Ep #1: Web Psychology and Online Persuasion with Nathalie Nahai

Welcome to the Brainfluence Podcast with Roger Dooley, author, speaker and educator on neuromarketing and the psychology of persuasion. Every week, we talk with thought leaders that will help you improve your influence with factual evidence and concrete research. Introducing your host, Roger Dooley.

Roger:       Welcome to the Brainfluence Podcast. This is Roger Dooley. Today, with me I have Nathalie Nahai who is The Web Psychologist. She’s written a tremendous book, “Webs of Influence: the Psychology of Online Persuasion”, which I read cover to cover, a lot of good info in there. The first thing I’m going to do is let Natalie explain a little bit about how she got to become The Web Psychologist and what she does.

Nathalie:    Hi, Roger, thank you so much for inviting me on the show.

Roger:       My pleasure, glad you could be here.

Nathalie:    A brief introduction, I guess. My background is in psychology. I did a BSC about 10 years ago which was before anything like Twitter and Facebook was even remotely around in its current form. After that, I went into the music industry. I learned how to design websites because I didn’t want someone else having to do it. I thought, “It can’t be that hard”, so I learned how to design and develop websites.

Then, it wasn’t until about 4 or 5 years ago that I suddenly thought, “Well, why not combine the two?”. Surely, psychology which is the study of human behavior is massively applicable to the online space. I started researching and started blogging. The blog picked up. It was a blog called, “We Make Them Click”.

Then, I wrote a book on the subject which came out at the very end of 2012. Since then, I’ve been doing a lot more of the same, like doing extra research, finding new stuff, meeting people like yourself who are doing some exciting things in this space of online behavior from whichever direction you look at it.

Yes, now I speak and consult and teach and do workshops on this fascinating area.

Roger:       Well, great. Thanks for that, Natalie. You explained that far better than I could.

What I want to do is talk about a few of the topics in your book. It is really a useful book. First of all, I found it to be a very colorful. The design is really interesting and unusual for a business book, where often you have sort of dry black and white pages that are very text heavy. Obviously, there’s a lot of text in there. There’s good use of color, and then these sort of little infographic-like interludes that occur every little while. It’s an interesting design which I guess goes into the basic concept of the book that what people see, the design and so on, they may not even be processing it consciously, but it’s part of their impression, and also affects your ability to persuade and influence.

Nathalie:    Absolutely.

Roger:       The first thing I’d like to ask you about … I know everybody has a different way of sort of – to use a metaphor – slicing up the brain. We’ve got Kahneman System 1, System 2. We’ve got people who talk about lizard brains and so on. You start off the book by talking about the 3 parts of the brain: primal, emotional and rational. Can you explain a little bit about how you make those distinctions, and in particular I thought the Kiva website was a great example. Show how they managed to appeal to all of these.

Nathalie:    In terms of sort of slicing and dicing the brain, whenever people refer to particular systems, these are generally metaphors for ways in which the brain processes information. Daniel Kahneman talks about System 1 and System 2 based on the idea that we have a very limited bandwidth for conscious processing. It’s quite slow and methodical and very limited attention. Then, the other stuff that goes on most of the time is kind of the instinctive, much faster, much more unconscious processing that allows us to survive.

Most of these theories, when you look at the way in which people create models to describe the way that we think, they do map out onto one another. For instance, the primal, emotional and the rational that I talk about in the book … You could say that the rational, the sort of the consciously aware system, the cognitive system, maps onto Kahneman System 2 which is the logical, deliberate system of the brain that is engaged in rational thoughts. System 1 which is the fast and sure of an emotional one would map onto the emotional and primal systems.

The reason that I decided to divide it into 3 was mainly because it’s a much more concrete, immediately identifiable way of saying, “Okay, well if we have customers, are we engaging them at a primal level? Are we using emotion? Are we using color? Are we using things like faces? Are we using things like cues for sex and for food?” These don’t have to be explicit, it could just be signatory. Key for sexual fitness, that would be a primal way of engaging that system of the brain.

