4: Perception and Long-term Memory
View the warning on the contents page regarding "facts" presented by this author.
It's been stated that brand exists in the mind of the consumer, but to be more specific, it resides in their long-term memory. Any other "resting place" in the mind is transient and will be replaced by some other passing experience. But once a brand reaches memory, chances are it will stay there forever.
Generally, there are three factors that cause sense data to be stored in long-term memory:
- Intensity - The stronger the emotions, the more likely the sensations will be stored rather than discarded
- Concreteness - The more "real" something is perceived to be, the more accessible it will become
- Frequency - The more often the individual senses something, the more likely it will be remembered.
(EN: I'm not seeing any reference to research, and I don't believe these factors to be comprehensive. For example, the factor of association is a glaring omission, as many seemingly inconsequential details that are closely related to existing memory are retained, as is relevance. My sense is there are more factors, and more important ones, than just these three.)
Retrieval of long-term memory is more critical to branding than storage, as there's little point in getting into long-term memory if the information never comes back out. Generally, this is believed to be a matter of "cues": some present sensation causes a long-term memory to be retrieved - the more details are common between sensation and memory, the faster, stronger, and more accurate the recollection will be.
(EN: An example of this is the logo, which is arguably the most important element of brand identity. The color and shape are associated to the company, its products, and the users' past experiences. A logo that is clever of aesthetically pleasing is less important than one that is recognized and associated to memories - which is why changing a logo, which is done with far too little thought, is generally a bad idea unless the company wants to erase its past.)
It has been observed that lack of retrieval cues is one of the major causes of brands being forgotten. That is to say that the brand may be resident in the memory, but there is no "cue" that will cause it to be recalled. Reference is made to a 1987 memory study in which subjects who were given more stimulus (a picture as well as a name) were more likely to be able to remember a brand, and those who were shown adverts containing text only recalled fewer details than subjects who saw adverts that contained images (when shown the image, they recalled details from the copy).
Schematization
Information is theorized to be received as isolated facts and fragmented pieces of information, but when committed to long-term memory, it is believed to be organized in "schemas" of related information. All the information related to a given concept is grouped together in an associated bundle.
From a branding perspective, this means that all information about your firm is schematized - every experience and related emotion becomes part of the schema of your brand - and this is where the existing mind-set against which any new information is compared, and any new experience is "filtered."
There is also the matter of imagination: that a schema includes not only sense-data, but beliefs and assumptions, which become blurred together with actual sensation, such that a person might take some assumption they have made as a fact that is associated just as strongly as real stimuli related to a given schema.
In effect, the mind puts together a "best guess" that may be wildly inaccurate when there is no experience. Such is the nature of many misconceptions: the individual will "imagine what it's like" based on similar experiences - having been bitten by a dog, we can imagine what it might be like to be bitten by a lion without ever being bitten by one.
From a marketing perspective, any new or unfamiliar brand must find a place for itself in existing schemas, and recognize that customers will attempt to put together a perception of a phenomenon they have never experienced by reference to those they feel are similar.
Nonprofit marketing plays heavily on such schemas: a person who has never had a serious illness and never experienced starvation can imagine what it would be like to be in such a situation, based on the minor sicknesses or hunger they have experienced: their sympathies are aroused by recollection of similar experience, and inference of what it would be like if the intensity of sensation were greater.
There is also the downside of imagination: our past disappointments with firms leads to the assumption that we will be similarly disappointed by similar firms in future. The similarity may be entirely superficial - the name of the business, the color of its logo, or other incidental details may touch on associations that have nothing to do with the firm itself, but set a belief about "what it will be like."
Five myths of emotional branding
The author presents a random smattering of misconceptions (EN: which is a total left turn, as if he's lost the thread of what he was meaning to say.)
Myth One: A deep emotional reaction will guarantee recollection of a specific brand. Advertisements use dramatic situations to create emotional associations to a specific brand, but this doesn't always work with such precision. Generally, strong emotion leads to strong recollection, but the association to a specific brand is not hard-wired. The example is given of a study done after a particularly compelling advertising campaign, and in which the people who had a strong memory of the commercial spots actually associated it with an entirely different brand.
Myth Two: The more you get customers to use their imagination, the more intense emotion will be. The problem with this hypothesis is that imagine is internal, not external, and the stimulus will be framed in terms of the customer's reality, not the reality you want them to have. Moreover, customers will not always imagine the things you want them to - they could as well be making negative inferences about your brand.
Myth Three: Generating multiple emotions a stronger customer experience. However, the author states (EN: without any research) that "humans can only experience one emotion at any given time" and suggest that people who feel multiple emotions either experience them in sequence, or merely feel emotionally conflicted. The solution is to build brand based on a single, consistent emotional theme rather than trying to evoke an array.
Myth Four: A positive experience is best built by pandering to narcissism, "the customer is always right." The author refers to this notion as an "old bromide" that has been popular in marketing for decades, and one that should be rejected: the entire point in marketing is not to accept the judgment of a customer, which may be incorrect and ill-conceived, but to adjust and correct their perceptions. To introduce a new idea, or especially to change an existing one, necessarily entails the belief that the customer is ignorant and wrong-headed and must be encouraged to correct their beliefs.
Myth Five: Customer satisfaction is a good indication that branding has worked. The author suggests satisfaction surveys are a "red herring" that mislead many firms. Respondents asked about their satisfaction will almost always indicate that they are "satisfied" or "highly satisfied" with a firm with which they have chosen to do business in the past. This reflects on western culture in general, that people are trained to express gratitude at any service received, even if it was unpleasant: when asked by a manager "was everything all right?" customers respond "yes, it was fine" even if they had a negative experience.
(EN: I did some primary research into customer ratings and reviews that supports this notion, but on a different basis: positive reviews of a product or service often guided by narcissism: the customer is not rating the experience, but defending the decision they made in choosing the vendor regardless of their experience. To suggest the experience was bad is to admit they made a bad choice, which people are loath to do.)
Customers like to buy
Most brands focus on the product or service itself and the benefits that it delivers by virtue of its use, and focus their efforts on branding and identity on that phase of the experience. However, people derive a great deal of pleasure from the experience of shopping itself - in some instances, the shopping experience is considered more important than the product itself.
There is a fair amount of research in retailing that indicates emotional benefits from the act of shopping. They perceive the activity of shopping as an adventure in which they can enjoy success, with all the anticipation and excitement that entails. They interact socially with clerks who treat them with deference, feeding their narcissism and sense of self-esteem.
(EN: This is short treatment of what is likely a much richer field of inquiry. It is also likely that post-purchase interaction with a firm also figures into the overall emotional experience that is associated to a brand, which also merits deeper consideration than it is presently given.)
While this research generally stems from the environment of a retail store, it translates to other channels (such as online) and other modes (such as business-to-business marketing).
But to the original point: customers see shopping as a positive experience, with great emotional portent, and it should be carefully considered and managed as part of the overall brand experience.
(EN: I think the negative should also be considered, especially given that not all customer experiences deliver on this excitement, and it's just as likely customers see shopping as loathsome and dreary and have low expectations. However, the same experience that supports positive expectations may also serve to contradict negative ones, so perhaps it's just as well to focus on the positive and expect the customer to do the same?)