‘It’s worse than not advertising’ – how your TV ads can boost your rivals
It sounds perverse, but what if your competitors are nabbing all the goodwill from your big-budget campaign? It’s a phenomenon that is startlingly common, as Neuro-Insight’s Richard Silberstein explained at Mumbrella’s MSIX conference.
Professor Richard Silberstein is the world’s foremost authority on using neuroscience to optimise advertising. It’s a sector of market research he practically invented after pioneering a form of measuring brain reaction called Steady State Topography (SST) in the mid-1980s. Yet, a few years ago, a business approached him with a discovery he’d never encountered.
The client, a financial services provider, found that its sales bizarrely increased when its competitor, ING, ran big-budget promotional campaigns. Was this just a coincidence, they asked, or was this something they could capitalise on?
Silberstein and his team set to work.
The crux of neuroscience research in marketing is the belief that the decisions we make as consumers are not rational but emotional. They can often be subconscious and delivered at lightning speed. Not only that, but customers’ behaviour often contradicts what they claim in focus groups or questionnaires. Just because your research participant promises he’s going to buy the latest Nintendo console, doesn’t mean he won’t instead rush out of the lab to purchase the new Sony PlayStation.
“Creatives are profoundly sceptical about this type of research,” explains the softly spoken Silberstein. “And they’ve every right to be. Questionnaires and focus groups are a very poor indicator of what’s going on and offer very little explanatory variance.”
Silberstein’s company, Neuro-Insight, begins its analysis by using SST to record brain activity as participants watch ads on either TVs, computers or mobile devices. Essentially, they measure the speed of neural processing – and therefore activity – in different parts of the brain. As different areas specialise in different functions, they can measure processes including what thoughts become long-term memories, how engaging an advert is and the level of visual attention.
Long-term memory is the most significant cognitive ability. Not just for obvious reasons – clearly, if you don’t remember the advert, it’s pointless – but because memories influence future decisions, too. Canny marketers need to make sure the right scenes, such as branding or a key message, are strongly encoded into long-term memory. And they need to identify what those scenes are in order to use them in other forms of marketing – say, what moment to reproduce on a poster, or which clips to retain on a shorter 15-second edit. Neuro-Insight term those remembered moments “Iconic Triggers”.
Furthermore, long-term memory is a much more complex process than scientists first thought. “People used to think of long-term memory like a Victorian library where you can go and pull a book out,” he says. “But we now think that’s only partially correct. If memory was intended to be a precise record of what’s happened, you would expect it to be as good as the eyes or ears, but it’s very sloppy. It’s easy to manipulate and plant false memories. What current research has shown is that memory is linked to future actions. For instance, if you ask someone what they will be doing for their next birthday, their brain will instantly recall what happened on birthdays in the past. The brain regions involved in the recall of previous experiences are the very same regions that imagine the future.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNNleWEQljM
Silberstein used this knowledge to test the relationship between rival products and their campaigns. They conducted an experiment where subjects were shown adverts for Apple and Samsung phones, and then asked to make instantaneous, snap judgements on how that changed their perception of the rival using a form of implicit association testing that evaluated unconscious brand associations. When people were shown footage of the Samsung Galaxy, the association between ‘innovation’ and the Samsung brand grew, as you might expect. But, more interestingly, viewing the ad also grew the association between ‘stale’ and the Apple brand. “In terms of relationships between brands, we have found there is frequently a zero-sum game, especially in highly competitive categories,” he says.
Or in other words, if one company gets a boost, their rivals will likely take a hit.
So, while they may have proved a link between competitor firms and perception, it doesn’t explain how an advert can backfire.
The answer, they found, was in where the iconic triggers – the most memorable moments – landed in an advert. If they happened to be in the narrative, but not the brand reveal at the end, association between the narrative and the company paying for the ad was lost. What the brain then does was associate all that positive feelings and messaging to the more memorable brand leader. “Nothing in the brain is stored in isolation,” explains Silberstein. “All memories are linked by associations.”
Perversely, creative agencies who were working hard to incorporate a brilliant story into their TVCs were giving all the goodwill away. ING’s advert may have been clever and entertaining, but it handed its core message of fairness to its rival.
“It’s much worse than not advertising,” emphasises Silberstein. “And it’s much more common when you have a highly entertaining piece of narrative because there is a temptation to end the story and then introduce the brand’s logo.” The brain switches off at this point to process the preceding narrative and fails to encode the crucial branding information.
The solution?
“The best solution is to integrate the brand message into the narrative,” he argues. That way, you don’t have a separation between the story and the plug. Alternatively, all it may take is a slight re-edit where the branding is brought forward or delayed by one or two seconds.