Or emotionally, it could be things like getting people to experience a certain state. How you engaging them so that they feel nostalgia perhaps, if you’ve got a particular marketing campaign. Or how are you getting them to move from pain to pleasure? Pain is the problem. Pleasure is the solution that you’re offering.

Third and finally, with the rational system, how you providing people with kind of the tools or the information they need to post-rationalize. That’s really crucial. To post-rationalize the decisions that they already have made at a primal and emotional level. That’s how I mapped it out.

Roger:       How did the Kiva website manage to apply in all of these?

Nathalie:    From a primal perspective … They have since changed the website. The screen grab … I’ve got some screen grabbings in some of my decks.

Roger:       Now, don’t you hate that? You use somebody as a great example, and then they change it.

Nathalie:    That’s why I got to grab them. There are some websites that actually bank. This is a website archive, an Internet archive, that banks websites, so you can check them out on there. Also, bank your own for future reference.

With the original one that I site in the book, the first thing that happens when you land onto this green page is that you get across the width of the page a mosaic of all these different photos of faces that sort of pop into or fade into view. You’ve got that sense of emotions. It’s the sense of having a lot of people there. It’s an emotion. Immediately, you’re engaged at a primal level.

Then, they shift into engaging the emotional systems. They’ve got images of faces. When you click over the face, a pop-up will come up and it will show you the face in greater detail. It will give you the name of the person, the location of the person, what it is that your donation … because it’s a donation site in a sense, so you’re … It’s a micro investment, micro-funding. It will give you a little bit of story about who they are, what they going to do with the money, et cetera. Emotionally, you’re getting engaged in their back story.

Then, you have a kind of foot in each camp, really, sort of emotional and rational. You’ve got information on the website that says, “Okay, well social proof, 50,000 people have done this, this week, for instance”, or “93% repayment rate this week”. They thought to give you information to help bolster up your emotional and sort of less rational decision to buy.

Roger:       Okay, well that’s great. Now that’s probably something that many website operators could take care of. Even if, obviously, non-profits have certain emotions they can play on. Even other websites need to think about influencing at all levels, not just the features and benefits pitch, and so on.

One of the interesting things you talk about are cultural differences. You have a lot of fascinating stuff about how different nationalities behave. I think, particularly, things like uncertainty, or short versus long-term orientation. Now, I guess for some products, particularly for instance, if you’re selling financial services or insurance or something like that, that short or long-term orientation could be huge. Can you explain real briefly how somebody offering those services, or any other examples you care to use, would appeal to different cultures. Is it possible to do it?

I guess, one problem is you may not always be able to segregate people by their nationality. In other words, if you’re have a single website that isn’t specifically optimized for different countries, or you’re dealing with a population that’s very diverse like many parts of the United States, how would you handle that kind of issue?

Nathalie:    This is sort of 2 questions. One, how can you appeal to either a short-term or a long-term future oriented cultures? Then, you’ve got on the other side, what happens when you’ve got several? It maybe one website that’s multi-national that’s using the same content, the same kind of messaging to approach different people who may lay at different points on that spectrum of short-term, long-term.

To address the first point, I think the interesting thing with … let’s take the short-term for instance … The US and the UK are both short-term oriented cultures. Typically, in western developed countries, we tend to be more short-term oriented. I think it was Rory Sutherland who’s the VP of Ogilvy & Mather in the UK. He once talked about how it would be so much easier if every time on your bank, you’re checking your bank on your app on your phone … Everytime you saw that you had, I don’t know, say 100 or 200 extra quid, you could just hit a red button that would just bank that into a pension, or bank it into a life saving fund.

That kind of gives you an example of an approach of something which is immediate. It’s painless. It’s impulsive. It falls under the category of immediacy and urgency that short-term oriented cultures tend to find rewarding. It’s kind of like, if you think about it, everytime you get a “like” it’s linked to that dopamine rush. You do something instantaneous, you get a reward.

