The Quisenblog

Since the days of Claude Hopkins, one of the primary roles of advertising has been to create a need for the product or service. Used to be that the need was not so much created as simply pointed out.

But as more and more products appeared on the scene, and competition for the public’s attention, time and money intensified, simply pointing out a need no longer became enough. Hence was born The Modern Age of Marketing. Suddenly shoppers had a multitude of options, and the differences between products or brands were minimal.

It was during these time the idea of “Strawman Marketing” came about. Marketers dramatized a negative situation that might occur should the consumer not buy their products. Hence was born campaigns for Glade’s “House-a-tosis”, Scope’s “Morning Breath” and one of the most grating of all (presented here) Wisk’s “Ring Around the Collar.”

Without a doubt the strategy of setting up a straw man worked. Phrases like “The Fear of Being Close”, “Choosy Mothers Choose Jiff” and “It’s Not Nice To Fool With Mother Nature” not only sold product, they became part of the popular lexicon.

But how would these “straw man” tactics work today, in the age of Social Media, where audience skepticism, self-appointed brand watchdogs and the need for transparency rule the day?

One thing that has remained constant in advertising is that we’re not selling products, we’re selling the possibility of a better life. To that end, competitive advertising (whether of the head-to-head variety or against the so-called straw man) continues to have its place. I believe, though, that any such attempt to “create a need” with our audience must come from a place of authenticity. Anything that reeks of being misleading, manipulative, irrelevant or disingenuous risks suffering sever blow back from customers and the blogosphere.

What I’m noticing these days is that successful straw man marketing is tempered with a fair amount of self-effacing humor. A few examples that come to mind are the Axe Anti-Perspirant spot that shows the “perpetual sweating” guy, and this recent “Bacon Neck” spot from Hanes. The tongue-in-cheek humor of these is a lot easier to swallow than, say, the mock exasperation of “Ring Around the Collar.”

Want to set up a straw man to beat down in your marketing? Feel free. Just be smart (and sensitive) about it. Treat it as an inside joke with your followers. And whatever you do, avoid “Ring Around the Collar.”

Posted by Mickey

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Mickey Creative, On Clients, On Customers, Ramblings bacon collar, competitive advertising, hanes, ring around the collar, Straw Man, wisk

Sometimes, the more you know, the less you know.

Such is the state right now of the mindset of the American consumer. Several research studies released over the past month seem to paint conflicting pictures of what’s going on with consumers, their shopping habits and their view on spending. Given that 70% of our economy is based on consumer spending, you can see how important it is to get a handle on what consumers are thinking.

Many an economist has talked about the current state of the economy as being “the new normal.” But given actual consumer behavior, we may want to rename it “the new abnormal.”

Their houses are being foreclosed. Their retirement plans are gutted. But they’re lining up for iPads and $3 coffees.

Wal-Mart and Target are in the doldrums, but Mercedes Benz is having a record sales year. Procter & Gamble is struggling to keep people from abandoning its Ivory soap and Crest toothpaste brands for generics, but Starbuck’s just announced its most profitable quarter in more than four years. And while consumers self-report that they are being “cautious” about spending, a Consumer Reports study shows retail spending per household has actually gone up $40 a month.

As marketers, what are we to make of this schizophrenia? I consulted my Magic 8-Ball, and it reported that, “The answer is murky.”

No doubt the severity of the economic downturn and how it affected American households is going to have some long-term effects. What we know for sure is that there’s less credit out there and that consumers are no longer able to use their houses as ATM machines. So their spending is going to be scrutinized. My belief is that consumers will continue to splurge on “affordable luxuries” such as $3 coffee drinks and moderately-priced electronic doo-dads because of the “highs” they experience from them. But I do believe the recession is making people think they need “post-rational” justifications for their extravagant purchases.

