Key takeaways
“Because” alone isn’t magic. The famous “copy machine study” found placebo reasons to be as effective as real reasons. But only when the favor asked was small! This makes the much-cited topic of “mindlessness” actually the least interesting part for B2B, where favors asked are often bigger.
A real reason beats no reason for any size of favor. For small favors, compliance hits nearly 100%, while for big favors it nearly doubles (24% to 42%).
Match the format your readers are most used to. Compliance with a request increased when the reason given was presented in a format that recipients were most accustomed to from their day-to-day work life.
Uncontrollable reasons work better. “Our demo slots are almost booked” beats “I’d love to show you the product” 95% to 74%.
Analytical buyers aren’t more skeptical of reasoning on low-stakes asks. The “engineers see through tricks” assumption doesn’t hold for small requests.
Write for the buying committee, not just the reader. High self-monitors act with an unseen authority figure in mind (like a CFO) so reasons should also address other stakeholders.
Hey 👋🏼 I'm Fabian, great to have you here. In my newsletter “Get Hooked! Marketing”, I share proven tactics from the trenches of B2B SaaS advertising every week. Built to make you a top 5% marketer.
Copy the exact formula I use to repeatedly build simple static ads that generate six-figure B2B SaaS revenue. Backed by more than 6,000 hours of creative testing and $5M+ in total revenue generated on Facebook and Instagram.
Table of contents
A short summary of the cited research and its findings
Langer, Blank and Chanowitz (1978)
Folkes (1985)
Key, Edlund, Sagarin and Bizer (2009)
6 takeaways for using “because” to write more persuasive B2B copy
It was never just about “because”
A real reason beats no reason for any size of favor
Presenting a reason in a familiar format increases compliance
Acceptance improves when the reason is outside the asker’s control
Analytical buyers aren’t more skeptical of reasoning on low-stakes asks
Reasons should not only be written for the reader, but also for the reader’s boss
Caveats worth mentioning
A short summary of the cited research and its findings
Langer, Blank and Chanowitz (1978)
The famous and often-cited “copy machine study“. In this 1978 experiment, 120 people were approached at a photocopier inside the library of the City University of New York. The experimenters asked those about to do their copies for a small favor (5 pages) or a big favor (20 pages), providing:
No reason at all (Excuse me, I have 5 (20) pages. May I use the Xerox machine?)
An empty reason (Excuse me, I have 5 (20) pages. May I use the Xerox machine, because I have to make copies?)
A real reason (Excuse me, I have 5 (20) pages. May I use the Xerox machine, because I’m in a rush?)
The following results were observed:
If the favor is small, the share of people who let the experimenter go through because of an empty reason is almost identical to giving a real reason. Langer and her colleagues interpreted this as “mindlessness“ - in low-stakes situations, people follow an automatic script without actually processing the reason given.
To extend the state of “mindlessness” to written communication, a follow-up mail experiment was conducted. 83 memos from 20 secretaries’ wastebaskets were collected to understand the format these people were actually used to. The majority (68%) were an impersonal request (something like Please return this paper immediately, without the sender signing it).
Now, 40 secretaries from the City University of New York received a rather senseless memo, requesting or demanding, signed or unsigned, to return the same paper to a room inside the university that doesn’t exist.
The following results were observed:
When the memo’s form matched what secretaries were used to (impersonal request), 90% returned it. The three unfamiliar formats averaged 60%, implying that compliance depends on how familiar the message’s form is, independent of what it says.
Folkes (1985)
In her 1985 study, Folkes challenged the concept of “mindlessness”. She argued that people were thinking just about something Langer and her colleagues hadn’t measured. Something called controllability.
In a similar setup to Langer et al.’s (1978) experiment, 38 out of 82 people at the University of California, Los Angeles who had more than five pages to copy were asked for a small favor, given either a:
Controllable reason (Excuse me, I have 5 pages. May I use the Xerox machine, because I don’t want to wait?)
Uncontrollable reason (Excuse me, I have 5 pages. May I use the Xerox machine, because I feel really sick?)
The following results were observed:
Folkes interpreted that as ordinary reasoning, not mindlessness. The subjects in her experiment were actively evaluating the controllability of the reason given.
Key, Edlund, Sagarin and Bizer (2009)
Key and his colleagues asked a different question in this 2009 study. Instead of looking at the reasons themselves, they asked if compliance depends on personality. In order to do this, each of the 163 participants had to complete a personality test before being sent to a copier, where a researcher posing as a stranger would cut in. The two personality traits under consideration were:
Need for Cognition: How much one enjoys and seeks out effortful thinking.
Self-Monitoring: To what extent does one observe and adjust their behavior to fit social expectations.
Except for the active recruiting of the participants and the absence of a big-favor condition (only a small favor was asked), Key et al.’s (2009) experiment resembled Langer et al.’s (1978) closely in terms of reasons given by the experimenter (no reason, empty reason and a real reason), as well as the observed distribution of subjects who agreed to let the experimenter use the copying machine.
When looking at the influence of personality traits and response time, the following results were observed:
Contrary to the scientists’ expectations, the need for cognition predicted nothing - people who enjoy thinking hard were no better at seeing through the empty reason. At the same time, self-monitoring worked backwards. They were expected to comply more often with the request to cut lines in order to enhance their self-presentation. But high self-monitors complied less in every condition.
The researchers’ guess: when faced with two requests at the same time (one from the experimenter to make copies, one from a stranger to cut lines), the high self-monitors felt more motivated to comply with the higher-status requester.