The issue with short-term cultures is that tomorrow, or the future, just feels like it’s too far away for it to apply to us right now. You need to create that immediacy in whatever messaging you’re using. You could say something like … Instead of say, okay, well saving for your retirement, it could be something like, “You always want to have the amazing quality of life you have now. Make sure that you can have this when you’re older.” Making the focus immediate.

When you’re talking about longer term cultures, the focus tends to be on things like longer term education, sustainability et cetera. For that the call to action could be different. You might want to talk about future generations or there might be the notion of heritage or of one’s legacy.

If you are trying to target, as many large organizations are, different countries with different cultures that fall on different elements of these spectrums, different lengths of these spectrums … If you’re trying to target a whole bunch of different people at once, then it does become complicated because, really, you do need to segment. There are certain things which are a one-size-fits-all. The idea that we can tap into universal emotions: wanting to care for children, the feeling of love, fear, some universal things that apply to whichever humans whichever you’re targeting.

Certain things, like cultural differences, you really do have to account and you can’t really take a one-size-fits-all approach.

Roger:       Right. Basically, since probably most of our folks are designing for English-speaking audiences in the US and UK. Short-term focus is probably a bit more potent than long-term focus. Just in looking at the list in the book, it seems like Asian cultures tend to be typically long-term focused.

Nathalie:    Yes.

Roger:       Latin American cultures, sort of all over the map, where Brazil is long-term, where Mexico is short-term, and the others fall somewhere in between. It’s good to know.

I guess the other thing, there’s evidence that you can increase at least the short-term orientation of male viewers with some sexual priming of say, an attractive woman or something. I guess, you could further build on that national, or that ethnic tendency and really focus on the short-term.

Nathalie:    The only issue with that is that the long-term cultures tend also, not always, but they tend also to be rather sexually conservative. You got to be careful how you do that.

Roger:       I think at that point, you have to choose one or the other. It isn’t a one-size-fits-all thing if you’re appealing to guys in the United States, maybe that’s one website. If you’re appealing to folks who are from a predominantly Asian culture, then maybe somehow you try and guide them to a different site, whether it’s geo-targeting, or language or something else.

Nathalie:    Yeah, I agree.

Roger:       One thing that was new to me in the book was the work of Helen Fisher who has the theory that genetics and neurochemistry determine a lot of our behavior. She actually has the 4 classes of people: explorer, builder, negotiator, and director. I don’t want to get into those classes. I’m just curious whether you find this approach kind of deterministic. I mean, there’s obviously the ever going debate about nature versus nurture. It seems like this theory is weighing pretty heavily in on the nature side of things. I’m just wondering if you buy that completely or maybe you have reservations, but you think it has merit. What do you think about that?

Nathalie:    That’s an excellent question. I think with any of these things it’s never a black or white answer. There are always multiple influences that mediate each other.

For instance, it could be that you’re raised in a culture which is quite conservative that is quite long-term, that is risk averse, so uncertainty avoidant for instance. You have someone who has high dopamine levels and high testosterone levels, so you’re likely to be the explorer, director archetype. You’re likely to be someone who is very blunt, very direct, who’s going to seek novelty, excitement, get bored very easily, seek rewarding things.

If you have someone who neurochemically – this is the thing, it’s not just genetic – you can change your neurochemical levels by adopting certain behaviors. Things like changing your body positions to adopt a dominant stance, like if you’re taking up a lot of space if you stand with your legs apart and your arms up which you often see people do when they’ve just won a race, for instance, or at the Olympics. It’s kind of a very successful stance. If you do things like that, and you hold up that pose for 2 minutes, you can actually, some researchers found that it increases the testosterone levels in your saliva when you so a spit test.

