[milesokeefe]

Perhaps a way to prevent the reaction from a change in category is to discontinue and rebrand the product.

If the Red Cross had shut down the donut stations and then came back some time later with comfort food in a modified form, the soldiers would see the new stations independent of their anchor to the previously free stations.

[delinka]

I think there's also a bit of entitlement. I don't intend to imply the negative connotations. However, these soldiers are putting their lives on the line, so is a free doughnut so much to ask?

Indeed, the fault lies with SecDef for the change. And the change affected a certain aspect of morale. But the suggested change would most certainly have been noticed. If Red Cross was the only place to get this item, then it dried up, then someone else made them available, even at a pittance, the entitlement sentiment exists and colors the experience.

[philwelch]

I think that idea might be a wee bit insulting of the troops' intelligence.

[cperciva]

Do you really think that the American troops were that much smarter than the average American?

[philwelch]

Do you really think the average American would fall for that trick?

[cperciva]

Yes. I'm sure milesokeefe suggested it because discontinuing a product and then relaunching it is standard practice for companies which want to get rid of anchoring biases.

(And I'm not sure I'd say that trying to evade cognitive biases is a "trick", really.)

[philwelch]

I think it's better for smart people not to have patronizing attitudes about the rest of humanity, but that's just me.

I also think that charitable gestures towards men risking their lives and suffering great hardship to protect entire civilizations are categorically a different thing from a commercial product. I think the troops probably felt this way as well, which is really the crux of the whole issue, isn't it?

There's a massive difference between "here's a little something to say thanks for fighting for our country" and "doughnuts for sale"--and one is hardly a substitute for the other.

[vacri]

There's a massive difference between "here's a little something to say thanks for fighting for our country"

Why should that gesture be coming from the Red Cross, an organisation that's supposed to transcend nationalities and help all people regardless of politics?

[lelele]

"discontinuing a product and then relaunching it is standard practice for companies which want to get rid of anchoring biases."

Would you provide a few examples, please? Thanks.

[Kerrick]

Brinks Home -> Broadview [1]

Windows Vista -> Windows Mojave [2] (Although this was just to "taste test")

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadview_Security [2]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXrKO33Rc2g

[wl]

Apple rebranding iTools to .Mac.

[zecho]

There's also renaming entire companies to shake anchoring bias: Worldcom -> MCI.

[jonny_eh]

.me -> iCloud (Although that one was in reverse, pay -> free-ish)

[mkr-hn]

The McRib, everything in the Disney Vault.

[joezydeco]

"Andersen Consulting" -> "Accenture"

[scott_s]

I think it's quite different for a service, particularly if it is currently in use. See: Quickster.

[teamonkey]

Of course! Companies use this trick again and again all over the world.

[kalleboo]

Well the troops are the ones holding a decades long grudge against the Red Cross for a decision made not by them but by the Secretary of War...

[stretchwithme]

The troops probably have the same range of intelligence as everybody else. And the PR problem is mainly with those on one end of the continuum, not the other.