Certain Zip Codes Pick Losers

People in certain zip codes are more likely to purchase products that flop, buy homes that are poor investments and pick political candidates who lose. Christopher Intagliata reports.

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Remember Crystal Pepsi?

[CLIP: Crystal Pepsi ad]

It debuted in the early ’90s, with a soundtrack of Van Halen. But if you’re blanking, don’t feel bad. Because Crystal Pepsi disappeared—just a few years after it debuted. 


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


But presumably the soft drink had some fans. Previous research found that people who buy products destined to fail—like Crystal Pepsi—also buy other duds. 

“They’re buying things other people are not buying. And they’re buying them repeatedly.”

Duncan Simester is an economist at M.I.T. He and his colleagues call these people “harbingers of failure”—because they tend to buy products that flop. Now they find that those harbingers tend to cluster in the same zip codes. 

They made the discovery by tracking the purchasing habits of customers at a mass merchandise chain—think Walmart or Target. And they found that certain customers kept buying products most other people didn’t want. In a follow-up experiment, they found that those people also tended to purchase more unpopular, niche items at a clothing retailer. But it goes further. These same people bought homes that appreciated less than other homes. And what’s more, they were more likely to support political candidates who lost. All of which indicates that these people—who, based on zip codes, also tend to live near each other—consistently pick losers. 

The results are in the Journal of Marketing Research. [Duncan I. Simester, Catherine E. Tucker and Clair Yang, The surprising breadth of harbingers of failure]

Unfortunately, the researchers won't reveal which zip codes are the ones in question. But the neighborhoods tend to be suburban, with lower household income, less educated residents and more single parents. People there also use a lot of coupons, and more of them are white than are the residents of other zip codes.

As to why these zip codes pick losing candidates or products? It’s possible they’re just not as engaged as other consumers.

“One of the things we looked at is: Are these people less likely to write product reviews? The answer is yes. If they write reviews, do they tend to be shorter reviews? And the answer is yes.”

Of course, retailers could learn from this when test-marketing new products. Rather than looking at how many units sell, it might be more useful to see if the people buying the product consistently see their picks go belly-up.

[CLIP: Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (“He chose poorly”).]

—Christopher Intagliata

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe