The Problem With Behavioural Nudges

The concept of nudging has become popular in the past few years—using psychological tactics to subtly steer people toward making better decisions that are aligned with their own interests or societal goals.

Companies and governments are using nudges, for instance, by automatically enrolling people in retirement savings plans instead of having them opt in, or by placing healthier snacks at eye level in a cafeteria or by comparing people’s electricity consumption with their neighbours’.

But as nudges became increasingly popular, we wondered: Can they go the distance? Would they keep people on track beyond the initial push, like actually eating healthier foods or saving more money or reducing their energy use over the long term?

We found that, in many settings, they don’t. Lots of people simply don’t follow through on options they have been nudged to choose—making those nudges less effective than many people believe. As the old saying goes, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.”

Other research has shown this effect. In 2012, a team from Cornell University published research showing that more people grabbed healthy snacks—like apples and carrots—when they were placed in contexts that made them more convenient, such as being put at eye level, among other things. The finding got wide attention and helped spread the idea of nudging.

But another aspect of the experiment didn’t get much attention at all. Those Cornell researchers didn’t just measure what went on at the cash register. They also stuck around to see what people did with the food. The nudged people ended up eating the same amount of healthy food as the ones who weren’t nudged—and the extra that was taken because of the nudge was thrown in the garbage. In the end, the effect on consumption of healthy foods was nil.

“For a long time we had always included language in these published studies lamenting the lack of long-term studies to see exactly how long the effects would last,” says one of the researchers, David R. Just, a professor of applied economics at Cornell.

Just adds: “It makes some sense that nudges would be much more effective in the short term than in the long term. Choices like food that are repeated often over time lead to learning, and eventually people are likely to recognise how the environment is interfering with their choices. This may say that nudges are most important in one-time or rare decisions like organ-donor status.”

In the long run

To be sure, sometimes a nudge is better than nothing. Let’s say somebody who wouldn’t otherwise join a gym is nudged into becoming a member. In the end, that person probably won’t use the membership regularly, but might use it occasionally—which is better than not exercising at all. And nudges may be beneficial when people don’t have to follow up on their initial choice, such as a plan that automatically puts a part of each paycheck into a 401(k).

That is only some cases, though. In others, no nudging might actually be better than a nudge. For instance, somebody might want to choose to join a gym, and plans to attend three days a week. But if nudged into the choice, this person might go there much less.

But even when nudges are better than no nudges, we have found that nudges don’t provide nearly as much benefit as initial results indicate—or as much as many nudge proponents are counting on.

We conducted studies on three of the most popular nudge strategies. In one, we gave the participants a chance to sign up with a website to get daily trivia. We described one as a way to have fun, the other as a way to get smarter every day. In reality, everybody was directed to the same site, no matter which option they picked.

When we gave participants one website as a default—in other words, we nudged them to choose it—70% opted for it, compared with 48% who chose the same one when it wasn’t preselected. That’s typically how default nudges work: People are much more inclined to pick the default, which presumably will be the one that is best for them or society.

Next came the important part. We waited. We tracked how often the study participants visited their website membership over eight months. Those who were nudged to choose the default plan visited the site 42% less often than people who chose an identical plan without nudging.

This was true for people nudged with a default option, as well as people nudged with what’s known as a decoy: a deliberate dud that makes another option really shine. In this case, the dud was an offering designed for children. So, in effect, the default and decoy strategies had a positive impact on choice, but not on long-term actions. When we nudged participants into the program, they used it less than they would have at all if they hadn’t been nudged.

Another study that we conducted threw cold water on a nudge known as the compromise effect. Think of Goldilocks choosing a bed: Nudgers know that people make choices in the same way, preferring to avoid extremes. Let’s say a store is trying to boost sales of a product that gets high ratings but is considered too expensive. The store might try to nudge customers by offering another version of the product at an even higher price—so the original looks like a better deal.

