Bench Bombing: One Simple Way to Transform Public Space
The moment we stepped into Rittenhouse Square in Philadelphia, we heard the music. We followed it to the corner of the park and saw a band playing for a local swing/lindy hop group offering free dance lessons. Here’s what was interesting: while all of the benches around the band were full of people, there was…
The moment we stepped into Rittenhouse Square in Philadelphia, we heard the music. We followed it to the corner of the park and saw a band playing for a local swing/lindy hop group offering free dance lessons. Here’s what was interesting: while all of the benches around the band were full of people, there was about a ten-foot gap between the sitters and the dancers. The gap was just enough to discourage people from joining in the fun, and the dance group was more of a spectacle than an interactive experience.
Enter the “bench bombing.” We took advantage of the gap and put our benches down in an arc facing the dancers. In just a few minutes, people filled up all five benches. Feet started tapping, children began dancing and, all of a sudden, the audience became part of the show. Since the sitters were closer to the action, the dancers could grab them and encourage them to dance too.
It was amazing to watch, like a social experiment. Those on our benches were more engaged, danced more and smiled more. With one small act, we brought people together in a way that the permanent park design could not. As a designer of public space, this was a pretty eye-opening experience.
William H. Whyte, a famous urbanist and public space advocate, once observed that “people like to sit where there are places for them to sit.” We proved, in one hour, how transformative a few places to sit could be. Now we have to keep our momentum going and bring benches to even more public places around Philly, as we continue to work with Public Workshop’sBuilding Hero Project. We need to start a movement of sitting, of conversation and of hanging out. We really can bring people together, and it starts with something as simple as a bench.
Images courtesy of Public Workshop. A version of this post was originally published by Public Workshop.
What if you were stuck in a time loop of doing the same thing over and over again for eternity? What would you want that thing you’re doing to be? This idea was posed by @jaredraygilmore on his Instagram. Jared Ray Gilmore suggests this question is a quick and easy way to get to know a person on a date, in work relationships, and even with friends.
He believes the answer provides a lot of information about both a person’s value system and the things they don’t like. As thousands of people shared their responses, what flooded back suggests a seemingly harmless question quickly shifts once you actually imagine living it.
Frederick Nietzsche’s philosophical thought experiment
The premise offered by Gilmore holds deep and powerful roots in historical philosophy. Friedrich Nietzsche was a 19th-century German philosopher who shared profound critiques about morality, individualism, God, and conventional values.
In his book The Gay Science, Nietzsche proposed the idea that a person’s entire life could repeat infinitely, playing out the same way each time. This thought experiment, called “eternal recurrence,” he considered a metaphysical fact and one of his most important philosophical discoveries.
People ponder positive memories versus living an undeniable nightmare
As people began to share their own thoughts about Gilmore’s proposed topic, many comments reflected pleasant nostalgia and appreciation for life’s simple loves.
“First thing that came to mind was having breakfast with my husband in our breakfast nook, the side window open for the cat, and the dog resting at our feet.”
“Garden, I’d be in the garden. Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter, repeat.”
“Going to the beach and enjoying the waves, laughing with my fiance and friends”
“Have deep conversation with people that are making groundbreaking advancement in their field of passion.”
Yet, others rejected the premise immediately and found the whole idea somewhat horrifying.
“Whatever you’re choosing, even if that’s THE thing you’re absolutely fan of, is gonna be an absolute nightmare to do at one point.”
“pushing a rock up a hill”
“I’m legitimately at a loss for what would be my ideal loop because everything that comes to mind scares me a bit.”
“This would be just hell to me as a person with ADHD. I love my hobbies but I could never do one on a loop for eternity.”
People rely heavily on routines because they offer stability. A 2025 study in Springer Nature Link found that individuals use routines to gain more than pleasure. The small sense of control over their lives creates a comforting predictability for what to expect during the course of a day. Repetitive behavior reduces cognitive workload.
A 2024 article in WebMD revealed that routines create structure, reduce stress, and improve mood. A lack of routine generates more behavioral and emotional difficulties. Giving the brain predictable patterns reduces fatigue from daily decision-making.
