovered by Festinger and Carlsmith (1959), cognitive dissonance is the discomfort we feel when we hold two conflicting cognitions.  In essence, it occurs because we really want things to make sense in the world.  Its all about creating a sense of equilibrium in your world – for expectation to meet reality.  It doesn’t make sense that a highly talented and famous musician is busking in the corner of the Washington metro so we just don’t believe it, even though he is playing right before our eyes.  New artists find it difficult to break into the industry because our brain doesn’t associated them with being talented because they are not popular.

Confirmation Bias

This is when we have a particular expectation due to the available cues.  For example, participants will deem a wine more positively if it claims to have fancy origins.  The label is a positive environmental cue and participants would use this cue as a quality marker, even if the wine is less than appealing, (Wansink, Payne & North, 2006).  An interesting result of this experiment  was that those who were given the wine that was perceived to be of better quality, also perceived the accompanying food to be of a higher quality. They consumed significantly more than those with the same wine with a label of lesser quality. A musician without a high-quality record label or venue, may find it hard to get their target audience to associate them with a high quality of musical talent.

This is an interesting article by behavioural economist  Jodi Beggs, should you want to read up a bit more on economics, psychology and the music industry.

What do you think? Are there any more psychological phenomena that could serve to explain the difficulty of marketing music and musicians? I would love to hear your thoughts.

As a final note…

This post marks the end of my assessment, but perhaps not the end of my blog, (we will have to see how that goes!!!).  Thank you to everyone for reading and commenting! Hope you have a wonderful Christmas and the exams go great 🙂



It’s all relative

6 Dec


Coming up to the gift-giving season it’s important to ask yourself; are your purchasing decisions rational? Do you buy something because it’s the best value you’re going to get for your money? I’m sure you do, more-or-less, just like the rest of us.

According to Dan Ariely, author of ‘Predictably Irrational,’ we do not have the ability to explicitly put a value on something.  To combat this, we use something else to measure the relative value of a product.  He observes;

Most people don’t know what they want, unless they see it in context. Everything is relative.

We rely on other, similar products to attribute a value to a product. This notion is well used and documented in marketing psychology, (Heath & Chatterjee, 1995; Huber, Payne & Puto, 1982; Zhang & Zhang, 2007). Ariely uses the pricing of dishes in a restaurant to give a great example of the usefulness of this knowledge in a consumer setting.  It is often so, that the higher priced items on the menu boost revenue, even if no customers choose it.  This is because people are more inclined to purchase the second most expensive dish, often engineered to produce the highest profit margin.  In consumer psychology, we call the most expensive dish, the ‘decoy‘.

We like to compare one thing to another so we can attribute rational to our decisions, be it in the consumer world or otherwise. The decoy effect is used more often than you think, to guide you towards making a particular purchase.  Instead of having two products compete for our attention and money, the addition of a third to the race makes it a hell of a lot more interesting, and can subtly nudge our buying behaviour.

Wikipedia tells me that the decoy effect is defined as follows;

the phenomenon whereby consumers will tend to have a specific change in preference between two options when also presented with a third option that is asymmetrically dominated.

In less complicated terms, it is the introduction of an altogether inferior product, to make the most expensive product look more attractive.  Huber, Payne & Puto (1982), conducted one of the most prominent studies on the Decoy Effect, or as they call it, the addition of asymmetrical dominated alternatives.  In the experiment, participants were asked to choose between two different restaurants with the following characteristics;

  1. 5 Star , 25mins away
  2. 3 Star, 5 mins away

The benefit of the better quality restaurant was subjectively equal to the benefit of the shorter driving distance of restaurant two.  Two experimental conditions were then created.

1st Exp condition: 4 Star, 35 mins away.  This resulted in a preference of participants to the 5 star option that was a 25 minute drive away.

2nd Exp Condition: 2 Star, 15 mins away.  The addition of this decoy resulted in a preference towards the 3 star restaurant that was 5 minutes away.

This experiment serves to underscore the fact that, in decision making, we often compare one thing to another so we can create a perceived value.  Many companies take advantage of this.  Some are often successful in making us perceive their more expensive products to be of a higher quality using the decoy effect.  Basically, its the introduction of an inferior product with the main purpose of making the more expensive version look better. It’s the wingman of the consumer world.  Let me give you a current example.


You will pay £529 for the 16GB model, and for an extra £70, get twice the amount of data. However, for an extra £170, you get FOUR times the amount of data.  The existence of the 16GB model makes the 64GB model even more appealing than if that decoy was not available.  In essence, the 16GB model makes the most expensive option look like an absolute bargain.  The decoy effect is becoming more and more prevalent across a wide range of products, be it a chocolate bar or holiday.