In dealing with an uncertain future such as this, it helps to approach the situation as a baseball team who has lost 100 games would approach the coming season: focus first on the fundamentals. And the fundamental concern for every marketer (in any economy, really) should be about demonstrated value.

Know your customer better than your competitors know theirs. Find out what they expect from you, and the real reason they buy from you. Then set about amplifying that, giving them more, and giving them reason to talk about you in their circles. Find out where you have the opportunity to surprise them. And for crying out loud, don’t scrimp when it comes to creating that positive experience.

For more in depth look into some of the most recent customer surveys, check out the Alix Partners study or the Deloitte “American Pantry Study”.

A rising economy can be forgiving of a lot of marketing laziness. But in an economy where, literally, anything goes, stick to the basics.

Posted by Mickey

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Mickey On Clients, On Customers, Ramblings conflicitng information, consumer behavior, consumer research, consumer schizophrenia, Magic 8-ball, mixed messages

Let’s say you’re sitting at a blackjack table in Vegas. On a particular hand, you find yourself holding a 15 while the dealer has a ten showing. Lousy hand, to be sure. So what’s your play?

A logical ploy would be to play the odds. A quick calculation helps you determine that if you take another card, you have a 54% chance of busting. And your chances of drawing to an 18 or higher are less than one in three. So your logical move would be to stand on your 15. Right?

So why do knowledgeable blackjack players advise you to hit on 15 (and again on 16, should you draw an Ace)? Because they understand the goal of Blackjack is NOT to avoid busting. It is to have a winning hand. And, as experience shows, in most instances 15 isn’t going to stand up.

It will be a long night at the table if your strategy is to simply stay in the game and rely on the competition to fail.

And so it is in business. When presented with a situation or opportunity, we quickly assess our probability of success. And if our odds of failure are 50% (or 20% or sometimes even 10%), we “stand.” But we forget. Our goal in business (as in Blackjack) is NOT to avoid failure, but to succeed. And as in Blackjack, standing on 15 is not going to lead to much success.

When the odds are in your favor, the calls are easier to make. The risk of failure is less. But what separates the world class Blackjack player from the tour bus crowd (besides having a humongous bankroll) is the courage to not freeze up when the odds are NOT in your favor.

A couple of examples of companies who refused to “stand on 15” come to mind. One is Kellogg, who in the teeth of the worst economic climate in more than a century, and against the advice of its financial people, launched and promoted a new breakfast cereal, Rice Krispies. This event was the turning point for Kellogg, who for the last 70+ years has been the undisputed leader in the breakfast food category. Then there’s Apple. We forget now, but the first iPod was launched just a few weeks after 9/11. Both companies could have stood pat. They could have waited to be dealt a more advantageous hand. But they realized they had plenty to gain. And you think the hand you’re holding now is bad?

Play to win. Not to not lose.

Posted by Mickey

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Mickey On Clients, Ramblings blackjack, courage, iPod, Kellogg, Las Vegas, probabilities, Rice Krispies

Early this year, Pepsi announced its “Pepsi Refresh Project,” which was a way of allowing the “followers” of Pepsi in Social Media to nominate worthwhile ideas or public service projects Pepsi could fund.

So far, the program has been a win/win for Pepsi. The soft drink maker received plenty of media attention for its Refresh Project, and it gave it a chance to connect with its fans and followers in a meaningful way.

In light of the recent Gulf disaster, Pepsi expanded its Refresh Project into a “Do Good for the Gulf” Refresh campaign. Pepsi has pledged $1.3 million to consumer submitted ideas that could “refresh the communities of the Gulf states.” Pepsi invited the public to submit ideas through July 16. Starting August 2, consumers can vote on the ideas they like best. Finalists will be announced on September 2, and grants will be awarded on September 22.

On the surface, this initiative seems to hit all the right notes. It’s a natural way to extend Pepsi’s Social Media campaign while doing some much-needed good. But to the skeptical part of me, this just doesn’t smell right. By tying itself to a major disaster, the company has to carefully walk the line between legitimate cause marketing and shameless self promotion. Is the company’s driving intention to help the residents of the Gulf, or is it to promote the Pepsi brand?

