On Monday, Roger Dooley posted a short piece on his Neuromarketing blog titled, "Emotional Ads Work Best." Citing an analysis of data regarding successful ad campaigns referenced in the book Brand Immortality by Pringle and Field, Dooley states the following:
"Campaigns with purely emotional content performed about twice as well (31% vs. 16%) with only rational content, and those that were purely emotional did a little better (31% vs 26%) those that mixed emotional and rational content."
I haven't seen the ads nor reviewed the analysis, but I'm not really sure that there is such a thing as an ad with "purely emotional content." What would it look like? A Jackson Pollack painting? And what would a "purely rational" ad look like? A product comparison chart?
Perhaps they're suggesting that ads which creatively engage people and allow them to create the meaning of the brand value for themselves are more effective than marcom that attempts to persuade people through the overt, unimaginative use of information and comparative data. I refer to those distinctions as pragmatic meaning vs. semantic meaning.
We all know that people don't trust marketers, so you shouldn't try to convince and cajole them with an autocratic, factual approach. But that surely doesn't mean that you should eliminate factual content from your message. Does it?
You tell me. Which ad do you think would perform better (drive higher margin sales)?
1. No factual content
2. Includes factual content
Posted July 30, 2009
Email this post
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c684b53ef0115714da6f5970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Reason vs. emotion in branding.:
The comments to this entry are closed.
(Rest assured, we will never provide your email address to anyone. Period.)
RSS feed
Tom on Twitter
@tomasacker
Tom is timely, thought provoking and all about the new brand vision packaged as a Seinfeld stand up. I went to school on his ideas.
Jeff Taylor, Founder, Monster.com and CEO, Eons.
When Tom Asacker writes, I read. Opportunity Screams is the right message for the right time.
Tom Peters
Tom,
I feel there is a place for rational content, but rational content ALONE definitely doesn't cut it anymore. Telling me "9 out of 10 people surveyed prefer..." means nothing. Tell me about those "people." Are they like me? Am I like them? What's their interest? Inspire me to feel like I'm one of them because I share the same needs, emotions, desires, goals, dreams, passions, whatever, and I might feel like you're saying something that interests ME.
The bottom line is give me a gut level, emotional desire to take interest in the MEANING of the "rational" information, and I'll sit up and pay attention. Otherwise, if I just want boring, drab numbers and such, I can always visit the census bureau's website. They have all the dull numbers and charts a person can stand.
But how many people actually visit the census bureau's website because they are truly excited and interested in that stuff? "Engaging" it ain't.
Emotion PLUS rationality is the mix if what you're peddling can make a difference in people's lives, work, etc. The brain and senses more often than not are led by the heart and gut reaction.
Or as I put it "We hear, see, and learn what we FEEL like hearing, seeing, and learning."
We feel first, and that determines what we pay attention to and what actions we take (or don't take.) That includes reading someone's ad, watching their commercial, reading their blog, their book, whatever.
Posted by: Dan Gunter | July 30, 2009 at 09:49 AM
A good analogy just popped into my mind that might help folks think more deeply about this.
Give two high school teachers the same course to teach. Same text book. Same tests. Same cross section of students.
One group of students ends up taking the tests and scoring very high. The other group of students fails miserably. So, what's the difference?
Both teachers and groups of students had the exact same "facts" in hand -- let's call that the "rational" material. But one teacher engages the students, gets them excited about learning, makes it fun, and presents it in ways that lead the students to WANT to learn because it's fun to do so (they FEEL good about being a part of the learning process.) The other teacher basically says "We're having a test on chapter 4 and 5 on Friday" and reads from the book (yawn.) It doesn't take a genius to figure out which teacher's class will score high on the test.
We wonder why some schools score so poorly and others so highly on nationally used, standardized achievement tests. All the teachers know what's on the tests. They all use the same textbooks. So what's the difference? Teaching styles and methods. The human factor. Period.
The same is true of selling widgets or whatzits. Two companies selling the same products and services of the same quality will have totally different sales numbers based on whether their marketing and branding efforts reach people on an emotional level versus a rational level.
This isn't rocket science. It's really basic stuff based on basic human nature. Unfortunately, too many so-called marketing gurus are still pushing quantity, glitz, and flash, while totally missing the boat on what gets people up out of their chairs and into stores (or on the internet and to a website) because they FEEL THE DESIRE to find out more or place an order.
Maybe that's part of why big pharmaceutical manufacturers are getting filthy rich. Their ads appeal to our desire to "feel good." FEEL good. We all want to feel good. Physically and emotionally. People BEG their doctors to write them prescriptions for the newest drugs they see advertised on television and elsewhere. So much so that many actually starting complaining of symptoms of diseases they don't even experience or have out of pure, subconscious desire to just feel good. Yes, induced hypochondria is a real phenomenon in this country. THAT'S one of the clearest examples of the power of marketing based on feelings that I've ever seen. A company invents a new antidepressant and through marketing manages to convince a whole nation of people that they are feeling depressed and suffer from a disease all of a sudden.
Although the feeling and emotion side of marketing is clearly misused and abused at times in order to sell inferior or even dangerous products, the fact remains, it reaches and motivates people.
Posted by: Dan Gunter | July 30, 2009 at 10:09 AM
I suspect #2 above generates more $. Why? Because it's the kind of commercial I'm most exposed to. (So it must work, right?)
However, I actually found #1 to be re-freshing, a pleasant change from the same ol'.
Posted by: Jeff Bundy | July 30, 2009 at 12:37 PM
While #1 is a much better commercial creatively speaking, and the story is much more memorable, it doesn't make the brand memorable. Therefore, #2 probably pulled better. But then Lysol already has a huge advantage because of their pre-existing brand recognition (and their germ-killing reputation is being reinforced here).
I believe emotion is the best way to get someone to pay attention to your ad, but the problem and the solution need to dramatize the brand difference. Ad #1 does a better job capturing my attention, but the brand is too easily forgotten because the payoff feels like it could apply to any cleaning product.
Posted by: Jon P | July 30, 2009 at 06:08 PM
I think the best combination would be half and half.
50% of consumers usually go for factual ads, while the other 50% favor dramatically-enhanced types.
I believe if you do it this way, you will have a win-win advantage.
Posted by: Strategic Growth Advisors | July 31, 2009 at 12:15 AM