Just saw a wonderful advert from T-Mobile on Channel 4 which used a flash mob at Liverpool Street Station. You can see the video below:
I’m really rather fond of flashmobbing so love this sort of thing. I wonder however how many of the dancers in the mob are organised and how many were natural participants?
For regular readers of my blog (sure there must be hundreds of you!) you’ll know that in recent weeks I’ve been reading a lot about consciousness. So an article in this weeks Economist peeked my attention.
The article discusses research conducted by Adam Brasel and James Glips, academics at Boston College. Glips is an expert in human computer interaction and they conducted research into the way we use DVR technology that lets us fast forward tv shows that we have recorded. You can view the entire research document here in pdf form, but I shall do my best to summarise the findings below.
The study discovered that even when viewers fast forwarded the adverts in between segments of a tv show they could still recollect the brand being advertised, with the recollection greater if certain conditions were met, this despite the viewer only catching the advert for a fraction of a second.
The study used eye tracking software to monitor where viewers looked whilst speeding through the adverts and found that they focused on the centre of the screen. They also found that despite looking to avoid seeing the advert they monitored the screen very closely so as to see when the show started up again after the ad break.
With that knowledge at their disposal the researchers then placed some brands inside the adverts. The brands were unknown to the viewers (British chocolate brands not sold in America) and mixed up the placement of the brand names. Some were placed in the centre of the screen, others towards the periphery.
The results were quite amazing, with the centrally placed brand names being chosen by viewers twice as often in tests afterwards than the brand placed on the edge of the screen.
I’ve said a few times recently how powerful the sub-concscious is and how we absorb an awful lot more information than we are aware of, and this research seems to strongly support just this. I guess now the question is whether marketers will start to utilise this knowledge in their advertising.
I’m reading a book at the moment on consciousness called The User Illusion. The book talks about how our unconscious brain does an awful lot more of our computing work than we are aware of, akin to the visible section of an iceberg. Back in the 50′s subliminal advertising was all the rage until people took umbridge at appearing to be manipulated by unscrupulous advertisers.
Now we have Tesco spoofing this approach with its advert featuring Paul Daniels.
An interesting meme from the book is that because unconscious thought is, well, unconscious we cannot therefore be conscious of it. All of which got me thinking how much this approach is used in marketing today and whether it is indeed ethical or not.
I’m sure we’ve all seen various adverts or messages that use fear to try and change our behaviour, be it smoking and drinking, or flying abroad for our holidays. Heck, I’m sure we’ve all seen those annoying debt consolidation adverts (often featuring Carol Vorderman), that raised the spectre of home reposessions back in the days of easy credit (or so it seemed). Casting aside the ethically dubious loan adverts though, does the use of fear in an advert really change our behaviour?
I came across a few studies recently that does seem to support the use of fear within a message but provides a couple of crucial caveats that I feel aren’t often used by marketers in current fear related ads.
1. Use fear but provide a solution
We’ve seen with the run on Northern Rock earlier in the year that scaring people can often lead to actions that the opposite of what would be deemed desirable. One thing that was noticeable around the time was that people were doubting the ability of Northern Rock to stay afloat (fear) but weren’t providing much advice for people with savings in the bank. As Franklyn Roosevelt once said “the only thing to fear is fear itself” and this is playing itself in our current situation, with lenders scared of lending.
I read a study by Howard Leventhal recently that looked into the use of fear in public health pamphlets. Two sets of pamphlet were created, with a variety of scary images and actions the students needed to take to immunise themselves. The study found that the use of scary images only worked if they were followed by steps the students could take to immunise themselves.
2. Put the message where the action is
As a student I often used to see posters around campus encouraging us not to drink too much. The posters themselves were usually well constructed, but the problem was that they were usually placed in halls of residence or lecture theatres. So by the time everyone got to the pub or students union they were out of sight and out of mind.
Cognitive research has found that if you can create a memory aid between the advert and the location of the action itself then it has a much better chance of success. So for instance, using the drink example, if the logo from the advert could be placed in the students union, say on the coasters, could see some improved results.
Getting the results
So maybe to get better results at changing behaviour marketers need to provide both solutions in their message and memory triggers closer to the location of the activity itself.
A new study by ExactTarget and Bail State University reveals today that email marketing is more effective than social networking for reaching the 18-34 age group.
“. . . 18- to 34-year-olds claim they are more likely to be influenced to make purchases based on e-mail marketing messages and direct mail than marketing messages on social networks,” said Mike Bloxham, director, insight and research, Ball State University’s Center for Media Design. “It is too easy to assume that the media consumers choose for their own news, information and entertainment are, by default, the best media to use for marketing messages. This is a dangerous assumption to make in a time when consumers are becoming increasingly aware of their level of control over their media experiences.”
It’s an interesting conclusion and quite a shock I would imagine for the social networks that are making tentative attempts to monetize their traffic. What is of note however is that a number of studies in the past 12 months have revealed how word of mouth is an important aspect of the purchasing decision. Back in July for instance Online Research Company revealed that 61% of respondants consult user reviews and other consumer feedback before purchasing.
A further study by Big Research revealed that 47.0% of those who regularly search online say they frequently offer others advice about products and services they have purchased, versus 29.4% of all adults.
All of which makes for an interesting contrast. On the one hand people seemingly don’t welcome advertising in the social networking environment, but on the other hand people appear more than happy to share their experiences with other people. All of which does seem to emphasise the importance of providing an outstanding service to your customers to give them every incentive to talk to their friends about it.
Of course that may not help the social networks themselves to monetize their traffic, but it should at least provide marketers with some comfort and the encouragement not to abandon social media as a marketing tool.