Here are a few of my reservations:

1) The amount pledged. Hey $1.3 million isn’t chump change by any stretch of the imagination. But knowing the inner workings of corporate marketing/PR departments, I can easily imagine the company is paying ten times that amount to promote and administer the program. It’s like those solicitations you get to help feed the children of Africa, but when you look into the financials of the organization, you find out that only 5 cents of your dollar goes for food. In other words, if Pepsi’s #1 concern is providing for Gulf residents, it could do better.

2) The company’s involvement in the “crowd sourcing” part of this project. The focus strictly on Social Media means the system will be gamed—heavy users Social Media will have more of a say than your average Gulf resident. While that fits with the original intention and structure of the Refresh Project, it feels somewhat ham-handed for dealing with people’s legitimate needs and concerns.

3) The very public way the company is going about this promotion. It seems a little too “corporate” and well-planned. Disasters are messy. Carefully orchestrated philanthropy feels out of place. For an example of a company that did it right, think back to WalMart in the days following Hurricane Katrina. With no fanfare, the company’s stores loaded tens of thousands of bottles of fresh water on its trucks and delivered them to needy residents before the media even showed up.

There’s nothing wrong with an organization striving to get noticed for its good works. If I were advising Pepsi on how to follow through on this project, here’s what I’d tell them:

1) Find out what the needs are NOW and address them. Why wait until the end of September to actually do something? The days immediately following a disaster are when the needs and opportunities are most critical. Find out what needs aren’t being addressed now, and address them. If there’s a need for more shovels or graders to comb the beaches, provide them. If volunteers need accommodations, equipment, hazmat suits or respirators (or cell phones to call home), provide them. Go ahead and collect nominations from the Facebook crowd, but don’t let them lead you on this.

2) Involve the Pepsi community as a whole. Allow folks beyond the Gulf in California or Nebraska or Idaho to contribute to the cause. Set up a dollar-for-dollar match campaign with specific projects in mind. Or start a general Gulf Fund where the company would handle all administrative expenses so every dollar goes to the cause, whether its shrimp fishermen’s families, bankrupted hotel operators or whatever.

3) Make a long-term pledge. Don’t bug out as soon as the story falls off the front page. Commit that “five cents of every Pepsi product purchased will go to Gulf aid,” or something like that.

4) Don’t focus on getting attention. No need to string huge Pepsi banners on the beaches, put logos everywhere and arrange for press briefings. Just get out there and do what you know needs done. People will notice. Stories will spread. This will be more powerful than an orchestrated Social Media campaign.

Public skepticism of corporations is high right now. The first question many consumers will ask of your good works is “What’s in it for you?” It pays to be as transparent as possible. If your #1 intention is to do good, then do good. Don’t worry about how you can milk your efforts.

Posted by Mickey

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Mickey New Media, On Clients, Ramblings, Social Media cause marketing, crowd sourcing, gulf clean up, Pepsi, Pepsi refresh

I came across this article, authored by John Jantsch of Duct Tape Marketing, last week. His points about the importance of ethics in business relationships were so articulate, I thought the readers of The Quisenblog might appreciate them undoctored. So here, in its original form, is Jantsch’s article, “A Return to Decency.”

“As one of the worst recessions in recent history seems to loosen its grip, both fundamentally and psychologically, it’s time to take stock in what I hope we’ve learned.

Real relationships took a back seat in business. That’s not what caused the recession, but a quick scan of the worst headlines would suggest that if the major ethical lapses reported on Wall Street could occur, then perhaps even the smallest of firms had let go of behavior that looked something like decency.

As we rebound and even boom, I hope that we will see a return to business relationships built on a foundation of mutual respect, trust and decency.

