Can we read your mind?
How behavioural science shapes the brands we love and products we choose.
Being a marketer is an endlessly fascinating job. We need to be partly creative, partly analytical, and partly mind-readers. It’s our job to get inside the heads of our audience and properly understand what makes them tick, click and buy.
The better information we have – and the more we understand the mindset of the customer – the better the results are likely to be. Research is invaluable, of course. As is creativity – that little (or sometimes big) leap of ingenuity that works to capture the imagination of our audience.
But there’s something else we can draw on too. Behavioural science is increasingly being used by marketers to understand – and predict – how customers will act. As the name suggests, it’s based on a scientific approach and backed by a wealth of research.
Last time we looked at how three cognitive biases inform our approach to copywriting.
Here, we unpack three more.
Bias #4: Distinctiveness
When brands are bold and truly stand out in their sector, they get remembered – sometimes even for years. Think of Cadbury’s drumming gorilla or talking meerkats in smoking jackets. Being creative, quirky and brave will often stop consumers in their tracks – whether that’s through words or images (or preferably both). In his great book The Choice Factory, Richard Shotton defines this as distinctiveness. He cites various experiments to back up the importance of standing out in a crowded marketplace – and also asks why so many campaigns remain a bit, well, vanilla.
Every brand has something interesting and original to say. But sometimes marketing execs take the path of least resistance. This is possibly because it’s simply easier to justify a safe creative route. Easier to agree things by committee. And easier to get sign-off to something a bit samey.
But the easy route will inevitably make it harder to win hearts and minds. It’s always worth remembering that people want to be surprised and delighted. They rarely want to have seen it all before. So fitting with the sector norm should never be a justification for a campaign – quite the opposite. As John Hegarty once said, ‘When the world zigs, zag’.
Bias #5: Fundamental attribution error
If someone cuts you up at a junction, the natural reaction is to think they are an inconsiderate driver. You’re probably less likely to wonder why they are in such a rush. Or to consider whether they might be dashing to an emergency. Fundamental attribution error means we tend to focus blame (or praise) on a person rather than look at the wider situational context.
The theory can also be applied to brands. Let’s say you buy a new rain jacket. On the first rainy day you put it on and go out for a long walk in the country. After an hour of trudging through torrential rain, you feel your shoulders are wet. Then your back. By the time you get home, you’re soaked and cursing the maker for such shoddy workmanship. You vow never to buy this brand again.
In this case, it could be a matter of flawed communication – not a faulty product. Let’s say the jacket is actually designed for summer showers, not relentless downpours. At the point of purchase, the average consumer would probably just see it as a rain jacket, plain and simple. But a bit of careful product positioning – perhaps some lighthearted storytelling on the swing tag – could easily outline exactly what it’s designed for. This would set expectations and lessen any disappointment if caught out by a deluge. It might even enable the brand to up-sell a more extreme weather version of the jacket – and maybe the customer would buy both for different seasons.
Bias #6: Framing effect
Glass half full? Or glass half empty? When it comes to talking about products and services, consumers like things presented in a positive light. For example, we prefer to know that meat is 90% fat free rather than made up of 10% fat. And when buying cleaning wipes, it’s more reassuring to hear they kill 95% of germs – rather than focus on the 5% they leave behind on our kitchen counters.
The trick is to focus on the positive. And this can apply across the widest array of products. A recent study highlighted that, when promoting plant-based meat alternatives, it’s much more effective to focus on the health and environmental benefits of vegetarian food than the negative impact of eating meat.
The framing effect works because people view losses differently to gains. A loss is generally perceived as more significant than an equivalent gain. The displeasure at losing £20 from your pocket, for instance, is greater than the pleasure gained from finding £20 in the street.
So, in short, the answer is that the glass is most definitely half full. Unless, of course, the drink it contains is revolting. Then it’s resolutely half empty.
Next week, we’ll dig further into behavioural science and how it affects communications.
Keen to explore your comms through this new lens?