What I’m kind of driving at is that there’s always a combination of your genetic inheritance. Also, the neurochemical makeup which can be influenced, say for instance, in the womb. Whether your mother’s stress levels are higher or lower can influence the testosterone that the baby ends up having. Specific instances which can raise your cortisol levels which then have a knock-on effect, and in the culture that sort of interacts with all of those personal individual factors that you already have.

That being said, I think there are factors which are important enough that they do influence the way in which we behave. Even if you can find these differences in cultures which are predominantly one way or another, and you find these differences consistently, then that would suggest that actually, yes, are inherited. Neurochemical typing can have a large influence on the way in which we are incentivized and behave in the world.

Roger:       At this point, the application for that might be more at the national or cultural level, as opposed to trying to individually assess people and somehow tag them with their category, or their dopamine level or whatever.

Nathalie:    Well, the interesting thing with Helen Fisher’s neurochemical typing is that they actually map out onto the Big 5, the NEO PI, the Big 5 personality traits which have been used by psychologists for decades and is probably the most – it is not without it’s issues – but it is the most useful and internally valid test that there is out there for assessing personality.

Some of my colleagues, my peers at Visual DNA, it’s a company in the UK, have actually found that you can get people to take visual tests, images, that will then give you insights as to how they rank across these 5 different personality traits, the Big 5 personality traits. Using that, it can predict the purchase behaviors online.

We are starting to see the application of personality research into creating online environments that are going to be more fitting for certain personality types than others. That’s something which we’re starting to see the beginning of which I’m sure will become more prevalent as we go along.

Roger:       Right. There’s a company in the States that does something like giving very simple Myers Briggs Test. It’s an extremely short survey that they claim can be quite accurate, and then be used to further appeal to the nature of that particular individual once you’ve tagged them in that way.

Nathalie:    The only thing with the Myers Briggs is the Myers Briggs is so bad. Don’t do it. Do the Big 5 instead. The Myers Briggs has so many more problems than the Big 5, but people love it. It could be work.

Roger:       I think at the end of the day, it comes down to sort of a conversion calculation. I think that most website operators are less concerned about the underlying theory and more about the reality of whether, “Hey, if I use this tool, I can increase my orders. I can increase conversion or so on”, but, yeah, you’re right.

Talk about images a little bit. I think a lot of times website owners don’t put too much thought into their images. They spend a lot of time on the text and their sales pitch and their features and benefits and so on. Then at the last minute, the designer has to go scrambling to find some stock photo of typical business shots of 2 men shaking hands or a young woman in a headset or something like that.

Nathalie:    Yeah.

Roger:       Talk a little bit about the impact of images on websites, and what your advice would be for website operators.

Nathalie:    Number 1, never use stock photography. Number 2, images are the things that we respond to probably the most immediately and subconsciously online, when we’re accessing a website for whether it’s the right website, whether it can give us what we want, and whether we feel safe. One of the biggest barriers to e-commerce, to online shopping, is a lack of trust and face-to-face personal attention. Some of the cues that we rely on are inherently visual.

If you’re going to use your funds online to make your design more effective, then make sure that you’re spending that money and getting professional photographs done that reflect your audience’s preferences.

If you know that you’re creating a website for, I don’t know, let’s say 15 to 20 year old girls who are buying clothes, like for instance in “Nasty Gal” in the US which is a site that I love, then make sure that you’re using images that look like your target audience where they’re wearing the same clothes that your target audience will want to see. Where they’re using the same language in the copy that that customer is going to use. You’re using the same kind of colors that would be appropriate for that audience. All of these things should be taken into account.

Really, the bottom line is – if you’re going to take a silver bullet out of this – know the needs of your audience, mirror their preferences in your copy and certainly in the models that you use in the photographs that you use on your website.

Roger:       One of the amusing characteristics I found was that almost all cultures reacted pretty much the same, but France had a peculiar preference for images.

