Comments on: An Emotional Truth

By: fredrik sarnblad

fredrik sarnblad — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 06:05:59 +0000

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.

By: Will

Will — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 18:37:18 +0000

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.

By: Lethal Research « Fredrik Sarnblad

Lethal Research « Fredrik Sarnblad — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 12:25:42 +0000

[...] 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before and maintain my position: copious amounts of money is poured into research predicated on completely flawed and outdated theories about how the human mind works and how it processes advertising.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. [...]

By: fredrik sarnblad

fredrik sarnblad — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:29:14 +0000

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.

By: Tomas Lundgren

Tomas Lundgren — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:49:25 +0000

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.

By: Rob

Rob — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 02:50:59 +0000

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.

By: fredrik sarnblad

fredrik sarnblad — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 08:21:55 +0000

Astute comment John: I can’t disagree with a single thing in it. Damn.

By: John

John — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:22:19 +0000

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?

By: fredrik sarnblad

fredrik sarnblad — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 08:53:19 +0000

Hi Evonne and welcome to this blog! And thanks for sharing your take on this. Hope it wasn’t the last time.

By: fredrik sarnblad

fredrik sarnblad — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 08:38:35 +0000

Indeed. Let’s just feel for a moment or two shall we.