However, people find the idea of living even a perfect day over and over, difficult. A 2025 study in Sage Journals showed that repeating the same day yields feelings of boredom and a lack of meaning. An eternal loop doesn’t feel infinite. A repeated experience will eventually collapse into a dull distortion of time.
The value of thought experiments like the “eternal loop”
Hypothetical questions can be interesting to explore. Especially when they’re big, existential questions about life and the universe. A 2025 study in Frontiers showed people like to think about meaning in life and feeling influential. However, it was difficult to measure whether a person felt their life was actually significant.
A 2024 study in the National Library of Medicine found existential questions about life, purpose, and death are considered important. This was consistent whether people found them uncomfortable or helpful.
Gilmore’s “eternal loop” question rapidly split responses. While some imagined it comforting, others found it unsettling. Science demonstrates that routines are beneficial, but people adapt quickly to repeated experiences. Something that feels great at first can eventually lose its meaning. At the same time, studies show that existential questions like this can help people identify what matters most to them.
Photo credit: Overearth/iStock via Getty Images Plus – About 82% of Americans said in response to a survey that they give to charity or to people in need.
The nation’s political, social and economic divides might only strengthen that impression. But my recent research suggests that this belief would be misguided.
I’m a professor who teaches and conducts research about nonprofits and philanthropy. To understand the diversity of American generosity, I teamed up with Paige Rice and Veronica Selzler, two philanthropy consultants who contributed to the Generosity Commission’s report on U.S. generosity called “How and Why We Give.”
The Generosity Commission is a nonpartisan group of leaders from across the charitable sector. Its 2023 report shared the results of a national survey of 2,569 U.S. adults.
Drawing on data from that study, we sought to understand how different kinds of people may be motivated to act generously for different reasons and, as a result, express their generosity differently.
The study defined generosity broadly in terms of efforts or gifts made to support people in need, charitable causes or philanthropic organizations through actions like giving and volunteering. Our study was published in March 2026 in Nonprofit Management & Leadership, a peer-reviewed academic journal.
The overall propensity to give was about 82% based on responses to this question in the Generosity Commission’s survey: “On average, how much money do you donate each year to people in need, charitable causes, or philanthropic organizations?”
The survey also asked Americans about how they express their generosity.
We found that Americans’ generosity varies according to their aspirations, motivations and demographic characteristics. In other words, different kinds of Americans are generous in different ways.
Using a statistical modeling technique called latent profile analysis, which can find hidden groups of people based on observed data, we identified five segments of American society. They come from the general population, not just existing donors or volunteers.
Change-minded hopefuls, about 42% of the total, are mostly women and people with low incomes. They genuinely want to help people but are held back mainly by not having enough money.
Flexible moderates, roughly 35% of the survey’s respondents, are a middle-of-the-road group without strong political or religious motivations. They are open to helping out in a wide variety of ways when given the opportunity.
Values-driven skeptics, around 11% of those surveyed, are mostly older, conservative, religious and male. They are willing to give money but are worried that charities might not make good use of it.
Status seekers, approximately 9% of the participants in the survey, are the most generous group. Affluent, educated and religious, they are highly active in giving and volunteering and are motivated by social recognition and personal benefits.
Frustrated activists, only about 4% of the total, are passionate, liberal and financially strapped. They are often women and people of color. They care deeply about causes and prefer to take direct action rather than giving money.
Why it matters
Each of these groups is relatively generous. For example, the percentage of people in each one donating to people in need, charitable causes or philanthropic organizations ranged from a low of 77% – the frustrated activists – to a high of 93% among the status seekers. This shows that Americans with different mindsets exhibit a willingness to help others, even if their aspirations, motivations and demographic characteristics differ.
For nonprofits looking to attract more donors and volunteers, it may help to understand that different groups of people may have different motivations and concerns. By appealing to each group’s distinct qualities, nonprofits may be able to garner more support for their causes.
Photo credit: Garrett Aitken/iStock/Getty Images Plus via Getty Images –
A ‘triangle test’ involves mixing up two of the original products with one of the new reformulation – or vice versa – to see whether taste testers notice the difference.
