Putting ‘nudges’ in perspective
It’s time marketers put subconscious psychological effects into perspective, write marketing scientists Byron Sharp and Amy Wilson in this extract from Eat Your Greens.
Today there is much interest in subconscious decision making – as there should be, because buying rarely involves a great deal of conscious deliberation. Unfortunately, along with this sensible interest in ‘fast buying’ and ‘low attention’, comes a belief in the power of subconscious psychological effects. History seems to be repeating itself.
Years ago, there was much hype around subliminal advertising. However, Vicary’s research was a hoax. The joke would (again) be on marketers if we fell for a new version of the subliminal advertising story.
The evidence
Marketing and advertising don’t *sell* products. People sell products’
Sure consumers may *buy* products but that is not the same. If you hire decent sales people, you will sell more than what people may just buy.
Car yards and real estate companies have known this for years… and so dare I say do advertising companies. Some of the best sales people I have ever met came from Val Morgan.
And the very best sales person I have ever known used to sell Encyclopaedia Britannica in shopping centres. He tried a short stint as a record rep for CBS (where I was PR), topped the state in his first month by miles, but went back to selling Brittannica as it made him more money.
Sadly, I think REAL sales people are forgotten these days in the name of “marketing”.
Given a choice between EB’s opinion [with or without the ‘magic’ of Mental Availability], or Mo and Jo’s opinion, I’d take Mo and Jo’s every day of the week.
I think the more interesting potential for BE to add value is in the design of the experience, not the design of the communication. Marketers who can demonstrate their leadership in the field of experience design will increase their influence, and sophisticated agencies should be able to bring tangible value to the table in this arena. If they can, then I reckon BE can be a valuable part of the toolkit.
Mr.Sharp and Ms.Wilson admit the existence of unconscious processes, but then, relegate unconscious processes to a minor role.
The Godfather of advertising/marketing research Robert Heath [author of ‘Seducing the Subconscious’] convincingly argues otherwise.
Unfortunately for EB, if they accept what the vast majority of the scientific community accepts re: acknowledging the increasing importance of unconscious processes, their Mental Availability model starts to reveal its weak underbelly.
Or, to put it another way, if EB accept the importance of unconscious processes then Mental Availability is destined for the same scrap heap that ‘Subliminal Advertising’ finds itself in.
[And please Mr.Sharp and/or Ms.Wilson, name one serious marketer who has ever suggested, as you claim in your article, ‘demand for your brand depends on psychological manipulation is a massive exaggeration’].
Mr.Sharp and Ms.Wilson admit the existence of unconscious processes, but then, relegate unconscious processes to a minor role.
The Godfather of advertising/marketing research Robert Heath [author of ‘Seducing the Subconscious’] convincingly argues otherwise.
Unfortunately for EB, if they accept what the vast majority of the scientific community accepts re: the increasing importance of unconscious processes, their Mental Availability model starts to reveal its weak underbelly.
Or, to put it another way, if EB accept the importance of unconscious processes then Mental Availability [based entirely on conscious responses] is destined for the same scrap heap that ‘Subliminal Advertising’ finds itself in.
[And please Mr.Sharp and/or Ms.Wilson, name one serious marketer who has ever suggested, as you claim in your article, ‘demand for your brand depends on psychological manipulation is a massive exaggeration’].
Professor Sharp.
At the top of this article it reads, and I quote.
‘subconscious psychological effects – otherwise known as subliminal advertising’
What rubbish! They are two different things.
No legitimate academic specialising in cognitive science would claim otherwise, or allow their name to be associated with such a claim.
That ‘quote’ at the top of the article isn’t actually Sharp’s words. It’s an attempted summary by I presume the Mumbrealla editor who has misinterpreted his analogy of cognitive science and subliminal advertising and implied he used the two interchangeably (which he didn’t).
You can see in his opening paragraphs that he uses the hoax that was subliminal advertising as a warning for people to not get too swept up in cognitive science. He never says the two are the same thing
Hi everyone – the header was a mistake on our part, nothing to do with the authors. We have updated it now. Thanks.