.
Our knowledge and understanding of the human brain and what goes on inside of it has progressed tremendously over the last couple of decades. Just in the last several years alone, research findings in neurology and psychology have made huge advancements to prove beyond reasonable doubt that both you and I are more emotionally driven in our behaviour than we would probably like to think. And definitely more than we’re comfortable admitting…not just to people around us, but to ourselves as well.
Modern psychology rarely uses the words ‘human’ and ‘rational’ in the same sentence. It used to when it didn’t know any better, but it has learnt and since moved on. Unfortunately, very little of this debate has yet reached into marketing departments and agencies. I find this rather curious and at the same time immensely frustrating. Are we too scared to host it? And is this because many of us know that if we welcome it into the marketing world, it’ll force us to fundamentally rethink the way we do things. And what we have done for the longest time may not have served us the way we thought. Ouch!
The time has come for all of us to bite the bullet.
Folks, we’re emotional creatures. All of us. Yes, even the IT technician in your office. Hand on heart. All our decisions are emotional; it’s just that we justify them rationally. The reason why focus groups fail so miserably [as well as the products/communication that are ‘tested’ in them] in many instances is that we’re all way too good at making up stories to explain our behaviour. It’s not that we deliberately lie. We just don’t know why we do things, as we don’t have access to the real reason stored deep down in the recesses of our brain – our subconscious mind.
In spite of what we know about the brain today, we are still fixated on distinguishing between rational and emotional factors in communication development. Actually, we’re not only separating them; we often treat them as opposing forces that are pulling our minds in different directions when we’re about to make a decision. It’s as if we collectively believe we all have two giant silos marked “E” and “R” respectively inside our own heads.
It is precisely this 1960’s thinking that still drives the prevalent malpractice of rational messaging carpet bombing: “Let’s hit them with the proposition three-sixty”. And I’m not joking when I say that this is why, according to recent studies, we’re spending more and more time on the toilet as it has become the last bastillion of peace and quiet in our everyday.
Today’s constant bombardment of commercial, fragmented messages have left us longing for meaning; something whole, coherent and long-lasting. We seek meaning because we’re starved for it. And the opportunity is there for the taking for brands that understand this reality and dare to do it differently.
Simply put, we want something different, something that stands out, connects with us, moves us and inspires us. What we’re looking for is something as exotic as a good, classic well-told story. But in today’s brand world, these stories seem to be on the verge of extinction and it worries me. We need to tell these stories to pull people back out of the toilet.
But how do we come to terms with our fear of letting go of ‘reason’ in advertising and communication? It’s so bloody hard, isn’t it? We can’t just let go of the functional “reason to believe” we all know that effective advertising needs, can we? Yes, we can. And we should.
“A good story is always true” goes an old saying. We all want to believe a good story…we want it to be true. We love it that way. This is what fuels conspiracy theories for example, why they take root and spread. And we love to believe gossip and rumours.
The real beauty of it is that when a story is well told, interesting and inspiring, it gains credibility and authenticity without a need for proof and verification. We choose not to question good stories; we simply love to listen to them unfold and we don’t want them to end. We want more.
But conversely, I think we all agree that a true story isn’t always good. Because logic, reason and truth are often not the most evocative and motivating of concepts.
But like all great story telling, brand story telling requires time and continuity to gain credibility. This continuity requires commitment, dedication and a long-term view. And in many companies it also takes courage from marketing people to break the status quo of rationality, even if it means breaking an obviously flawed convention. ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes’ springs to mind.
Engaging, evocative story-telling based on brand philosophy/belief can be incredibly inspirational and motivating, infectious even. But a great story needs time to unfold, just like a great novel often requires several chapters to deliver the cues that pull you in. Together, the chapters create the meaning we so desperately seek and when we find it, it gives as a sense of fulfillment. Something happens inside of us. And this ‘something’ is what every brand out there should aim to be part of.
The sooner we collectively surrender to this inevitable truth the better our creative output.