While words like trust and decency can be hard to define tangibly, there are behaviors that any business can adopt to keep the focus where it should be.

Create more value

Price is a function of value, there’s no question about that fact. And value is delivered in many little ways. Now is the time to deconstruct our products and services, and perhaps more importantly, the way our customers experience our organization, with an eye on making the entire collection more valuable, remarkable, fun, flexible and personal. Doing that can set an organization on the path to a solid foundation of customer loyalty that serves in good times and bad.

Take a holistic view

As we view your customer needs, what if we tried to understand everything they need, including areas unrelated to our products and services? If we can come to appreciate all of our customer’s desires and goals, we can develop a team of strategic partners that can plug into our offerings and help us dramatically deepen our customer relationships.

What if we began to think of our role as a customer booster rocket and “go to” resource for everything they needed? Do this and we also develop a referral network that will turn into our ongoing lead generation machine.

Mine the collaboration universe

One of the greatest developments associated with the growth of the Web is the proliferation of tools that make it very easy to collaborate, both online and off, with prospective customers, vendors, mentors, suppliers, staff and even competitors. We must mine this technology and enable the players in our collaboration universe to expand what they can offer us, our team, and our customers.

And for decency bonus points…

Let’s take a quick look at our closest competitors. What’s happened to them during this downturn? Is there an opportunity to grab market share? If so, resist it and consider lending them a hand instead. I know this may run counter to competitive wisdom, and I’m not suggesting we need to take on their payables, but I do think there’s a long view in being the kind of company that uses their position in the community to establish a statement about what’s really important.

I grew up in a farm community and while it’s unlikely one farmer thought of themselves as fierce competitors of another, they did provide a market with the same products. However, if one farmer experienced a hardship, a broken down tractor, loss of livestock, or need to get the crop in before a big storm, they could usually count on the help of neighboring farms without the need to ask or expectation of payment. Everyone in the community knew that they would probably need this same kind of support and gave a hand willingly. I wonder if today’s small business community could take this view?

Learn from social behavior

Social technology affords us a glimpse into the personal lives of those around us. Certainly this can be abused on both ends, but it also calls out for a new form of leadership that is much more open and willing to blend business and personal.

With mainstream acceptance and sharing on social networks we have the tools to automatically build deeper relationships that take into consideration the challenges and objectives of those around us in ways never before experienced in the business world.

I often use the Mister Rogers quote, “It’s hard not to like somebody once you know their story,” to drive this point home. If we use the shift in social behavior to tell our own stories and learn from the stories of others and we’ll be much more equipped to create a culture of decency throughout.

Say thank you

With the rush and go, always crushed with things to do, it’s pretty easy to get complacent about who and what pays the bills. If we’ve lapsed into this, we need to remake space to thank the people that make our businesses possible.

This process starts with letting our staff members understand how valuable they are and how much we appreciate what they add. (In fact, acknowledging a job well done is the most powerful motivation tool in the box.)

I’ve taken up sending hand-written notes to those I should thank. It’s not that hard to establish a habit of sitting down at a set time each week and sending inked words of appreciation, recognition and observation.

That might be the most decent thing any of us can do.”

Thanks, John, for your thoughts.

Posted by Mickey

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Mickey On Clients, On Customers, Ramblings Duct Tape, ethics, John Jantsch, relationships, respect, trust

Last Friday, the last Chrysler PT Cruiser rolled off the assembly line. The iconic vehicle with its love-it-or-hate-it “post retro” looks bit the dust after a tumultuous ten year run. That an automobile model has a pillow held over its face is not news. Automakers phase out models all the time.What is news, to marketers anyway, is how this car, which sold 145,000 vehicles its first year and had months-long waiting lists at many dealers, was killed off while dealers are saddled with a bloated inventory of this year’s model.

In other words, marketing malpractice at its worst.