Interestingly, the decoy effect not only holds true for products – iphones, restaurants etc, but also for emotions, attitudes and points of view.  Its often used in politics, where front-runners support the 3rd or 4th most popular candidate, effectively manipulating our psychological decision-making processes. Hilariously, Airely suggests we should use the decoy effect when on the look out for a ‘significant other’.  He suggests you should always bring a friend to the bar who is similar in looks to you, but ever so slightly less attractive.  They will not only make you look like the better catch out of the two of you, but make you look better relative to the whole bar. Obviously, that reason behind your friendship is best kept to yourself!!!

So, can you think of any times when you have been exposed to the decoy effect?

The Late Late Toy Show

30 Nov

From the start of this blog, I promised myself that I would NOT write a Christmas – themed post.  Christmas is a huge, in-your-face and delicious holiday.  Surely everyone is going to attempt the christmas post?! The analysing of the coca-cola advert and the christmas packaging on the cheese in Adsa. So no! No Christmas post for me!

Oh …. but…. noo….. aahhhh…. I cannot contain my excitement and the airing of The Late Late Toy Show  tonight is entirely to blame!!

The what?

Anyone else who grew up in Ireland,  knows exactly what I’m taking about.  The usual friday night chat show (the longest running in the world, I might add!) is transformed into a winter wonderland, with choirs, toy reviews, celebrities and Ryan Tubridy in his naff christmas jumper.  It is the most viewed TV show on Irish television.  Furthermore, it’s not just for kids. More than 30% of the viewers last year were represented by 18 – 34 year olds.

Not surprisingly, advertising for the 2009 show cost €17,000 for a 30-second slot. Compare that to €9,750 during the UEFA Champions League Final in 2010. THIS year … its a whopping €26,000!! (Source).  I thought we were in a recession? The Irish television broadcaster, RTÉ, makes a sack load of money from the toy show! I want to explore the Late Late Toy Show from a consumer psychology perspective – if only to verify my excitement and reduce the amount of slagging I’d get from watching a show aimed at kids.


Nostalgia is the warm cosy feeling that accompanies good memories of old.  You love feeling nostalgic, and companies abuse that fact! The term was coined in the late 1600’s.  It started off as a negative construct – an extreme form of homesickness, akin to suicide or an eating disorder. Today, however, nostalgia is recognised as a powerful  and persuasive buying motive in consumer behaviour (Holbrook, 1993).  Defined as complex and positive feeling, emotion or mood stimulated by exposure to things related to the past, (Holak & Havlena, 1998),  I think nostalgia is the main motivator behind the popularity of the Late Late’s Christmas special.

Stern (1992) tells us that there are two types of nostalgia that consumers experience – historical and personal.  The Toy Show is effective in projecting both types, helping to gather their monstrous viewer-ship  Historical nostalgia is when we desire to return to a time in the past that was superior to the present – a sort of escapism.  A yearning to only have the worries of Santa Claus getting your letter, not receiving one too many from the bank or the electricity supplier.  This Historical nostalgia is provoked using romantic and mystical themes such as Indiana Jones, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, and Toy Story as the platform for many of the shows.  It serves to ignite our imagination, to relate to fictional heroes – Indiana Jones, Charlie Bucket, Woody or Buzz Lightyear.

indexPersonal Nostalgia is less idealized and more factual.  The format of the show has not changed in the last 40 years – the same segments have always existed.  A desire for a warm and comforting past – whether we have experienced it or not, is a strong component of personal nostalgia. Furthermore, an association with an ideal past is said to create an added value associated with a product.  Its psychologically described very similar to being homesick, often defined as a ‘powerful yearning to return home’  (Holak & Havlena, 1998).  Perhaps my excitement is slightly exaggerated because I’m away from home this year?  Ryan Tubridy has suggested that The Late Late Toy Show provides a night of colourful delight during a dark time for the Irish economy.  This makes the nostalgic element of the show even stronger.

The Late Late marks the start of the Christmas period for kids and adults alike.  Nostalgia has an emotional basis.  A fairly complex one, according to Holak and Havlena (1998).  The anticipation of positive events results in emotions such as joy, happiness and excitement.  People enjoy this show, not just because it elicits positive emotions, but because it marks the start of planning for future positive emotions, and positive tasking (Kwortnik & Ross, 2007)  i.e. – Christmas shopping!!! The show brings with it the excitement of jotting down a date in your diary to wrap all the presents you’ve bought!