It didn’t take long before Silberstein was able to use the findings to help other clients. An MLC advert, for example, showing a conversation between a grandad and grandchild discussing retirement was re-edited to introduce the brand logo slightly into the earlier story and also remove the scene of them walking off screen. You can see the change in the above before-and-after video. “Often, you don’t have to reshoot, just tweak or tinker,” he clarifies. “That MLC advert had been on air for three months but after they made the change, they saw a 40% increase in leads.”
What’s interesting is that narrative-based adverts are becoming ever more popular among creative agencies, especially since YouTube allowed campaigns to run to any length. The lines between a traditional brand ad and sponsored content are blurring – with consumers seemingly preferring adverts that are credible pieces of entertainment in their own right. You only have to look at the global success of the John Lewis Christmas adverts to see its effectiveness.
How often, you wonder, might these type of campaigns be getting it wrong, then?
“I’ve seen it in about half of examples we’ve been presented with,” says Silberstein. “And we’ve identified it much more regularly than we thought.”
All of which should make marketers think twice before they rush to send off the final cut of their creative to broadcasters.
CONTENT SPONSORED BY Neuro-Insight
But I love creating ads where the brand logo appears only at the end, after the punchline. Sure, customers are wired to look away while they laugh, or to disengage because the story is over – but hey, that’s the approach we have always taken!
User ID not verified.
TV advertising that can sometimes help competitors. See http://www.originplan.com – link at very end of ‘Author’ section – reveals the marketing & advertising tracking technique invented by Unilever Australia in the early sixties. There were instances when content or copy points for Brand A were sometimes associated with Brand B. Sometimes helping competition.
User ID not verified.
Surely this is an example par excellence of spending money to discover something we already knew? OF COURSE the brand should be baked into the narrative. OF COURSE you want to maximise attribution by having the brand appear early and/or directly associated with the key message. This is basic, basic stuff.
While we’re at it, an old NZ client of mine used to note that every time his main competitor advertised an offer, his own brand’s sales improved. He attributed this to the offer stimulating purchasing behaviour in the category, and then customers undertaking some simple comparison shopping. By matching his brand’s offer to the advertised one, bingo, his sales improved markedly.
As a creative, I welcome the introduction of neuroscientific studies into marketing. But I’d hope it goes a deal deeper than confirming basic (and proven) marketing principles when it does.
User ID not verified.
Please do some research before commenting on something you have no clue about
How about reading a ‘neuroscientific study’ before acting like you know it all about the topic
User ID not verified.
Ah, Roger. I’ve only just come across your curiously affronted reply. You’re some kind of professor or doctor in the area then, I can presume?
My point was not, if you read my comment again, that I already know all there is to know about neuroscience – far from it. Rather, that what this article does is use neuroscience to confirm some already proven marketing principles. A bit like using the latest high-tech solar technology to tell me it’s sunny.
The MLC example, for instance, is really, really basic. Say the brand name more often than once, include the logo with the call to action … it’s all stuff that’s been known by decent marketers for decades. Neuroscience is likely a powerful addition to the marketer’s armoury, but the summary and examples given here could (and indeed would) be done by any decent marketing practitioner without it.
User ID not verified.
It’s very easy to say “of course” when what seems logical was pointed out to you but the fact remains this phenomenon occurs constantly and most would argue that sometimes justifiably so. So even your “OF COURSEs” are not always ideal.
OF COURSE plenty of marketers are fully aware their campaign will expand the category and activity within the category before they launch.
What I concur most with is the in effectiveness of focus groups for the reasons stated. The media evolutionary road to failure is littered with ideas that tested well.
Perhaps agreeing with his findings and view was what made it entertaining for me. I’d like to see the nuances between cultures.
User ID not verified.
Luke,
Thanks for the comments.
The role of neuroscience in this context was not to simply affirm what good marketers already know (although, scientific rigor is a good thing), but to help marketers pinpoint the problem spots in their creative and make recommendations on how best to overcome this. An advert may tick all the right boxes – integrated branding through the narrative and branding with the call to action and still underperform in market.
This was the situation in MLC’s case, where the branding was in very close proximity to both the tagline and call-to-action and yet the advert still underperformed in market (in the video labelled Test 1). Using SST, we were able to identify that when the grandfather and grandson being to walk off screen there was a strong reduction in brain activity (specifically the memory encoding measure) that ultimately impacted the brand being appropriately linked back to the narrative. As mentioned in the article, the revised advert based on our recommendations had a huge impact in market, which is why I should add, the campaign subsequently won a Silver Effie – hardly ‘basic’ I would argue.
Thanks,
Shaun
User ID not verified.