In this study, we gave people the option of choosing a plant, and steered some of them toward a compromise option (a plant that wasn’t too flashy or high maintenance). As with the trivia website, everyone ended up getting the same plant, no matter which option they chose. But people who ended up with the plant by way of the compromise effect let theirs die 16% sooner than those who chose without a compromise option. In other words, the people who were nudged into the “Goldilocks” choice weren’t as committed to caring for the plant over the long term.

A better way

Why don’t people follow through on nudged choices? When people are subtly steered toward options, it can feel as if a decision happens on autopilot. This lack of conscious effort might lead people to feel disconnected from their choices, potentially reducing their engagement with them.

This raises all sorts of questions about social programs designed to help people make better choices. Although nudges can be a powerful lever to increase sign-ups, program organisers shouldn’t conflate the popularity of a plan with the amount of people who actually use it. As our studies show, nudges can increase the latter, but decrease the former.

Encouraging individuals to save for retirement through nudges, for instance, may boost initial participation rates but may not translate into sustained engagement or prudent financial habits over time. A nudge might get people to enroll, but it doesn’t make them feel ownership, like the choice was really theirs, so they don’t follow through as much.

In designing nudges, the focus should shift toward helping individuals follow through with their decisions, complementing nudges with strategies that promote sustained engagement and behaviour change. For instance, people get more motivated for tasks when you turn the jobs into games and let them share their achievements on leaderboards. (Think of the popularity of Wordle.) It feels good to have a streak and see how you stack up to others. We might be able to transfer those competitive elements to nudged choices: If you nudge people into saving for retirement, for instance, you could show them how their savings stack up against other people’s each week.

In the end, though, the main takeaway from our research is that nudges may be a great first step. But that’s all they are: a first step. Much of the hard work is what comes next.

Australian property has always been a national obsession, but the way Australians learn about it has changed fundamentally. Where previous generations relied on a real estate agent’s advice and a bank manager’s approval, today’s buyers and investors are walking into the market with suburb-by-suburb data, auction strategy insights and valuation knowledge that would have required a professional consultation five years ago.

The ten creators on this list are the reason why. What distinguishes them from the broader landscape of property content is not their following size but the professional substance behind what they publish. Most have spent years doing the work, valuing, buying, negotiating, financing, before they ever picked up a camera. The audience can feel that difference, even when they cannot articulate it.

Today’s buyers are walking into the market with knowledge that would have required a professional consultation five years ago. These ten creators are the reason why.

1 –Tom Panos: Founder, Real Estate Gym

Tom Panos is the highest-profile real estate trainer in Australia, which is a distinction earned over more than two decades of working directly with agents, auctioneers and principals across the country. The content he publishes, on auction strategy, market psychology, agent mindset and the mechanics of negotiation, is backed by a career that predates social media by years.

What makes his presence exceptional is that he speaks to both sides of the transaction simultaneously. Agents follow him for craft. Buyers and investors follow him for intelligence. It is a rare position, and it explains why his audience has grown consistently through every market condition since he began publishing.

2 – Belinda Botzolis: Certified Practising Valuer; Founder, “The Valuer”

The gap that Belinda Botzolis identified and occupied is one that, in retrospect, seems obvious: professional property valuation, made accessible on social media. With seventeen years of practice as a Certified Practising Valuer, more than 15,000 individual property valuations completed, and over $12 billion in real estate assessed, she brought to social media something most content creators in this space cannot fake, a professional opinion.

The response has been significant. Over 20 million TikTok views for valuation content is not an accident. It reflects an audience that has long wanted access to qualified property analysis and found it, for the first time, without having to pay for a report.

3 – George Markoski: Founder, Positive Property

Photo: George Markoski, Positive Property

The credibility order matters in property investment content. George Markoski built a portfolio of more than 100 investment properties and retired at thirty-seven on passive income before he built a social media following. That sequencing, wealth first, content second, is the foundation of why his audience trusts him with decisions that carry six and seven-figure consequences.

His content covers RBA decisions, APRA changes and property cycles with the kind of strategic depth that comes from having navigated them personally. He is not forecasting the market from a position of theory. He is reporting from a position of ownership.