6 takeaways for using “because” to write more persuasive B2B copy
It was never just about “because”
Many articles online and a certain headline of an article you are currently reading (guilty as charged!) oversimplify Langer et al.’s (1978) findings. They claim that using “because” boosts compliance, regardless of the reason that follows. But what is often omitted is the fact that the placebo reason only worked as well as the real reason when the favor asked was small.
It should never be just any reason. First, because many requests in B2B marketing and sales are far from being small, and second, because as a copywriter, you should never strive to provide empty or placebo reasons to your audience.
That’s why the most prominent and most debated part of Langer et al.’s (1978) study, the state of “mindlessness,” is actually the least interesting one for B2B copywriters.
A real reason beats no reason for any size of favor
The more interesting part of Langer et al.’s (1978) first experiment (that has also been replicated by Key et al. in 2009) is the overall compliance of participants when giving a real reason vs. giving no reason at all. For both types of favors (small and big), compliance significantly increased when a real reason was provided:
Giving a real reason for a small favor pushed compliance close to 100%.
Giving a real reason for a big favor nearly doubled compliance, from 24% to 42%.
💡 Tip: Always provide a concrete reason for any request you make. This can happen from the moment you first ask prospects for their email address on a lead form all the way down to the moment you ask them to sign an offer.
Presenting a reason in a familiar format increases compliance
Other, often overlooked aspects of Langer et al.’s (1978) study are the follow-up mail experiments. These experiments are especially interesting for B2B copywriters because the procedure more accurately resembles how business operators communicate - rather slowly and most of the time through writing.
In Langer et al.’s (1978) third experiment, participants complied most often when the request closely resembled what they were accustomed to during their day-to-day work.
💡 Tip: If you write a request and present a reason, think about the medium and format your recipient is most accustomed to. A CEO or executive of a traditional B2B company will most certainly prefer a short and plain email. On the other hand, managers of a startup might prefer to receive messages through tools like Slack.
Acceptance improves when the reason is outside the asker’s control
Folkes’s (1985) study provides insight on how to actually write an effective reason. Her participants were more likely to comply when the explanation given was uncontrollable, like justifying a request with being really sick, instead of just not wanting to wait.
In the context of B2B copywriting, controllable and uncontrollable reasons might sound like this:
Booking a demo
Controllable:
Can we grab 30 minutes this week? I’d love to walk you through the product.
Uncontrollable:
Can we grab 30 minutes this week? Our demo slots for Q3 and Q4 are almost all booked.
Joining a webinar
Controllable:
Save your seat fast because we think you will love the webinar’s content!
Uncontrollable:
Save your seat fast because the number of attendees is capped at 20 to keep the discussion intimate.
Responding to a cold email
Controllable:
Please reply when you get a chance; I’m curious what you think!
Uncontrollable:
Please reply by Thursday because this is when we finalize this quarter’s partner list.
Upgrading a plan
Controllable:
Upgrade now to a higher tier to gain access to more of our features.
Uncontrollable:
Upgrade now because your team has hit the seat limit on your current plan.
Signing before a deadline
Controllable:
Please sign the contract EOD because we need confirmation as soon as possible.
Uncontrollable:
Please sign the contract EOD because this proposal was built on lower Q3 pricing, which resets October 1st.
📝 Note: I do not recommend creating uncontrollable reasons out of thin air, especially when it comes to important things like signing a contract. This type of reasoning should always be sound and based on real business circumstances.
Analytical buyers aren’t more skeptical of reasoning on low-stakes asks
“Engineers do not fall for cheap copywriting tricks!”
A phrase that many marketers and copywriters among you have probably heard before. But Key et al. (2009) found the opposite: when the stakes are low, people with a high need for cognition, like engineers or analysts, are no more suspicious of reasoning than groups with a lower need for cognition.
💡 Tip: Do not hesitate to give technical prospects a reason when asking for small favors, such as providing an email address for a webinar signup.
Reasons should not only be written for the reader, but also for the reader’s boss
When a prospect with a high level of self-monitoring evaluates your pricing page, chances are there’s another person assessing your reasoning. Their boss.
In Key et al.’s (2009) experiment, participants were faced with two requests at the same time: one obvious, from the stranger posing as someone who wants to cut lines, and one less obvious, from the researcher who had told them to make their own copies to begin with. High self-monitors were more likely to reject the request to cut lines in order to please the person of higher status. This is, so far, only the researchers’ assumption.
So, when a marketing lead is evaluating a new landing page builder, their CFO is not literally in the room, but perhaps within their thoughts.
💡 Tip: Reasons should be written not only for the champion and initial user, but also for an extended buying committee, such as a CFO who needs to approve the purchase. For example, consider the FAQ section of your pricing page, where additional information for other relevant stakeholders could be presented.
Caveats worth mentioning
At the end of this article, it’s important for me to emphasize that the research presented here should not be considered definitive. This is primarily because of the small sample sizes and the fact that most of these studies were conducted in scenarios that are not very B2B-like.
Furthermore, the need-for-cognition experiment yielded null results. This means that the idea that “engineers aren’t more skeptical” is based on an absence of evidence rather than strong evidence of the absence of skepticism. And, as already mentioned, the explanation regarding high self-monitors and their reasoning is still an untested assumption of the researchers.
That’s why all of the given copywriting advice should be seen as working hypotheses that need proper A/B testing.
Subscribe to Get Hooked! Marketing
By Fabian Rabenalt