Nathalie:    Yeah, it was the world’s favorite painting, I think it was. It was done a short while back. The researchers found that almost all of the different cultures around the world preferred paintings of pastural scenes that had some national iconography and blah, blah, blah … apart from the French who preferred naked people in their paintings which I thought was fabulous. If you look at their media, there’s boobs everywhere. Am I allowed to say boobs on our podcast?

Roger:       Yeah, sure.

Nathalie:    Yes, okay, yeah. You’re moving into some hot territory when you speak with the French. That’s a culturally specific element that you find in their media.

Roger:       Right. Well, maybe in terms of national iconography that …

Nathalie:    I love it.

Roger:       … works for France.

Nathalie:    Boobs – national iconography. I think that’s your next book, Roger.

Roger:       I’ll let you do that one, Nathalie.

Nathalie:    All right.

Roger:       Tell us a little bit about cognitive shortcuts. I think, again, that there’s a presumption among many people that web visitors are going to read all the copy and weigh things carefully. We know of course, that’s not true. What are cognitive shortcuts, and how can designers exploit them?

Nathalie:    Okay, cognitive shortcut, also known as a heuristic, is kind of what it says on the tin. For instance, when you’re a kid growing up, you learn how to open a door. If it’s a handle, you’re going to push the handle down, and it’s usually with your right hand and you walk through the door, right? If you figure out that that’s the way that you open a door, and that doors open away from you, then you’ll apply that same stereotyped behavior to every door that you find which is fine. Until one day you reach a door which slides open instead of pushes, and then you crash through it. That’s an example of a cognitive shortcut where you stereotype one behavior across all other things.

Online we do this also. Things like looking at blue links. Why are links blue? We just take it for granted that links are blue. Google kind of came out with a very specific color blue. They just tested different colors. They found the one that actually works the best, but it means that because someone got there first and they made it blue, we stereotype that across all other text. Everytime we see blue text, we presume that we can click on it. Things like that.

Another example would be a button. If you see a button, you’re likely to click on it. One of the easiest ways to increase conversions, which sounds ridiculous, make your button bigger because there’s that principle of affordance which is that the button affords to be pushed, just like a door affords to be pushed open. This is an example of a cognitive shortcut.

Another one would be sort of something that’s not physical, it’s more value based. It’s the price value heuristic. The idea that, that which is more expensive is likely to be more valuable. We apply that cognitive shortcut when we’re not familiar with the item that we’re buying. In most day to day life we’ll think, “Okay, well if a car is more expensive then it’s got to be more valuable”. If you’re a car fanatic and you know everything there is to know about cars, then you’ll know whether that price is worth paying. But if you don’t have that expert insight then you’ll just apply that same rule. If it’s more expensive, it’s more valuable; therefore, I’ll pay more.

Roger:       That’s gets us into a pretty interesting area. Nice transition, Nathalie, about pricing. I think pricing affects, obviously, many, many businesses, both brick-and-mortar, e-commerce sites and so on. There’s so much research. I know our mutual friend, Leigh Caldwell’s written an entire book about the topic. There’s some good info in your book as well.

I think that the people – as just discussed in the last topic – people don’t always evaluate prices rationally and logically and sort of calculate a cost benefit ratio. What are some of the pricing quirks that you found in the research?

Nathalie:    Some of them is one that I find quite sweetly named, aptly named. This idea of charm pricing which is any price that ends in dot 99, or dot 98, or dot 95. We’ve seen in recent years, the last 2 – 3 years, dot 97 as well, which seems to be the popular one at the moment.

Roger:       That use to be Sear’s popular thing years ago when they were a huge mail order retailer. They used 97 for everything. They were a company that was doing a lot of quantitative testing back …

Nathalie:    Yeah.

Roger:       … in their day. One would presume that they had tried a bunch of different things and that in that particular moment in time, 97 was the hot ticket.