4 – Ravi Sharma: Founder, Search Property

Ravi Sharma‘s differentiator is structural: he runs an actual buyer’s agency. The suburb analyses, growth projections and investment frameworks he publishes on YouTube and social media are not constructed for content, they are the methodology his business uses to advise paying clients on real transactions. With more than 114,000 YouTube subscribers and a Bachelor of Business in Real Estate, his content sits at the intersection of professional advice and public education.

The result is content that reads like genuine analysis rather than commentary, because in most cases it is.

5 – Damien Cooley: Director, Cooley Auctions

Damien Cooley has called more auctions on live television than almost anyone in the country, a five-time premiere auctioneer on The Block, and 2015 Auctioneer of the Year. As Director of Cooley Auctions, his authority comes from decades on the rostrum in front of real buyers and real stakes, not from a studio.

His social presence extends that same on-the-ground credibility online, breaking down auction strategy and market sentiment for an audience that wants to understand the mechanics of a sale, not just the result.

6 – Ella Cas: Buyer’s Agent

As a buyer’s agent operating across Melbourne and its surrounding suburbs, Ella Cas brings professional transaction experience to a TikTok presence that covers market trends, price predictions and first home buyer strategy in the Victorian market. What distinguishes her content from general property commentary is its specificity: she is talking about markets she works in, for outcomes she is paid to deliver.

For Melbourne buyers navigating one of Australia’s most competitive property environments, that local professional knowledge, delivered in an accessible format, is exactly the kind of content that earns genuine audience loyalty.

7 – Gavin Rubinstein: Founder, The Rubinstein Group at Ray White TPG

Photo: Gavin Rubeinstein, The Rubeinstein Group

Gavin Rubinstein built The Rubinstein Group at Ray White TPG into one of Sydney’s highest-performing individual real estate practices, and his Instagram engagement outranks every major franchise account in the country. That distinction matters: he is not a media personality who sells property, he is a top-performing agent whose content reflects live transactions in one of Australia’s most competitive markets.

For buyers and sellers trying to understand how Sydney’s top end actually moves, his day-to-day content is closer to a transaction diary than a highlight reel.

8 – Robbo Roper: Mortgage expert & home buyer connector

Robbo Roper‘s content sits at the junction of property aspiration and mortgage reality, which is precisely where most first home buyers get stuck. As a mortgage expert and home buyer connector, he publishes short-form video that walks Australian buyers through the finance side of property ownership: what to expect from a broker, how to prepare for a loan application, what the common mistakes look like.

His placement in Favikon’s Top 20 Australian real estate influencers for 2025 reflects an audience that is not just watching but acting, the kind of content engagement that distinguishes an education account from an entertainment one.

9 – Michael Biviano: Property developer; business coach & real estate strategist

Michael Biviano built his platform on the strategy side of the business, working as a speaker, business coach and property developer before turning that experience into content for agents and investors navigating the industry. His focus sits less on individual listings and more on the frameworks behind sustainable success in real estate.

That distinction, teaching the business of property rather than just showcasing it, is what places him among the professionals worth following rather than just watching.

10 – Consulting by PK: Investment property educator

The property content space has no shortage of people telling audiences what to buy. What is rarer, and more valuable, is someone teaching them how to decide. Consulting by PK builds investment theses from actual data: top 5 per cent growth property analysis, cashflow modelling, suburb research methodology, the frameworks behind the conclusions rather than just the conclusions themselves.

With more than 60,000 YouTube subscribers, the audience that follows this content is a specific and self-selecting one, investors who want to understand the process, not just receive the output. That is a harder audience to build and a more durable one.

What this list reflects, taken together, is a professionalisation of property content in Australia. The era of anonymous property spruikers making market predictions without credentials or accountability is being displaced, slowly, but measurably, by practitioners who are willing to put their professional reputation behind what they publish. That is good for the industry. It is better for the buyers.

The Problem With Behavioural Nudges

The benefits of steering people toward making better decisions has become conventional wisdom. But the evidence suggests it doesn’t work quite as well as we hoped.

In the long run

A better way

From auction floors to TikTok — the professionals who made property education a public good