Harvey Norman, Cheer and Channel Seven amongst most effective ads according to neuroscience
Neuro-Insight has revealed the 10 most effective ads in Australia’s broadcast media, according to neuroscience.
The neuroanalytics company captures brain activity generated during creative slots across the entire broadcast media spectrum, with the data continually used to update the Neuro-Insight global database.
[click to enlarge]
Based on the broad sample tested by Neuro-Insight during 2022, Harvey Norman’s Surface Pro 30 second TVC topped the list, with Cheer’s 15 second Bring A Little TVC in second, and Channel Seven’s 30 second Winter Olympic promo in third position.
To determine the most effective ads, Neuro-Insight tracked second-by-second changes across multiple areas of the brain, such as memorability, brand impact, likeability, emotionality, and attention to calculate a “Neuro Impact Factor™” and record a percentile ranking of creative impact against a database of 5000 ads developed over 15 years of research.
Brain activity was captured across a comprehensive volume of categories, brands, and ad lengths across the free-to-air broadcast structure.
Casey Kudrenko, director of client solutions at Neuro-Insight APAC, said: “We are often asked ‘What are the best ads on air at the moment?’ and whether these are 15 or 30 seconds, product or brand and which categories reign supreme. So it’s great for the neuro to objectify that it can be all of the above! We witness campaigns that have greater neuro-impact and greater in-market ROI trigger emotion, yes; however we also see the tactile ads that leverage their existing assets to trigger rational price points and promos.”
The Harvey Norman Surface Pro 8 spot topped the list
Harvey Norman’s winning spot included branding bookends, banners, product demonstrations and ‘stylish’ messaging that according to Neuro-Insight fuelled long-term memory encoding. The ad had its “neuro-peak” at around the 27 second mark, where a skiing athlete with the text “experience the Best: is strategically positioned prior to the critical master branding frame. Neuro-Insight lauded Harvey Norman’s “smart use of priming within the Olympic program’s context” as a strategy that fueled memory encoding at key branding moments, and ultimately saw the spot top the list.
Brian Hill, general manager of Neuro-Insight APAC, explained: “Creative excellence and effectiveness of the industry’s output should be celebrated. Interestingly, the top ads have nothing in common! They’re 30’s, 15’s, TV promos, product and brand. But what the ads do have in common is that they achieved high levels of long-term memory encoding and what we’ve seen proven time and again in our work with clients is the direct correlation between long-term memory encoding and real-world sales. Neuro-Insight will continue to publish its industry benchmark every quarter so that more advertisers can get closer to the powerful intersection between science, marketing, and creativity.”
Does a consumer’s brain work the same way when they willingly apply to be a research participant, come into a research company to have their brain monitored and their eye movement tracked in a clinical way, are forced to watch a copious amount of ads one after another and the whole time they are aware they are being paid and therefore need to be super analytical.
Vs.
Sitting at home, chilling out on the couch eating a burrito with their pants off, relaxing while they are consuming advertising and not being monitored (hence the no pants)?
Is this kind of research, or really any kind of research around the creative output of advertising be considered a valid barometer of effectiveness or creative excellence when the environment and method in which it is conducted is so foreign?
User ID not verified.
Have your say