10: Advertising to the Unconscious
Traditional advertising seeks to deliver a rational message to the conscious mind, and by those standards some of the television commercials we see these days make very little sense and seem "like something a stoned twenty something dreamed up." He mentions an advertisement that was run by Cadbury in the UK, which was a 30-second spot that showed a gorilla playing a drum set - and that's all. There was no verbal message, no product images, only the logo that appeared at the end to indicate it was a commercial message. People thought it was interesting to watch, but couldn't recall the brand or the product category. Even so, Cadbury's short-term sales rose by 9% and continued to grow throughout the campaign.
The impact of advertising is difficult to assess in any precise manner. Traditional testing determines whether the person can describe an advertisement that they have seem, and asks them whether they had a favorable impression. Neither of these is linked to whether the ad will be successful
Because it is broadcast to the world, it can only be assumed that product sales that increased were attributable to the ad - but what about it? Screening an advertisement to a test audience doesn't tell you whether it will be effective, and sticking to the patterns and cliches of traditional advertising has not proven to be any better. People will claim to ignore advertising, or pretend that it has no effect on them - but by their purchasing behavior, it clearly does.
He returns to the hoax of subliminal advertising, but suggests that all advertising may be subliminal. The message that the advertiser means to communicate is not always the impression the audience takes away. People are also influenced by advertising even if they are not paying attention to it. So clearly, the way that advertising works has as much or more to do with the unconscious mind than the conscious one: the way we feel about a brand after seeing the commercial has as much to do with whether we though the spokesman was physically attractive as it does with the message that he delivers - and the former may have even greater impact that that as we are influenced by things other than the core message of the advertisement.
Television advertising in particular is filled with metadata. Everything that is shown to the user is part of the message: every person, animal, or object the audience sees as well as every word or sound they hear are part of the message they receive. The mind places all of this in context, creates association, and attempts to integrate all of the sense data it perceives, even that which is received on the periphery. So while the idea of subliminal suggestion may be complete nonsense, there is much about advertising that speaks to the unconscious mind and contributes to their total impression of the message.
This has already been recognized in an indirect manner. When a firm creates a television spot, every detail is considered very carefully, though often in a general way. There's the gut-feel that a given actor is the "right" face and voice for the role, that the flowers on the table in the background should be a specific color, and so on. Nothing on the set is there by accident or random chance. This is seldom discussed because the unconscious components of an advertisement are difficult to verbalize - it's much easier to talk about the conscious elements.
As to what people remember, the author suggests that people remember only 20% of what someone says unless they are paying close attention and taking notes. So while we may belabor the exact wording of the message, the audience comes away with only a general idea of what was said. Moreover, the words we say are only influential if they influence the way that the other person feels - there is much nonverbal communication (posture, gesture, tone of voice, appearance, etc.) that also influences the way that other people feel.
Even in a non-commercial context, our ability to influence and persuade depends largely on factors that are not consciously noticed. An attractive and well-groomed person in a business suit inspires more trust and confidence than an unsightly slob - so the audience comes away with a positive impression not only of the person, but about whatever it is they were saying. People will deny this, but it is invariably true. It's also common to have "feelings" about people - something that you can't quite put your finger on causes you to feel that you can or cannot trust someone you just met. It's very often something in their tone, posture, expression, and gestures that disagrees with what they are trying to tell us. Again, we are not consciously aware of what it is that gives us the creeps, but it does.
So while traditional metrics consider conscious recollection of the fine details of an advertising message, what really matters is the impression that people came away with even if they cannot verbalize it. If the person comes away with a positive impression of the brand, then the advertising "worked." It's also noted that the emotional impression about the brand tends to persist in the audience's mind long after the literal message has faded from memory.
People generally do not stop what they are doing and pay close attention to the message of a commercial - if it distracts them at all, it is only for long enough for them to recognize it is advertising and as such it can be ignored. But going back to what was said earlier, nothing is ever truly ignored: we may not be paying attention, but we are still receiving the sense-data and our unconscious mind is scanning it and evaluating it to make sure that it can still be ignored. So the information is being received indirectly - and the unconscious mind is less judgmental than the conscious mind. It does not pay close attention and can easily be deceived - which is why we are startled for a moment when our unconscious mind cries "snake" until our conscious mind recognizes it was merely a stick.
(EN: I'm reminded of a similar theory in an argument about supernatural phenomena such as ghosts. It is common for people to claim to see something "out of the corner" of their eye that was not there when they turned to investigate it. The gullible unconscious mind identified what it saw, and the conscious mind often follows - coupled with the revisionist nature of memory, people will later swear they saw a ghost, and will describe it in detail.)
In the present day, many ads are designed to circumvent our defenses to commercial messages. They attempt to tell a story or to amuse us, so that we do not feel that we are being manipulated into wanting a product. If there is any rational message, it is integrated in a subtle way. We don't notice that we are noticing something, being positioned to feel a certain way about a brand. All of this is very sneakily reaching into the unconscious mind to plant associations between the brand and other concepts, creating a shadow network that supports a positive impression of the brand.
And it may be that this is a more effective method than crafting a well-polished message. Younger generations grew up in an age of advertising and are far less trustful of advertising than were previous generations, so the overt message of a brand will likely meet with doubt and suspicion. They are familiar with the qualities of a commercial advertisement and bristle with distrust at a canned and polished sales pitch.
There has long been an ongoing debate over whether people buy products for their intrinsic value (the functional benefit of using them) or an extrinsic value (the psychological benefits they gain). The debate is largely stalemated on the compromise that people tend to buy products for their intrinsic value and brands for their extrinsic value. But even this is not always true, as many products have no intrinsic value. Consider lipstick: the only reason to buy lipstick of any brand is to feel more attractive. It is likely impossible to define a universal principle that applies to every product and every brand.
However, it is defensible to say that there is no such thing as a brand that is purchased without emotions. Even when purchasing wood screws, copier toner, or table salt there is an emotional layer involved. At the very least, a person wants to feel confident (or to avoid fear) in their decision - and the most basic emotion that a brand conveys is this confidence, in the expectation that our next experience with a given brand will be similar to the previous one and that there is a company that is willing to take responsibility if the buyer's expectations are not met. Even corporate purchasing departments are motivated by the fear of being humiliated and punished for making a bad purchase.
Certain kinds of products rely more heavily on emotional and intangible benefits than others: luxury, fashion, and lifestyle brands rely on these things almost exclusively. A ten-thousand-dollar Rolex watch doesn't tell time any better than a ten-dollar Casio - which means that 99.999% of the cost of the Rolex is for something other than its functional benefits. So there is no point in Rolex placing an advertisement that attempts to convince the prospect of the superiority of its time-keeping functions - it has to appeal to something intangible and emotional.