The toil for loyal

Can we admit to Brand Loyalty?

A whopping 95% of our decision making is pre-conscious or intuitive. Just like us, out on our one exercise excursion of the day in the wintery rain, it’s always looking for shortcuts. And it’s no different when it comes to making decisions on the brands we buy.

Brand recall

We already know that most advertising receives no active attention whatsoever. Or not enough for our slothful brains to take in what is being advertised. And even if they do remember the ad, they might not recall the brand. Brands are a very small part of a consumer’s life – they don’t think much even about the ones they buy. Tech advances and busy lives have made getting attention increasingly difficult. Couple this with the levels of choice sky-rocketting and humans will look to habit and convenience to guide them, restricting consideration down to a few favoured brands.

A quick route to decision along with physical availability are key factors underpinning brand loyalty. A sensible buying strategy used to balance risk and avoid wasting time. You’ll use this in all walks of life – from choosing which hand sanitiser to buy, to what YouTube Yoga session to try. You’ll narrow your options down to your personal repertoire, and stick with them.

We ‘Satisfice’ (God, I love that word). Rather than fatigue our frontal lobe, we settle for satisfactory. Understand that brand loyalty is unimaginative, not passionate.

This all made perfect sense to me, until things started to change in March 2020. Brand loyalty is defined as:

“positive feelings towards a brand and dedication to purchase the same product or service repeatedly from the same brand, regardless of a competitor’s actions or changes in the environment”.

Regardless of changes in the environment… Hmmm…

How we recall a belief about a brand or anything else is highly dependent on situation, cues, and other things going on in our minds. We already know that what we think about brands is so trivial that our attitudes towards them aren’t always absolute.

Loyalty

I’ve tried to apply this to myself – both a consumer and human with a lazy brain – a creature of habit, ‘loyal’ to brands I know. Since the ‘rona took over, I reckon there’s been a shift in my brand loyalty, thanks to things out of my control. Some brands I would buy haven’t been available on the shelf. Some weeks I have been worried about unnecessary expenditure on a product I usually wouldn’t think twice about. Whatever it’s based on, I reckon my ‘brand loyalty’ is reducing – and I am not alone.

A recent study among US consumers found brand loyalty dropped by 16% between March and November 2020. Mostly attributed to job (and subsequent income) losses. Some also claimed to have switched brands simply because their ‘go-to’ wasn’t available on the shelf thanks to supply chain issues. As our sky-high choice levels fell, perhaps so did our subconscious loyalty.

Brand behaviour

But aside from the devastating economic context, there appears to be some potential positive outcomes too. With the last few months seeing some consumers shift towards brands that align with their values. Some that took part in the aforementioned study said they’d switched brands to ‘take a stand’ in response to a brand’s behaviour and position when it came to important issues. I get these may not be the same participants as those switching brands as a direct cause of income loss or product availability, but the shift is still worth noting. Brand selection could be becoming a little more about purpose than product.

And that’s probably where I have found myself too. I’ve switched energy providers to one with 100% green electricity, and am ordering more beer from BrewDog now they’re Carbon negative. I’m a walking bloody cliché.

Back in the olden days of hugging, pub visits, commutes and rushing about, our choices needed to be quick. There was a brand purpose ripple already in motion. I do wonder if the pandemic has given it a bit more force for some people. Perhaps when so many things have been taken away from us, we’re learning to take a more conscious control of the choices we have left. And perhaps the brands that stood for something will be the ones that thrive when we can all start standing near each other again.

If you’d like to maximise your inner satisficer, drop us a note saying:. ‘Just like Mick, I can’t get no satisfaction’ here.

Can we admit to Brand Loyalty?

Appetite for disruption.

Disruption in advertising… really?

After a year of retreat, agencies and brands need to come back fighting.

As good friends for many a year, the late, great Oliver Reed often liked to invite the equally late, great Keith Moon over for afternoon drinkypoos at his sprawling country estate.

Arriving in style

In keeping with his rock god status, Moon liked to travel by helicopter to Reed’s imposingly grand Broome Hall. He’d land on the quad to be greeted by the first of many lead crystal clad large ones (one would need to line their stomach ahead of drinks with those pair).