Nathalie:    Yeah, I think these are. It’s one these … I think the reason that it seems to work, no one knows exactly, specifically why … If you’ve got 9.99, or 9.97, or whatever it might be, some psychologists have said, “Well, maybe it’s because you’re rounding down to the 9, so it feels like you’re paying less. It’s $9 or £9 instead of 10”. Some people have said that it’s because the dot 98, dot 95, dot 97 makes us feel like it’s a sale. It’s associated with good value for money.

Whichever way you look at it, I suppose essentially the outcome is typically the same which is what you want to know if you’re designing a website and you’re designing prices. The kind of prices that end in those numbers are going to be seen as good value for money. That doesn’t mean that you should always use them.

For instance, if you are selling something of really high quality, other researchers found that if you’re going to use whole numbers, like you go to a restaurant and it says, “20 or 40 or 10 for a particular thing” and there’s no extra number on the end, it’s not got a decimal place, it’s not got a pound symbol or dollar symbol in front of it … Yeah, then you’re just going to say, “Okay, this is up-market”, but also you trust perhaps a bit more because it’s bang on the nose.

Pricing is a very interesting one. You can anchor people by giving them a much bigger number, and then giving them a second number which then you can say, “Right, well this is good value because I told you first of all we’ve got this price, this item for 10,000, but we’ve got this special sale for 5,000, and in comparison to the initial price, that’s really good value.”

There’s all sorts of things you can do with pricing. Actually, Leigh Caldwell’s book is absolutely brilliant, if you want to read it. There’s another one called “Priceless”, by William Poundstone which is also very good. Read those 2 books, if you’re interested in finding out more on pricing.

Roger:       Very good. Sometimes, I find that these rules end up conflicting with each other, and people need some explanation. There’s one theory, there’s actually some research that shows, that people seem to count the syllables in a price. If there are fewer syllables in a price that people will perceive it as being smaller.

If you have say $1100 versus $1100 point 00 dollars, the one without the additional digits will seem smaller, but at the same time, there’s other research that shows that people trust very precise pricing. People would perceive 497.50 as to be a much more believable price than $500 in most cases. I end with this weird sort of conflict. Which is it do I work? The answer for that, and I know you emphasize testing a lot in your book, is to test because what works for your customers may not be the same as what worked for the researchers, or what works for somebody else’s customers.

Nathalie:    Yeah, you raise a most important point which is always test. This is the thing. I know that I read this in your fantastic book. You touch on this too. We’re providing people with a body of knowledge, with a road map, but the road map only provides you a sort of an introduction to the territory. You’ll know best how you need to get to your destination, and that requires a bit of trial and error. It requires a knowledge of the people, your customers, that are going to be your passengers.

If you’ve got someone that you think is going end up taking a journey and it’s going to work for them, test it. If it doesn’t work, try a different route. These are all useful principles, but we have to pick and choose the ones that are most appropriate for the goals that we have in mind.

Roger:       Often in my speeches, I use a slide quoting David Ogilvy who even back in his day of sort of a limited testing availability, he made a comment that the most important word in advertising is test. When he considered the tools that are available now, particularly for folks who are operating on the web, the tools for testing are so much easier than they were for traditional advertisers back in the mad men days when most tests of necessity had to be quite crude, particularly if you’re using a media, I mean a large media like television, or radio or something.

What about credibility? I think that’s something that anybody on the web, whether they’re operating an e-commerce site, or perhaps a regeneration site of some kind, or some other site where they want to get their visitors to trust them in some way, if they’re going to give them money, they’re going to give up their information. What are a couple of sort of non-conscious tools for building credibility on a website?

Nathalie:    First most easy and most widely used one which is very extensively backed up by academic research is to use the color blue, which I know sounds so simple, as many of these things are. If you look at the finance sector in the US and then in the UK, and also you look at a lot of the social media icons linked in, Twitter, Facebook, we tend to have a hard-wired preference for the color blue, especially when it’s associated with brands that are going to be doing stuff with our data or with our money, things that we think are really important, and that we need to kind of take care over.