Like most cases of mismarketing, this one started out with success. Chrysler succeeded admirably at creating buzz for the PT even before its launch in 2001. Described as a cross between a 1930’s sedan and a vintage milk truck, it was the darling of car shows. Pre-orders were strong. Anticipation of the model drove scores of the curious (most of them non-Chrysler types) to dealer showrooms. Early adopters paid well over invoice for the PT of their choice. Fan clubs were formed. Rallies were organized. Aftermarket pimping commenced. It was also the first of the “post retro” crop of vehicles, which has grown to include the Ford Mustang, the Dodge Challenger and the Chevrolet Camaro and HHR.

The Cruiser also proved to be a demographic-buster, appealing to everyone from retirees to customizers to first-time car buyers looking for something spacious, inexpensive and yes, head-turning. (In the spirit of disclosure, I must inform you I purchase a 2002 model, which I still drive today.)

It didn’t take long for Chrysler to squander its success. Here are a few of the marketing sins commited by the automaker on behalf of the Cruiser:

• It failed to reinvest in the brand. We’ve written before about the necessity for marketers to continually add value to their offerings (click here for post). If you see a PT coming down the street, you’d be hard pressed to tell if it was a 2001 model, a 2007 model or a 2010 model. Version 2.0 never arrived. Initial owners loved their Cruisers. But when it came time to trade them in, I suspect very few bought another one. Why buy the same car twice? As an example of an automaker who has done it right, check out the 2010 Honda Civic compared to the 2001.
• It failed to understand its user base. The downside of having a product that appeals to many demographics is that it is easy to lose site of your “sweet spot.” While you never want to turn away buyers, you definitely want to cater to your bread and butter. And Chrysler could never decide who its core market was. Was it the young urban family looking for economical transportation? The boomer who was swept up in the nostalgic looks? The soccer mom who wouldn’t be caught dead in a minivan?
• It allowed the model to become too ubiquitous. This is a tough one. The idea, after all is to sell more units, right? Well, actually the idea is to make more profits, and there are a lot of ways to go on that. The initial demand for the PT should have signaled Chrysler that it had a powerful niche model on it hands, but that’s all it would be. It was too polarizing to become the automaker’s flagship vehicle. By limiting production of the PT, Chrysler could have justified a premium price, which would played into the “individualism” the model inspired. And by upgrading the model (or adding variations: a panel truck, a woody station wagon, a top-less roadster, a club coupe?) Chrysler could continue to appeal to that crowd. Make the product’s Brand Vision “Head Turner.”

A former client of mine who was in the auto business once shared with me his early indicator of when a model was in trouble. “When you see rental car lots full of them, then you know the end is near,” he said. That was certainly true of the PT.

But perhaps the biggest marketing sin committed on behalf of the PT was to take a product that inspired passion, loyalty and camaraderie and allow it to suffer a Saturn-like fate.

Good luck, Fiat. Your work’s cut out for you.

Posted by Mickey

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

admin Creative, On Clients, On Customers, Ramblings brand vision, Chrysler, marketing malpractice, mismarketing, PT Cruiser

Harry Anderson is a not your typical magician. Instead of performing outrageous tricks, then leaving the audience guessing how each trick was performed, Harry performs his tricks, then shows the audience exactly how he pulled off the illusion.

David Blaine, he’s not.  Harry does not create a distance between himself and his audience as most performers do. Instead he wows you with the results of his creativity and endless hours of dedication. And then he lets you in on the gag. At that moment, he becomes an ‘everyman.’ Members of his audience connect with him by thinking, “Hey, with enough practice, maybe even I could pull this off.”

Does this transparency diminish Harry’s act? Does it make his illusions any less “magical?” No. In fact, quite the opposite. Once you have an opportunity to “look behind the curtain,” you can more fully appreciate Harry’s act. By “giving away his secrets,” Harry his making magic more human and approachable. It’s one thing to make a 40-story skyscraper disappear. It’s another to have the magician show you how he did it. It gives you a more complete story. It gives you “expert knowledge” that you can try out on your own or share.  It gives you a deeper connection to the craft.