On hearing the approaching rotors, Reed would excitedly bound outside. He’d then raise his shotgun to the skies and attempt to rattle his incoming, airborne mucka by taking pot shots as the rasping downdraft blasted the heaps of rhododendron.

‘I’m shooting at the moon’ boomed the celebrated film star as high velocity ball bearings nicked the tail rotor and fuselage. Reed thought all this absolutely hilarious (he also once climbed the chimney of his local naked pretending to be Santa and was barred). Astonishingly, no actors or rock stars were harmed during this jovial discharge of lethal weaponry.

Perhaps that’s what Reed meant when he mentioned having a few shots round at his.

From great actors to great frontmen.

Full metal jacket

At the height of Guns & Roses implosion with band members in court and millions of dollars in dispute, it’s said that Axl Rose attempted to buy his own army.

Yep, an army.

Growing ever more disillusioned by his band’s demise, Axl’s ‘people’ apparently rang several departments of defence around the world asking if they’d consider offloading a battalion or two. Maybe chucking in a bit of artillery with the deal too.

They’d be well paid and well equipped. A penchant for rock & roll was considered more important than valour or stamina. General Rose needs you. Apply here.

Quite what Axl and his Defence Secretary elect planned to do with an army if they were successful in their bidding still remains unknown to this day. He’d tasted global domination musically so now perhaps it was time to up the stakes.

Bigger Guns but same sized Roses. You can have that one.

Playing at it

Truth is, the world needs the likes of Oli’ and Axl. People talk of disruption nowadays because they tweaked a logo or sponsored a whole break instead of running the obligatory 30′ spot. Oooh, you’re so rebellious.

That’s just playing at it. After such a shit year, agencies and brands should make a noise like never before in 2021. Do something that becomes folklore. Be famous. We’ve all had a rocky year, now we need to roll.

So aim high and you’ll win the battle AND the war – but don’t wait for others to pick up sticks.

Be (or even buy) your own army and always, always remember…Be Fierce. 

Disruption in advertising

If you’d like some real disruption, send us a note saying: ‘Reserve me a spot on the helipad, I’m landing at 2 for shots’ here.

Lockdown..or showdown.

Keeping clients out of copyright jail – If you’re going to breach copyright in these testing times, you could (grimly) reap what you sow.

I read with intrigue the other day that during lockdown, breaches of copyright and unlicensed usage of music and images had hit a ten year high.

Perhaps it’s because the culprits think the world has enough on its plate to bother with the odd unlicensed track or rogue, rights managed image.

‘Sod it, they say, stick it in the paper – who’s to know?’

10,000 years ago, Jon and I had the good fortune of befriending a very talented radio producer who’d also worked extensively in the music industry.

His tales of pop world antics were scurrilous, salacious and to be honest, utterly libellous so most can’t be repeated.

A story that won’t light a million beacons for the more litigious readers out there always sticks with me though – and relates to a music copyright breach on a galactic scale.

Someone putting together a campaign for an expansive and well known chain of liquor stores in the mid-west penned a ‘You’ll find it in the chiller’ campaign tagline.

Thriller in a manilla envelope

Thing is, they inserted said tagline into a ‘version’ of a little known pop song.

Dunno if you’ve heard of it?

It was ‘Thriller’ by Michael Jackson.

No permissions were sought on usage. Nothing mentioned about bastardising lyrics. Who cares. Who’s to know?

And hey, if you’re going to breach copyright, why not choose one of the most famous songs ever written in the history of music taken from an album that is still among the biggest selling of all time?

Go large or……go to prison (as it turned out).

In fact the ensuing litigation hit with such might & fright, it closed the chain down. Graveyard dead.

More suits than a Burton sale.

It carries a valuable lesson and we often recount this story to our team at OBB towers.

Chill in lockdown by all means. But don’t go ‘doing a chiller’ eh?

‘They’re out to get you’ as the song in question goes.

If you’d like us to keep you on the right side of the law or maybe bail you out, drop us a note saying: ‘I’m sick of constant porridge from my current agency’ here.

Could you repeat that?

Repetition in advertising bears repeating

In 12 minutes, the line ‘A million dreams’ was said, sung and whispered by Hugh Jackman’s entourage 17 times (20 if you include the dishwasher sesh). 17 times in 12 minutes. It was too much for me. So on returning from the kitchen, the film was speedily switched off.