Springtime in Pennsylvania is peanut butter egg season. This year some consumers may taste the eggs a bit more critically and scrutinize the ingredients and label more carefully.
Reese’s, a Hershey brand, is known for combining chocolate and peanut butter in delicious and iconic ways. Reese’s products come in a variety of formats, called “line extensions.” These include everything from peanut butter chips for baking and chocolate peanut butter popcorn for snacking to limited-time offers for holidays – such as the popular Reese’s Peanut Butter Eggs for Easter.
Hershey responded in a statement: “As we’ve grown and expanded the Reese’s product line, we make product recipe adjustments that allow us to make new shapes, sizes and innovations that Reese’s fans have come to love and ask for, while always protecting the essence of what makes Reese’s unique and special: the perfect combination of chocolate and peanut butter.”
I am a certified research chef and food and hospitality professor in Philadelphia, where I founded the Drexel Food Lab, a culinary innovation and food product development lab. I am also a huge fan of Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups. When my older daughter was a toddler, learning her colors and shapes, I trained her to organize her trick-or-treat loot by separating the orange squares for dad.
As someone with decades of experience in product formulation, I am not surprised that the ingredients for some Reese’s products have changed over the years. One of my first jobs as an intern in corporate R&D was formulating cost reductions for existing products and later developing cost-effective line extensions building on the brand equity of the original product. What Hershey is doing with the Reese’s brand is Consumer Packaged Goods Marketing 101.
Reese’s recently introduced some variations of its classic peanut butter cups that use ‘chocolate candy’ compound coatings and ‘peanut butter creme’ instead of real chocolate and peanut butter. AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar
How food manufacturers deal with rising costs
Much has changed in the marketplace since Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups were developed by H.B. Reese in 1928 in Hershey, Pennsylvania, about two hours northwest of Philadelphia.
Inflation, tariffs, labor costs, fuel costs, employee benefits, competition and the vulnerability of climate-threatened crops, such as cacao, vanillaand sugar – none of which are produced anywhere near Pennsylvania – have made the confectionery business increasingly challenging.
When faced with rising costs, food manufacturers have three options:
1. Shrink the product. Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups have gradually shrunk from 0.9 ounce in the 1980s to 0.75 ounce today. That’s a 17% reduction. This phenomenon has been dubbed “shrinkflation.”
2. Raise prices. There is certainly a market for premium peanut butter cups, but how much will a consumer pay for the Reese’s brand? $5? $10? I suspect most consumers expect a single serving to be a couple of bucks at most.
3. Lower costs. While the company can improve operational efficiencies, changing the formula to reduce or eliminate high-cost ingredients is a standard industry practice to keep prices consistent for consumers in the midst of a dynamic supply chain. This phenomenon has been dubbed “skimpflation” and is Brad Reese’s main complaint.
Sensory and food science tools that we teach in our Drexel culinary and food science programs help ensure little market disruption and a consumer mostly unaware of the changes.
For example, a consumer discrimination test that food product developers love is a called the triangle test. Two samples from the original formula and one sample from the new formula – or vice versa – are presented to the consumer. If the consumer can identify the different one, the product developer did a poor job in preserving the beloved brand through the reformulation. But if consumers can’t tell the difference, the reformulation may be able to move forward.
In 1998, Frito-Lay reformulated some of its signature products using a synthetic fat called olestra – with the brand name Olean – that could cause unpleasant side effects, including anal oil leakage. John T. Barr/Hulton Archive via Getty Images
Sometimes product developers get it wrong in introducing a new formulation. Some of us are old enough to remember Crystal Pepsi, the McLean Deluxe burger or Doritos made with olestra. These products failed, respectively, due to lack of defined consumer benefit, misalignment with the brand, and bad press due to digestive side effects.
But most reformulations go unnoticed – the good work of food technologists who strive to keep food safe, affordable and delicious for consumers.
So, are these new Reese’s products inferior to the original? Maybe. Like with taste in art or wine, if it tastes good to you, it’s good. If not, vote with your wallet, or send the company a note like Brad Reese did.