Happy agencies. Euforic clients. Lots of money to go around.
As planners and creatives, we should talk about emotional engagement rather than proof and reason. We should help brands tell compelling stories that bring meaning and create inspiration rather than explain function and benefits.
To accomplish this, we need loads of honesty. And we need to start being brutally honest with ourselves. We must begin to recognise ourselves as the emotional creatures we really are and break away from our obsession to hold onto logic and reason.
Let’s show some courage.




March 23, 2008 at 11:29 PM
I agree with 99% of this except in 2 areas …
1/ Emotional and Rational behaviour are inherently intertwined which is why we generally are driven by emotions but justify predominantly through rationality.
Because of this “proof points” are important in the communication mix however they may be best served being expressed in less mainstream channels ie: point of sale.
My basic premise (and I’m being VERY generalistic here) is the closer you are to the purchase point of the product, the more you introduce rational points of information.
Of course that’s not always the case – it depends on the category – plus that doesn’t necessarilly mean you express these points in a purely functional way, however they serve a purpose in allowing people to justify our purchases as we feel emotional decision making (regardless that we all do it) is a weakness.
2/ Some categories should be rationally led in their communication both because it’s what will primarilly motivate the targeted consumer and the category demands that.
Again I don’t mean it has to be conveyed with all the warmth of a political broadcast, but to ignore rationality when it is a driving point of true differentiation from the competition (and genuinely appeals to the specific target audience) would be foolhardy.
Of course it’s a fine line but Apple is probably one of the best brands that demonstrate emotional/rational interconnectivity, but lets face it that’s because technology companies are continually innovating, except most of them ignore the consumer emotional benefit in their communication and just focus on facts that mean much to them internally but not much to the masses … or at least not much in their present guise.
Great post, though I just imagine you sat on the toilet for hours on end now
March 24, 2008 at 2:13 AM
It’s not all black and white. Naturally there are situations where tangible product advantages/benefits should be communicated and that proof thereof has a role. No doubt about it. And I agree with you that in these instances [generally speaking], the closer to the point of purchase you get, the more relevant the rational pursuation message. [I can't help but think of a number of engine oil projects in this context]. I’m not trying to deny that.
My point is that in a majority of instances where this isn’t the case [where a category is at absolute product parity for example] rational pursuation mechanics get a disproportionate amount of salience/focus in communication. I think we agree on that.
You’re right when you say that ‘rational’ and ‘emotional’ factors [using grossly simplified classification again] are inherently interwined. But ‘rational’ factors don’t actually drive bahaviour directly. The brain translates its logical assessment of these factors into emotions that in turn decide the appropriate response.
Speak soon.
[Flushing sound in the background]
March 24, 2008 at 4:00 AM
Great toilet post and this is high praise indeed! Little wonder Time, The Economist and the like take place of pride on the bathroom shelves… Did I mention Hello mag too?
This reminds me of the KFC article in the recent Marketing Interactive magazine where the argument ponders how best to put across that KFC can also be healthy eating. If my memory serves me right..
I don’t know about industry talk or what health experts are saying, likely in their white coats and sanitary shower caps. But I’m thinking let’s bring KFC back to taste. Finger licking, juicy chicken, crispy skin with those damn crazy herbs and spices wafting like nirvana like clouds. And Colonel Sanders, what a happy-faced grandpops. Surely grandpa knows best?
I eat KFC for the taste, or what my mind thinks will be the taste (sometimes, the quality on eating is debatable). I eat KFC because my mind says “Mmmmm, KFC. Must. Have. Now.” It’s a KFC craving and most everyone I know has that craving. And we still eat it for all its heart attack inducing goodness. It’s KFC! No burping, no good.
Yes, agreed. Introduce healthy-options consumer benefit at POS level. Bring them in led by taste and craving, and then give them options to complement that fried chicken: healthy salads, oven baked potatoes instead of mash, serve with that mmmmm gravy or flavour spuds with the same gravy ingredients if slop is discouraged, corn on cob, peas and carrots on the side etc All affordable add-ons with minimal impact on their P&Ls.