Tonight, some of my friends and I (most of us final year or masters students!!) are going to attempt to stream the show in the comfort of our living room.  Maybe we will be introduced to some more classic toy show kids, like John Joe (below). For me, Christmas just wouldn’t be the same without it.

Believe or Behave

23 Nov

I once heard a story from a disgruntled hippie about how she downright refuses to buy coffee unless its organic and fairtrade.  She told me that coffee beans are often sprayed with such harsh chemicals that the workers often die on the fields and are carried off without any further consequence to the employers.

In general, I take stories from these types with a pinch of salt. Working in a health food shop for many years, I’ve heard all the conspiricy theories, some more believeable than others.

Yet, the idea of buying products with labes such as Fair Trade and Organic (or positive buying, as the cool kids call it) really interests me. I mean, if my shopping basket is full of products without such a label, does that mean I am ignoring the plight of any suffering sustained during the production of my non-fair trade cup of joe!? Amazingly, only approximately 5% of the food market is accounted for by ethically sound produce (Young et al., 2009).  In 2000, Boulstridge and Carrigan found that only 26% of their participants could name a company in good ethical standing. Furthermore, only 18% could name a company that had a bad repulation in the ethical stakes. Sounds like nobody really cares, doesn’t it!

Do we care where our coffee comes from as long as it de-zombifies us in the mornings?

Ethical Consumerism was a trendy behaviour for a while, don’t you think? Artists use it as their selling point for their hand made products, using some obscure recycled material.  Second hand and vintage stores have become more and more popular.  In fact, ethical goods have seen an increase of about 18% despite the dismal economy.  Its a sort if ‘recession-chic’, if you will.  However, research has shown that just because we pretend to care about ethical issues, doesnt mean this is always translated into our buying behaviour.

The Value-Action Gap

Cowe and Williams (2000) conducted a study on UK customers and found that although 30% of them described themselves as an ‘ethical purchaser’, this claim was only reflected in 3% of the market share for ethically sound produce.  This attitude-behaviour gap (Nicholls and Lee, 2006) is one of the main problems surrounding ethical and sustainable buying behaviours.

So, why does this happen? Why do we believe one thing but act differently!? Research based on the good old Theory of Planned Behaviour has tried to determine the constructs of ethical behaviour.  This has developed into a belief formation model, by Shaw and Clarke (1999).  According to this model, there are actually quite a few barriers that prevent a customer from buying ethical goods, despite a positive attitude towards them. These barriers include price and convenience. Furtheremore, there is often an information overload. This suggests that a constant exposure to household brand names means that customers are likely to pick products from a company with negative ethical behaviour, just because of their high exposure to the brand.

Obviously, an ethically sound behaviour, product, advertisement – whatever – its all positive.  Positive labelling and legislation all serve to encourage companies to make the world a better place… (now I sound like a hippie).  However, consumer behaviour still doesn’t recognise ethics as a prominent purchasing motivation.  I will be interesting to see how time will effect this value-action gap in ethical consumerism.

If you consider yourself as an ethical consumer, how far are you willing to go to behave accordingly? Will you buy the cheap tub of coffee if its the only one available or will you search high and low for the fairtrade, organic one!?  Do you spend extra on environmentally friendly cosmetics but drop £20 in a high street store with a questionable reputation? I’m interested to hear your thoughts!

Who sucks the most?

23 Nov

I found an interesting project lately that I think you will enjoy.  Its called “Gumelection” and encourages passers-by to use their chewing gum to express revulsion for a particular side of an argument. The same gum they have been chewing for the past few minutes.


Once I got over my initial repulsion at the idea, I realised how clever it was.  I thought that it possessed particular characteristics that could be interesting to explore within a consumer psychology context.

What is it?

Gumelection is essentially a street art production with a political theme and, in my opinion, a clever use of nudge behaviour change techniques.

The production had two main aims;

1. To encourage people to vote on election day

2. To not litter the streets of New York with their chewing gum.

It started off with Obama Vs McCain in 2009.  Following its success, the concept branched out into many other dimensions, including polling brand-preference information. In 2012 with the Obama Vs Romney, the campaign grew bigger than ever, gaining lots of attention from popular media outlets including CNN and The Huffington Post.

Impressively, Gumelection, has been viewed over 60,000 times, has had 6.2 million search results on Google as has spawned a tonne of copy-cats. I think some have the potential of being really influential to the consumer for two main reasons; It is an excellent example of Guerilla Marketing  as well as a comprehensive example of a nudge behaviour-change technique, aiming to keep the streets clean of nasty chewing gum!!!