In academic research we found that we tend to find items which are blue, and people that represent themselves through blue websites as more credible, more trustworthy. It also has a calming influence. Blue can be a good way to kind of establish straight away a sense of calm. Incidentally, if you’re in an area where you have, or your customers are in an area where they have very slow broadband speeds, if you make your websites a nice calming color blue, then they’ll perceive it as loading more quickly. It’s got some weird properties, the color blue.

Roger:       That’s a great little nugget.

Nathalie:    Yeah, it’s totally bizarre. Also, if you’re holding … say you’ve got 2 sort of 5 kilo weights, one in each hand. One 5 kilo weight is in red and one 5 kilo weight is in blue, you’ll perceive the red one as heavier. There’s some really weird effects that color have on our experience of reality.

Another trust cue that I would mention is the use of images. Typically, across cultures, apart from those cultures that don’t allow you to use images of women, we tend to respond, both men and women tend to respond to images of women with more trust than if it’s an image of a man which is instantly is … That research has been found also in sales people, that we tend to trust sales people face-to-face if they’re female. That’s something else that you can do.

The other thing that increases conversions, and probably also directly relates back to trust, is high-definition, large images. The reason that that works is because if people can look at your products, or your service packages, or whatever it is close up, then they’re more likely to think that you’re not hiding anything which hopefully you’re not anyway, but these are some of the things that you can do.

Roger:       Great. We’re getting close to the end of our time here. I wanted to recommend for our listeners that they check out “Webs of Influence”. It’s a really great book. A couple things I liked about it, Nathalie, first of all there is a big references section at the back where all of …

Nathalie:    Oh, yeah.

Roger:       … I’m one of these people who likes to, after somebody says something, I like to dig back into it and read whatever’s backing it up, the original research. I’m really frustrated when I read a marketing book, or sales book that says either, “Do this because I know it works”, or “Do this because it worked for me”, or “Because I say so”. Or even where there are these vague, “Research shows that …”, and there’s no way of discovering what research shows. Particularly when it’s a broad, sweeping claim that, “Women prefer green”. Where’d you get that from? I don’t know.

You’ve got everything backed up. Also, it’s a very practical book, too. There’s a lot of very sort of hands-on advice that makes sense for people actually trying to do business as opposed to just sort of understand the theory. A really good book, it’s “Webs of Influence: The Psychology of Online Persuasion” by Nathalie Nahai.

Nathalie, why don’t you explain to our listeners how they can find your stuff on the web, and if they want to get in touch, how they can do that.

Nathalie:    Thanks, Roger. Okay, if you want to find my stuff, my home is at thewebpsychologist dot com. I’m always on Twitter, so you can find me at the website. If you want to take a free mini-course, we’ve got a free mini-course which applies some of the principles in the book, but it’s a lot more hands on. You can find that at instituteofwebpsychology dot com. We’ve also put up a sort of a mini-course which is how to design websites that convert. That’s on Udemy. We’ll put up the link after this.

If you’ve got any questions, just tweet me, and you can always google me on YouTube. I’ve also got some free stuff on slideshow as well. Plenty of free resources for you guys to check out.

Roger:       Great. If you’re googling Nathalie, her name is spelled slightly differently than you might expect. There is an silent “H” in Nathalie. It’s N-A-T-H-A-L-I-E N-A-H-A-I.

Nathalie:    Yeah.

Roger:       Although chances are you’ve got enough presents out there that Google will say, “Did you mean Nathalie Nahai”, if they botch it up a little bit.

Nathalie:    Gosh, I hope so.

Roger:       Okay, Nathalie, it’s been a real pleasure talking to you. Thank you so much for being on the show.

Nathalie:    Oh, such a pleasure. Have a great week. Thank you so much, Roger.

Thank you for joining me for this episode of the Brainfluence Podcast. To continue the discussion and to find your own path to brainy success, please visit us at RogerDooley.com.