So how can you apply this to your marketing? Instead of attempting to be secretive about everything that goes into the creation of your products, consider what would happen if you were more transparent. Sure, there is a fine line here: there are always patents, trade secrets and competitive intelligence that need to be protected. But most of what we do on a day-to-day basis doesn’t exactly fall under the auspices of “classified information.” Yet we’re reluctant to share much about our processes.

One thing you’ll find out is that the customers who are truly passionate about your products want to know as much as they can about the organization. Just as Harry’s act creates a more complete story for his followers, inviting followers to learn more about your products, people and processes builds a more complete story for them to share.

Here’s Harry perfoming one of his most famous tricks: the old “needle-though-the-arm”:

And here’s the follow-up revealing how it’s done:

Now that you know how the trick works, aren’t you more likely to talk about it later? A more complete story provides a more complete experience.

Posted by Mickey

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Mickey On Clients, On Customers, Ramblings complete story, Harry Anderson, magic, needle trick, storytelling, transparency

It’s been nearly 80 days since the beginning of the BP spill in the Gulf. Volumes have already been written about how BP’s spinning of the facts and less than transparent communications have blown back on the company big time.

That’s not what this post is about.

Instead, I thought I’d take a look at some of the unfortunate collateral victims of the biggest environmental disaster in our nation’s history, and ask, Is there anything marketing can do to help?

I read this week where Florida beach communities are poised to run a multi-million dollar campaign aimed at vacationers telling them their beaches are okay.

The problem, of course, is that their beaches are not okay. Photos like this one, taken on a Pensacola beach, are making the rounds in news reports and via Social Media.

Running a campaign that says, in essence, “Tarballs, schmarballs, our beaches are just peachy” might make residents and businesses of beach communities feel good, but such a campaign would, unfortunately, be no more transparent than what we’ve seen from BP.

Okay, so throwing millions at an ad campaign showing pristine white beaches while folks in hazmat suits are shoveling stinking tarballs from the sands isn’t such a great idea. Still, is there any role for marketing?

Perhaps. I would advise these communities to relax, take a deep breath, and remember a few key facts. Number one, people are still going to take holidays. The folks who normally flock to your beaches in the summer will be going somewhere. You can count on this.

A second fact worth considering is that their entire communities have been set up to accommodate tourists. The beaches may be the top-of-mind draw, but most of these beach communities have a lot going for them, from Pensacola’s National Naval Aviation Museum to Biloxi’s riverboat casinos and famous antique row.

As a model for success, I would point them to what has happened over the last few years in Las Vegas. That community saw its tourism revenues drop mightily, as the economy convinced folks to stay home. Vegas’s major players responded by collectively cutting prices and adding value in order to keep occupancy at acceptable levels. That strategy appears to have worked. While venues have yet to see their margins return to the days of old, occupancy is holding at around 80%. And the stories being told back home about Las Vegas are good ones, which will serve the community well, both in the immediate future and as things recover.

Gulf communities could borrow much the of same tactics. Cut prices. Offer packages. Tie in with other communities to create vacation experiences. Above all, appeal to the folks who’ve established some sort of connection with these communities that they could really use their business. In the wake of 9/11 when no one was flying, Southwest Airlines received hundreds of letters from customers saying they were committed to flying on Southwest because they were concerned for the company.

Let’s not be sanguine about the prospects of these communities. They’ll be hurting, possibly for years to come. But hopefully, these communities will learn from BP’s missteps and understand a transparent approach will deliver better long-term results than trying to ignore the 800-lbs gorilla in the room.

Posted by Mickey

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Mickey Media, New Media, On Clients, Ramblings BP, Florida beaches, oil spill, Pensacola, transparency

General Motors, I really don’t mean to pick on you. Really I don’t. I know, I know. I was kinda harsh on your new Buick work, but really, I’m on your side. And I think some of your recent moves have been brilliant (case in point: bringing Joel Ewanick on board as Head of Marketing).