Guerilla Marketing

In this instance, the consumers are not those in the traditional sense, as there is no exchange of legal tender and a good/service.  Rather the target market for this campaign is the citizens of the US, in raising awareness of the election and encourage them to take part in voting.

Guerilla Marketing bases its findings on human psychology.  It targets its customers in unique and unexpected ways.  Its usually very memorable, which helps to differentiate a brand from its competitors.  This campaign has the potential to be classed as successful guerilla marketing for a number of reasons;

  • Its’s novel.  Research has shown that novelty has a way of capturing our attention and making an advertisment memorable, (Berlyne and Parham, 1968).
  • It’s funny.  We love to hate a bad guy.  Making devil horns on a picture of a politician you hate with your chewing gum. Sounds like fun to me.  It has been suggested that a humuours quality in an advert also has the capabilitis of caputuring our attention (Weinberger and Gluas, 1992).  There has been quite an amount of research dedicated to changing behaviour using The Fun Theory.
  • It’s cost effective.

This interesting campaign has been applied to lots of other settings.  One of the first ones was AT&T vs Horizon, two mobile phone providers. This is slightly more controversial. Initially, gumelection was aimed to encourage people to vote, now two competing companies are competing against eachother. This could generate some discrepencies, especially as there is a social conformity aspect to this project.  However, it is still an engaging and memorable poster.

Nudgeing Behaviour

When we say, nudging behaviour, its something that changes a behaviour without us even really noticing – taking advantage of our implicit or ‘hot’ system.  As humans, we behave according to this system when something feels good right now. Its a fast, emotional and automatic process, (Kardes et al., 2008).  Research has led us to believe that the design of something in a certain way means can lead our behaviour so that we make particular choices (Thaler & Sunstein ,2009).

This kind of choice archatecture, or design with intent, is obvious in this concept.   Design with Intent is a concept by Dan Lockton and friends that comes with a set on 101 instruction cards with a single aim; influencing behaviour through design.  Gumnation is especially effective as a Ludic Lens.  Its virality has made it a meme, and its playfulness provokes our curiosity and makes us want to engage with the design, keeping chewing gum on the posters and not on the footpath.

I also get the impression that there is a use of Cognitive Lens when tackling the issue of voting. Getting people to commit to giving their vote with their gum, could lead to a feeling they should behave consistently with that commitment, thus increasing their chance of voting.  It also provides a social proof, detemining which side is more popular at the given time and place.

What do you think? Is this a good example of guerilla marketing or a behaviour change technique?

Gumelection Credits:

Stefan Haverkamp, James Cooper, Hedvig Astrom.

Pirates of the World Wide Web.

2 Nov

Online piracy is quite possibly one of the most damaging events for the music industry in recent times. Let me throw some interesting statistics at you;

  • 70% of online uses find nothing wrong with online piracy.
  • Moreover, 22% of global bandwith is used for online piracy.
  • 98.8% of data transferred using P2P networks is copyrighted.
  • The average ipod contains $800 worth of pirated music.


Obviously, illegally acquiring your music rather than actually purchasing it is going to have serious effects on the economy and the jobs of people in the music industry.  So how are we combating this threat? Here are a few adverts that try to target online piracy;

To me, this is the classic anti-piracy advertisement. The one that everyone has tried unsuccessfully to skip past when watching their new DVD.  It has the possibility of being really effective by tapping into our inherent motivations to not break the law.

Yet there are studies that suggest that individuals are too far removed from the negative implications of online piracy for adverts like this to be effective. Wingrove et al. (2011) suggest that although people are quick to view shoplifting and stealing as immoral, they have little negative connotations of online piracy.  This is such a contradictory finding – aren’t both actions against the law? The sample of students said they wouldn’t shoplift for a number of reasons; morality, social influence, fear of getting caught and an inherent obligation to follow the law.  However, the importance of these motivations where significantly lower for online piracy.   Why do we have two completely different attitudes towards two different law-breaking actions?

To be perfectly honest, I’m between two minds with this advert. They simplify the concept of online piracy quite substantially  They could apply this logic to so many other economic areas; if you shop in a multinational superstore, the local small-business owner loses his shop, if you buy your clothes online, the shop assistant loses her job, if you read the new online, you’re putting the newspaper printers out of business.