The line (amongst other things) had completely exhausted my interest in continuing to engage with the film. I know repetition can be a good thing though, so where do you strike the right balance?

Effective frequency

If you work in advertising, you might have come across the term ‘effective frequency’, used to describe the number of times your consumer needs to be exposed to your message to elicit the desired response – be that buying your product, or actually remembering your message at all. Experts debate the best ways of calculating this number though, with arguments suggesting it could be anywhere between 3 and 20. It’s an idea that’s almost 140 years old, and still people can’t make up their minds. Here’s the basic idea though:

1st time – people look but don’t see your ad
2nd time – they don’t notice it
5th time – they read it
7th time – they get annoyed by it
9th time – they wonder if they’re missing out
13th time – they wonder if your product has value
17th time – they make a commitment to buy
20th time – they buy

This ‘more frequency = more effective’ approach was proposed by savvy marketer Thomas Smith in 1885(!) . And TBH, the majority still agree. Yes there needs to be enough concentration of media weight to cross certain thresholds, but the general consensus remains that messages are more effective when repeated. Studies have also shown consumers perceive repeated messaging as more truthful and believable, presumably because frequency breeds familiarity, and familiarity breeds trust. This is further supported when you consider repeated exposure to an opinion makes people believe the opinion is more prevalent, and therefore assume it’s a popular opinion. In social psych circles this is known as ‘the repetition effect’, and is the cornerstone of modern political campaigning as well as more workaday advertising.

Less is more, more often

So – fewer lines communicated more frequently. That makes loadsa sense, and there’s research and psychological insight to back it up. But all too soon you’ll hear a client utter those dreaded words: We. Need. A. Revamp. This is totally fine if there’s a good business reason, supported by facts, logic and research. However, more often than not, people make this decision because they’re bored. Seriously.

If you’ve been involved in developing a campaign – or you’re inheriting one – you can understand why boredom might arise. You see that same line everywhere you look. Not only have you spent six months planning its launch, seen it all over TV, heard it all over radio, and watched engagement with it on social, it’s now on every wall, notepad and screensaver you walk past when you’re in the office.

Your boredom threshold isn’t an indicator

But trust me, you’ll be bored of it a LONG time before your consumers will even notice it. They haven’t nurtured it from scamp to screen. They need time, sometimes years, to orientate to your message, and as shown above, they need exposure to it a lot before they’ll even care about what you’re trying to say. It’s also worth remembering that when they do take notice, they’ll likely only remember one thing about your ad – a strong claim, or a strong concept.

I am not saying don’t run new campaigns, don’t look at new creative executions, or don’t try new channels to market. BUT brands have got to listen when it comes to advice around not changing lines when they’re far from being exhausted. Give your audience time. There’s a chasm of difference between a rebrand and a refresh.

A million times I heard it

So, I guess to adhere to traditional blog writing etiquette I should try and relate my closing lines to my opening ones – so here’s my scientific conclusion.

‘A million dreams’ played the frequency card, but missed the all important effective point. According to Elder Smith, I should have gone through several stages of ignorance, irritance and intrigue before my 17th exposure to the line and it made me think ‘yep, this is for me’. Oh well, this is why advertising ain’t the same as The Greatest Showman I guess. Glad we’re clear on that.

Maybe I was the wrong audience, or maybe the film is just shit. Guess I’ll never know.

Repetition in advertising bears repeating

If you’re tired of repeating yourself with your current agency, drop us a note saying:. ‘I’d like to have a chat about my marketing… I said I’d like to… oh, never mind’ here.

Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes

Human behavioural changes

It’s three weeks on, and there’s things I miss. The office banter, going swimming, shopping without being shouted at for ‘panic buying’ four yoghurts. I even miss the bloody commute. But, there’s good stuff. Less makeup, more reading, less rush, more family video calls (yes that is a positive). I’ve discovered more of my home city on a daily morning run than I’ve managed in the last two years. My thoughts and behaviours have changed quite a lot in just 25 days.

‘Turn and face the strange’ – Bowie

And I know behavioural change is being lived by everyone to varying degrees. The planet is participating in the kind of mass behaviour change marketers only dream of. There’s a new common knowledge all humans are learning to react to.

