Why consumers think your ad is a ‘flop’
Consumers are naturally attracted to big, bold advertising, argues Zac Martin, and perception of 'cost' is everything.
Gazelles have been observed repeatedly jumping up and down, an act called stotting. This seemingly strange behaviour makes little sense at first glance – one assumes that if you could end up being chased by a hungry lion, the smart thing to do would be to conserve energy. But researchers hypothesise the opposite is true – the unnecessary exertion of energy is in fact a warning to predators. “Don’t even bother trying to out-run me, I have so much energy I can do this all day for no reason at all. Go find an animal that isn’t showing off, because he’s preserving the little energy he has.”
The world around us is riddled with signals, and as our industry continues to turn its back on traditional channels, we cannot overlook their value.
The importance of behaviour
In a 2017 study researchers reviewed a range of apologies to understand which were positively received by the public and which were not. The most important factor in effective apologies? Cost. Not what was said, but if it was hard to say. The apologiser must sacrifice something in the apology – whether it be financial, opportunity, or reputation.
How we do the things we do says something about us. Our behaviour transmits, not just the messages we broadcast.
Advertising works the same way.
Rory Sutherland argues costly signalling is what makes advertising effective. Super Bowl ads work not only because of their ability to convey information, but in their inference. Consumers know Super Bowl ads are: (1) seen by many, (2) consumed collectively, and (3) are bloody expensive.
Cost matters. Actions speak louder than words.
It’s why when you get married you declare your love: (1) in front of lots of people, (2) when they’re all together, at what is presumably (3) a very expensive day.
Conversely, digital advertising has the opposite perception. Consumers know when they are served a Facebook ad it’s: (1) highly targeted, (2) individually consumed, and (3) cheap. Like a bad apology, little has been sacrificed.
In Ads Don’t Work That Way, Kevin Simler suggests advertising is most effective when it achieves cultural imprinting. Here you influence not the association of the brand itself, but of the people using it. If you choose a PC over a Mac, it says something about you. Microsoft can only begin to change this perception through common knowledge – consumers must see an ad, but they also must to know (or suspect) their friends have too.
Put simply, we value things more highly when we know others value them too. Brands who spend big signal confidence in future cultural uptake.
Distorting the view
Here’s a comment I recently saw on a Facebook ad:
Consumers on social media know they’re either being hyper targeted, resulting in a low social proof value, or they think an ad is underperforming because they can see the crappy view count. This explains why platforms like Instagram have started hiding vanity metrics from consumers – if the signal is weak, distort it.
Sacrifice also brings about reassurance. It infers quality, reliability, and future success. When Uber Eats cast Kim Kardashian, they’re telling us they intend to be around for a while.
The Natural Monopoly Law says the biggest brands attract the least knowledgeable users. Given most potential customers of a brand are non-buyers or light buyers, it means big brands get bigger. We’re herd creatures who follow the norm. Nothing succeeds like the perception of success.
Consumers are attracted to the brands with the biggest, greenest lawns. Gardens which serve little functional purpose and are generally hard to maintain. But to get the greenest lawn, you need to waste water. And time. And real estate.
John Wanamaker famously said: “I know half of my advertising is wasted, I just don’t know which half”. In his seminal 2004 paper, Tim Ambler responded: “The waste in advertising is the part that works”.
Yes, old school advertising creates waste, but it also signals.
Of course, don’t throw out your digital advertising. Peter Field and Les Binet tell us effective brands think long and short, and digital can be very efficient in driving the latter. But when you’re playing the long game, remember traditional media’s value lies as much in its signal, as its ability to broadcast a message.
Brands who waste time and effort and budget in stotting will be the ones that win.
Zac Martin is a senior planner with Ogilvy Melbourne. He writes at Pigs Don’t Fly.
Hey mate,
Very well written, and given how many changes are happening in the digital/ad tech space, the truisms of good marketing can’t ever be replaced by fancy technology, and having access to all these tools distract us from that truth.
User ID not verified.
Great piece mate.
A solid synthesis of much of the emerging evidence of how marketing actually works… hence useful.
Kudos!
User ID not verified.
Nice article Zac, enjoyed the read and agree with many of your points.
User ID not verified.
Yes. If people who can’t afford a Ferrari didn’t know what one was, how many people who can afford a Ferrari would still buy one? It is only by being visible to lots of people at once that advertising can perform its most valuable role – shaping the cultural meaning of a brand. So, while a brand’s sales messaging (the short of it) can be micro-targeted, a brand’s meaning (the long of it) must be mass produced.
User ID not verified.
Great piece Zac
I’ve actually been pondering on this since a talk on signalling at Mumbrella MSIX last year (not the most recent one) which I think even used that same picture of the gazelle
I totally agree with the idea of signalling theory and that hyper-targeting might be eroding its effect. And similarly on the broader argument around long term brand building.
But I think there’s an important nuance to this signalling argument, in that the if the receiver doesn’t realise that they’re the only one who is seeing all the ads, then arguably the ads are sending exactly the right signals.
Crucially I think this only happens when they see a brand/campaign across multiple touchpoints, and probably not just digital. And ideally when someone else in their sphere is also talking about them or interacting with them.
Just a theory though…
User ID not verified.
There are two types of advertising :
1 Advertising a product which has features which are superior in form or use to other products or services in the category.
2 Advertising a product which is pretty well identical to other products or services in the category.
Marketers are principally concerned with the latter ; the “better mouse trap” will basically sell itself. You can really advertise it in any way.
Children develop different moral outlooks as they grow up. Infants are entirely egocentric and self-focussed. Older children and early adolescents have a “give and take” atttitude – I will do something for you for my benefit etc, this is essentially the economists model.
From adolescence, most children develop into the third phase, the group orientated phase where they seek approval and identification with valued peers.
Its this group which marketers target ; they seek to associate the product with the valued peer group. Cocal Cola, for instance, shows attractive young people of mixed sexes using their product to associate Coca-Cola with the valued peer group. Buying another product, like Royal Crown Cola, would make you look like a loser.
With older adults, the class factor becomes important.
A proportion of the population do not develop into the third phase, around 10-20%. These people buy simply on price and value.
User ID not verified.