Yet, this opinion of mine is a bit sceptical.  This advert is definitely somewhat emotionally engaging.  Its thrown in front of us that our actions could have a direct influence on the life of another human being.  Yet online piracy still exists and is more prevalent than ever.  This is because humans attitudes and behaviour are often inconsistent.  Its a challenge known as the value action gap; just because our actions could have a negative result, does not mean we take this information on board in our behaviour.

d’Astous et al (2005) used an application of the Theory of Planned Behaviour to determine variables that affect our intention to pirate music or other software rather than purchase it.  Among interesting behavioural implications, they found that no anti-piracy argument had a significant effect on the assumptions underlying online piracy.  Chiou et al. (2005) presented a more comprehensive model of what constructs people base their piracy behaviour on. These constructs included; satisfaction of current copyrited CD, musician idolisation, prosecution risk, magnitude and proximity of consequences.  This study suggests that in order to reduce piracy, that music labels must market their music in such a way so that consumers are getting value for money. It also discovered the importance that consumers put on morality and ethics in their purchasing behaviour.

Its not only music companies that are trying to take active measures to bring a halt to online piracy.  Bands and musicians are taking a more active approach and appealing to their fans directly to respect their hard work and talent.  A recent example of this is Two Door Cinema Club’s Alex Trimble. After the leak of their second album, Beacon, he released a heart warming statement to his fans;

I’m aware that Beacon has leaked. In this day and age it was inevitable but I’d just like to urge you all to do the right thing. It’s out there and it’s up to you to make the decision. One decision supports the music you love; gives it strength, longevity and respect. The other, slowly but surely, will destroy the music you love.”

This type of marketing really hits home to our sense of morality.  If a musician was putting their heart and soul into a body of music, who are we to steal it from them?  Furthermore, he highlights the negative implications on a more personal level.  If we let piracy continue, what will happen to the standard of music we love? It has the possibility of evoking strong emotions in their fans.  After his press release, the blog-o-sphere blew up with manic fans threatening death on the geeks who leaked the album, and declaring their undying loyalty to the indie trio.  Upon the actual release date, the band claimed they were overwhelmed with the positive response to their anti-piracy please.  Perhaps the online piracy campaign just needs a more personal touch!?

In discussing the implementation of anti-piracy marketing, what effect does it really have on piracy behaviours? It seems to me that, even though there are an abundance of negative associations with piracy, and these negative associations are frequently marketed, unfortunately, online piracy doesn’t appear to be slowing down or stopping any time soon.


Brand Collaboration

26 Oct

A music festival offers a brand a huge range of customers right at their fingertips for them to engage at a personal level. It allows them a target specified and pre-segmented customer base where they can connect with a young festival goes that are sharing a social experience.  Here are some music festival stats;

  • 130,000 tickets for Glastonbury 2013 were sold in one hour and forty minutes.
  • This year, 270,000 people attended Lollapalloza
  • There are 450 music festivals held in Britain every year.
  • These festivals are worth as much as £1bn to the British economy

Brands make big efforts to have a strong presence at music festivals.  Some sponsor the event as a whole, for example Virgin Mobile (V Festival) and Tennants (T in the Park).  The Red Bull Bedroom Jam is a bedroom set up where festival goers can perform their own party piece.  Orange and Vodafone have held tents where festival goers can charge their phones, surf the web and relax.  Orange also run a programme entitled Orange RockCorps where people earn a ticket to a gig of their choice in return for 4 hours community service. This boosts the brands ethnic credentials and is a great example of purposeful marketing.  It taps into our motivational constructs and hits an emotional cord with the market which only serves to benefit the brand identity.

Brands have to come up with interesting and innovative ideas at music festivals because of the saturation of sponsorship   I think more traditional festival brands, like Captain Morgan and Bacardi, make fantastic use of their festival space.  They are positioned in such a way that a festival goer could spend their whole day or weekend in one area drinking one brand of alcohol and being exposed to one brands merchandise.  Its a total saturation that would be difficult to pull off in any other setting.

Hafez and Ling (2006) analysed the history of Kool’s themed music promotions and the role of music in the promotion of the brand. They suggest that music is an effective marketing tool because it helps consumers make emotional connections with the brand.   Oakes (2003) found interesting implications of classical music festivals on audience awareness, recall and attitude. Immersing brands in consumers experience of entertainment could yield positive results.  Hackley and Tiwsakul (2006) have a very interesting article entitled “entertainment marketing”. They suggest that “brand exposure in popular entertainment confers ‘coolness’ on the brand and enhances the realism of the entertainment setting” (p.65).  The brand reinforces the music and the music reinforces the brand. This mutually beneficial relations can help embed the brand in the lives of consumers.  They also note that consumers have a negative attitude towards a brand that disrupts the entertainment narrative.  This is easy to avoid in a festival setting, where promotions aim to enhance the experience. Brands are more likely to get a return on an experiential investment like a music festival.

Brands that can offer a fun and creative experience will reap the rewards long after the last port-a-loo has been cleaned.