Don’t reposition the chicken. Don’t tell me my fried chicken is healthy. I know it isn’t. I’ll still eat it. I’ll eat it even more if you keep reminding me it’s finger-licking good. And then assuage my guilt at POS by giving me healthy add-ons. I’m thinking 1980s Drew Barrymore Rice Krispies commercial, in that look and feel and throw in some Southern feel-good-ness. Yum yum.
The brand can be reworked at product level. That’s what their business development shld be thinking of. Don’t mess with the message. Don’t mess with the taste proposition.
And definitely, don’t mess with my chicken.
But what do I know, huffing KFC execs might ask. I’m just a consumer, right?
Great read, Fredrik! Now, will someone pass me that toilet roll…
March 24, 2008 at 8:31 AM
Do you find it somewhat ironic we’re using rational arguments to talk about the importance of emotion
March 24, 2008 at 8:38 AM
Indeed. Let’s just feel for a moment or two shall we.
March 24, 2008 at 8:53 AM
Hi Evonne and welcome to this blog! And thanks for sharing your take on this. Hope it wasn’t the last time.
March 24, 2008 at 10:22 PM
My rational side sees a connection between KFC and Evonne’s post from the smallest room but otherwise you’re absolutely right Fred (even scandanavians are emotional). If it weren’t true, then design and aesthetics would be irrlevant and you might even be able to get rid of creative departments.
And while I’m sure Rob has a point, pester power increases as you close in on the point of sale and that is nothing if not emotional. Or is it?
March 25, 2008 at 8:21 AM
Astute comment John: I can’t disagree with a single thing in it. Damn.
March 26, 2008 at 2:50 AM
You’re right John, however while “pester power” is an emotional expression [possibly the most emotional of them all] I was referring to categories that are not specifically aimed at kids – the ones where more ‘rational messages’ [closer to the purchase decision] help validate/justify the emotional decision people have already made thanks to being emotionally seduced by other, less direct communucation.
April 28, 2008 at 2:49 PM
I suggest you have a look at Clotaire Rapaille and his work on archetypes to define what he calls Culture Codes. There’s a lot of Jungian bla, bla accompanying some really brilliant ideas.
One of the better ideas is that together with a primary (culturally defined) emotional driver, there’s the need for an excuse to act. An alibi. This is often a functional aspect that’s needed to act.
I think it makes sense, and it supports the dualistic approach, using emotions to get involvement and rational arguments to seal the deal.
April 29, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Thanks for the pointer Tomas. I’ll check out Rapaille. What you describe makes sense. I guess the question is how the emotive aspect relative to the ‘alibi’ aspect of the brand should be prioritised in communication to motivate action in an optimal way.
August 8, 2008 at 12:25 PM
[...] I’ve posted on the misuse of ‘research’ before and maintain my position: copious amounts of money is poured into research predicated on completely flawed and outdated theories about how the human mind works and how it processes advertising. I’m not going to repeat myself. Instead, I strongly recommend you go here and read Paul Feldwick’s excellent article “Exploding the message myth”. I wish every person in the industry could fully understand and embrace the implications of what Paul is saying. [...]
August 24, 2008 at 6:37 PM
Stumbled across this one – very timely, as I’ve written a post on the topic (well, a sort of vague review of Antonio Damasio’s book ‘Descartes’ Error), and Paul F has been into my agency to talk about advertising effectiveness a few times.
Great post Fred. The problem I have is finding the chuzpah to stand up in front of clients and tell them that the research is bollocks.
August 25, 2008 at 6:05 AM
Hi Will…I’ll have to check out your post.
I think your problem about ‘finding the chuzpah’ is one that most agencies share. Research can be great, but a lot of it is complete bollocks. Take “concept tests” for example.