The Illogical Logic Behind Rational Advertising

Your rational messaging is irrational. If you want to build your brand you have to move people.

Too often today marketers are using outdated models and reasoning in their advertising. Theories going as far back as the industry itself describe advertising as working through “information processing” or by “delivering persuasion”. Advertisers believe(d) that if you load up an ad with enough unique selling propositions, reasons to believe, and product features that consumers will rationally ingest all that information and then rationally choose your brand next time they’re in a purchasing decision.

The problem with that thinking (which has been debunked as far back as 1980) is that we are not rational beings, we don’t rationally process everything we experience and we don’t rationally think through every decision we make. (FYI the human brain is not and does not act like a computer)

We are emotionally driven beings. We process life automatically through emotions, and we make most decisions subconsciously, influenced by feelings and emotions.

“We are not thinking machines that feel — we are feeling machines that think” — Antonio Damasio

Don’t believe me? Believe the folks with Phd’s.

The human brain processes the world at varying levels of attention: active (high attention), passive (medium attention), and automatic/implicit (low attention). These levels of attention vary how information is processed and eventually stored in the brain. I.e. information processed at different levels of attention is stored differently in memory. (Heath 2007)

The way information is stored in the brain is also related to the way information is recalled or recognized and how it influences decision making, but that is another topic for another post.

Watzlawick, a psychologist and communication theorist, ran a number of studies in the 60’s to look at how different types of communications were processed and how that affected their lasting impact on memory and recall.

He showed that communications based on rational messaging were shorter lived in the brain than communications that were emotionally charged. This research shows that it is emotional communication not rational communication that creates relationships. (Watzlawick, Bavelas, and Jackson 1967)

“Watzlawick et al. find it is not what you say that builds relationships, but how you say it. Or, in advertising terms, it is not the rational message that builds brand relationships, but the emotional creativity.” — Heath 2006

This work from Watzlawick and his team explains 2006 research from Heath Brandt & Nairn that concluded “emotional content drives brand favorability, not rational content”.

The concept of emotion being processed automatically was first suggested by Zajonc (1980) in his groundbreaking paper Feeling and Thinking: Preferences Need No Inferences. Many after him, like Damasio & Le Doux, have further shown that humans process emotions automatically and often at low levels of attention. According to Damasio this automatic processing function of our brains is remnant of our mammalian roots; processing that kept us alive by constantly monitoring visual and auditory stimuli in our environments and automatically responding saving us from lions, and tigers, and bears.

Damasio elaborates, explaining that feelings and emotions are first formed in a pre-cognitive part of our brains he calls the “proto-self.” Thoughts formed in our “core consciousness” are always preceded by activity in the “proto-self,” this means that “conscious thoughts” are influenced by the emotional subconscious. I.e. “emotion acts as gatekeeper to our decision.” (Heath 2007)

Not only can we process emotions automatically at low-attention, which we’re not necessarily aware we’re processing, but it has also been shown by Bornstein (1989) that low-attention processing of emotional content is actually stronger and lasts longer than consciously processing that emotional communication. Yes, this research says that the less attention people pay to your emotional advertising the more impactful it will be. The reason as Bornstein (1992) later explained: when people are less aware, they’re less likely to rationally disagree with a communication or counter-argue its premise.

The ranking of communications absorbed by the brain from least likely to be absorbed and last the shortest to most likely to be absorbed and last the longest goes:

1. Least successful: Rational communication that is rationally processed
2. Semi successful: emotional communication that is processed in a medium attention state
3. Most successful: emotional communication that is processed in a low attention state

The work of Binet and Field in their 2013 meta-analysis of over 800 IPA effectiveness case studies supports the cognitive science detailed above:

“Emotional campaigns produce bigger and more numerous business effects than rational campaigns.”

“Emotional campaigns’ effects last longer than rational ones and so build more strongly over time”

We have multiple areas of research here supporting the same conclusion. On the cognitive science side we have Damasio, Bornstein, Zajonc and Watzlawick saying that emotional communications imprint better and last longer, while rational communications are less likely to be absorbed and last only a short time. While on the meta-case study side Binet and Field have found strong correlations between emotional campaigns and brand success, while rational campaigns were less likely to produce business effects and their minor effects lasted shorter.

If all of the above is known, why are we still creating rationally riddled ads, expecting people to process them and then rationally decide to buy said product?

Happily accepting rebuttals and responses.

References:

Binet & Field (2013) The Long and Short of It, Balancing Short and Long-Term Marketing Strategies, IPA

Bornstein, R. F. (1989) “Exposure and Affect: Overview and Meta-Analysis of Research, 1968- 1987.” Psychological Bulletin 106, 2 (1989): 265–8

Bornstein, R.F. (1992) Subliminal mere exposure effects, in Perception without awareness: Cognitive, clinical, and social perspectives, R.F. Bornstein and T.S. Pittman, eds, Guilford, NY. 191–210

Damasio, A.R. (1994) Descartes’ Error. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York.

Damasio, A. (2000) The feeling of what happens. Heinemann, London.

Damasio, A.R. (2003) Looking for Spinosa, Heinemann, London.

Heath (2007) How do we predict advertising attention and engagement?

Heath Brandt & Nairn (2006) Brand Relationships: Strengthened by Emotion, Weakened by Attention, Journal of Advertising Research, December 2006.

Le Doux (1998) The Emotional Brain

Watzlawick, Bavelas, and Jackson (1967) Pragmatics of Human Communication, New York: Norton & Co. Inc.

Zajonc, R.B. (1980) Feeling and Thinking: Preferences need no Inferences. American Psychologist Vol. 35, Issue 2: 151–175.