【正文】 one another. And if your employees canamp。 And the first thing I do is I ask the employees, amp。re all important choices.amp。t know how to cut. Theyamp。I donamp。re given 20 funds, not 300 or more funds. You know, often, people say, amp。 Shoulders to 15, they saw an increase in sales by 10 percent. When the Golden Cat Corporation got rid of their 10 worstselling cat litter products, they saw an increase in profits by 87 percent a function of both increase in sales and lowering of costs. You know, the average grocery store today offers you 45,000 products. The typical Walmart today offers you 100,000 products. But the ninth largest retailer, the ninth biggest retailer in the world today is Aldi, and it offers you only 1,400 products one kind of canned tomato sauce.
　　Now in the financial savings world, I think one of the best examples that has recently e out on how to best manage the choice offerings has actually been something that David Laibson was heavily involved in designing, which was the program that they have at Harvard. Every single Harvard employee is now automatically enrolled in a lifecycle fund. For those people who actually want to choose, theyamp。 Gamble went from 26 different kinds of Head amp。s a lowering of costs, there is an improvement of the choosing experience. When Proctor amp。s an increase in sales, thereamp。re seeing more and more is that if you are willing to cut, get rid of those extraneous redundant options, well thereamp。re going to lose shelf space. But in fact, what weamp。re always worried theyamp。 Theyamp。Cut.amp。s never been more true than today, that less is more. People are always upset when I say, amp。ve heard it said before, but itamp。t actually do the math of paring and contrasting and actually picking from that stunning display. So what I want to propose to you today are four simple techniques techniques that we have tested in one way or another in different research venues that you can easily apply in your businesses.
　　The first: Cut. Youamp。re more likely to choose things that make them less satisfied, even when they do objectively better. The main reason for this is because, we might enjoy gazing at those giant walls of mayonnaises, mustards, vinegars, jams, but we canamp。re more likely to make worse choices worse financial choices, medical choices. Theyamp。re more likely to delay choosing procrastinate even when it goes against their best selfinterest. Theyamp。re considering their future financial wellbeing.
　　Well, over the past decade, we have observed three main negative consequences to offering people more and more choices. Theyamp。s likelihood to save more for tomorrow. And what we found was that indeed there was a correlation. So in these plans, we had about 657 plans that ranged from offering people anywhere from two to 59 different fund offerings. And what we found was that, the more funds offered, indeed, there was less participation rate.
　　So if you look at the extremes, those p