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
Yes, consumers use heuristics to make ‘good enough’ decisions. This has been well documented by researchers for many years. We use heuristics because they work rather well, not because we have been coerced by wickedly clever marketers who use sneaky tactics to convince us to do something that we would otherwise not do.
It is through experience with brands and a need for efficient decision making that people rely on heuristics, because they make lives easier. It is important to understand these heuristics, and to know how marketers can account for them. It is also important to consider how the environment and our natural instincts may alter the heuristics used.
Yes, consumers can be nudged by presenting things in different ways (framing effects), and they may have more affinity for brands that they buy (the ‘mere exposure effect’); however, this is not the biggest story in marketing.
As marketers, we must remember that advertising is a weak force. People live in a cluttered, chaotic world where advertising and brands fall very far down the priority list (if they are even on the list at all).
We screen out advertising by leaving the room, switching stations and walking head down looking at our phones, thereby missing much of the advertising that is attempting to reach us.
As marketers, capturing people’s attention is the primary challenge. The main focus, then, should be on reminding people your brand exists, and refreshing memory structures that give your brand more of a chance of being chosen in choice situations.
In summary, psychological manipulations, such as framing effects, can create more demand under some conditions, but these conditions aren’t well known, and in many cases, the effects will be less than what is advocated. The view that demand for your brand depends on psychological manipulation of consumers is a massive exaggeration, and a distraction for marketers.
So, a word to the wise – do tests to see if specific nudges can do what you hope they will do. Meanwhile, don’t lose sight of the main game; if sales are not where you would like them to be, consider that it’s probably due to insufficient physical and mental availability.
Byron Sharp is professor of marketing science at the University of South Australia and director or the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute. Amy Wilson is a senior marketing scientist at the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute.
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”.
User ID not verified.
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.
User ID not verified.
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’].
User ID not verified.
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’].
User ID not verified.
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.
User ID not verified.
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.
User ID not verified.
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
User ID not verified.
Hi everyone – the header was a mistake on our part, nothing to do with the authors. We have updated it now. Thanks.