But then, weeks like this past one happen, and we’re all sort of left scratching our heads and lamenting “same old GM?”

First, let’s talk about the Memo. You know the one. The internal memo sent to employees that forbid the internal use of the “Chevy” name (the idea was to  forego the less formal “Chevy” for the formal brand moniker “Chevrolet” in an effort to develop a consistent brand name as the company broadens its global presence.).

Besides being a monumentally dumb idea, it shows a total ignorance about who really owns your brand (hint: it’s not you). The Chevy nickname has been around since cars had four wheels. It’s how consumers refer to their cars and trucks. It is a term of endearment, a creation of the customer. It’s a pop culture icon, showing up in movies, TV and songs (“Drove my Chevy to the levee, but the levee was dry…”). It made the brand famous. And you suggest (even just internally) walking away from that? No donut for you!

Thank you, though, for having the good sense to back off that memo a few days later.

Now let’s talk tag lines. Specifically, the “May the best car win” line. When you first introduced it, I loved it. It was just what GM needed—a bold, non-compromising line that was intended to draw a line in the sand, to get stakeholders to line up in support of it. It is going on the record for standing for quality and value and being willing to fall on the sword for it. And them, unfortunately, this week you had to recall 1.4 million new units. Oops. Suddenly, visions of the Vega and the Chevette rush through our minds.

As unkind as this week was, however, neither of these marketing faux pas by themselves should prove to be debilitating. New Coke, they aren’t. But they do serve as a warning to be transparent and to serve as the customer’s advocate.

Here’s hoping you have a better week this time around.

Posted by Mickey

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Mickey Creative, On Clients, Ramblings auto recall, Chevrolet, Chevy, Joel Ewanick

We’ve all seen TV spots that really get our attention, make us laugh and inspire us to want to share them with others. But then, two seconds after they’ve ended, we can’t remember who they were for. Was the spot run on behalf of Ford or Mitsubishi? Taco Bell or McDonald’s? Miller or Bud?

Marketing purists have used examples such as this to poo-poo the benefits of creative advertising. “What good is over-the-top creativity if no one remembers who the advertiser is,” they say.

Now, however, we’re finding that even when subjects can’t recall the communication on a literal level, they retain much more information subliminally.

Recent research conducted by Melanie Dempsey (Ryerson University) and Andrew A. Mitchell (University of Toronto) proved that advertising messaging actually engages subjects on several different levels. There is the literal, linear level (“what does the communication say?”), which is what most recall testing measures. Beyond that, however, Dempsey and Mitchell mapped out how most of what is communicated via advertising messages is subconscious. The “language” of these subconscious communications is much more primal, primarily emotions, feelings and stimulating visuals.

That would explain why the consumer may remember a spot but not the advertiser the day after seeing it, yet follows through on purchasing the product at a later date for reasons unknown. Dempsey and Mitchell dubbed this effect the “I-like-it-but-I-don’t-know-why” effect.

In short, it’s more about how the consumer feels about the brand than what he knows about it.
To further test the potency of these unconscious brand preferences, Dempsey and Mitchell carried out a second experiment in which the subjects were presented with factual product information that cast their product preferences in a negative light. Despite this, the subjects continued to chose the products they “knew” to be inferior, but for which they had received positive branding associations. In other words, it is the feelings one has about a brand that contributes to brand loyalty.

You can read more about Dempsey and Mitchell’s study here.

The lesson to take away from Dempsey and Mitchell’s work is to recognize that Top Of Mind Recall is just the tip of the communications ice berg. If that is all we’re interesting in measuring, we’ll be short-changing ourselves. What’s most important is what’s subconsciously communicated under the radar.

Posted by Mickey

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

admin Creative, Media, On Customers, Ramblings subconscious, subliminal advertising, top of mind