‘Life won’t be the same after all this shit will it’, suggested one of my less reserved friends in a group WhatsApp chat. A statement that, principally, I don’t disagree with, but would argue that perhaps several months of lifestyle adaptation might not mean our behaviour will be unrecognisable when we’re finally out the other side of this ‘shit’. And here’s why.

‘If you ever get close to a human, and human behaviour, be ready, be ready to get confused’ – Björk

Right, some psychology. Social norms refer to the unstated rules of a group, which as human beings we spend our lives trying to be part of. And they’re incredibly important as they shape both our human behaviour and attitudes. So, you guessed it. Change the social norms, and you’ll likely see shifts in behaviour, both physical and emotional. (So it’s not really that confusing, Björk).

And human behaviour is incredibly pliable. The change in social norms we’re experiencing now are unlike any other. But humans are built to respond, to adapt. To survive. It’s how opinions get changed, behaviours switch, and ultimately the exact kind of thing marketing relies on. Humans want to be part of a group – and communications that balance education and emotion help make sure your prospects pick your gang over your competitor.

A beautifully simple example of this is the Piano Stairs, originally pioneered in Stockholm, and subsequently spotted worldwide. You can watch the video HERE. The simple idea of using fun to change group behaviours. People weren’t told to take the stairs – they actively chose to because 1. It was fun, and 2. Everyone else was doing it. A new little social norm was created. And when they were removed? People had built such a positive association, they continued to use the boring ole’ stairs anyway.

‘It’s alright, it’s alright, it’s alright, it’s really alright’ – East 17

What’s this got to do with anything again? Well, these people tweaked their behaviour to follow a new norm, and be part of a group. They didn’t forget how to use an escalator. I’m currently keeping a distance of two metres from all other humans. But it doesn’t mean I’ve forgotten how to shake someone’s hand. I’m commuting to my kitchen, but still remember how to board a train.

All I am saying is human beings have been learning how to behave for thousands of years. So however long the weirdness goes on for, it won’t be long enough to undo all that work (seriously, it won’t).

Little new norms are nothing to be scared of, and who knows – maybe they’ll have a positive effect on behaviour once we’re out the other side. Maybe society will keep taking the stairs. There’s behaviours I want to stick with – keeping in touch more, getting out more, and without sounding too #UnFierce, actually appreciating what I have, and not focusing on what I don’t.

Ah, I almost forgot. It felt quite poignant to share a 20th March birthday with this person.

‘We’ll meet again, don’t know where, don’t know when, but I know we’ll meet again’ – Dame Vera Lynn (now aged 103)

Keep smiling through, guys.

Human behavioural changes

If you’re looking to change the way your audience behaves, drop us a note saying: ‘Got any change geezer?’ here.

Where do you get your ideas from?

Where do ideas come from?

Great ideas can come from anywhere.
Trust me, Rich and I have been escaping the office for nearly 30 years to have them.
Finding little hideaways without a phone signal (that occasionally serve a glass of vino or two) and avoiding the pressures of sitting in an office. Texting each other at 2am with a brainwave that at 8am never seems to be quite so great. Chatting over a problem while wandering round the block only to solve a completely different one.

With the recent trend of that dreaded open plan environment taking over agency layouts, creative inspiration has been harder and harder to come by within such an environment.

So embrace this new WFH clampdown we’re being forced into. The ideas will still flow and you’ll find yourself even more productive and creative.

It’s all a bit rubbish outside, folks queuing for petrol (even though they have nowhere to go) and losing their shit over loo roll in a ram-raided supermarket.
We’re fortunate to work in an industry that has the technology to stay in contact with our colleagues and clients and hey, the best ideas tend to spill out onto a blank piece of paper (my favourite weapon of choice – a 2B pencil, I know, total dinosaur).

My rules for working away from the office:
Have a kettle nearby.
Get half dressed, at the very least and be ready for one of those unflattering video calls.
Mix up lunchtimes and make sure you take one. Remember garlic and warming up last night’s curry are now socially acceptable.
Find a table to sit at. Laptops tend to overheat when on your knee and you yawn too much lounging on a sofa or in bed.
Put something on in the background to break the silence – not rolling news.
Podcasts are all the rage these days. My favourites are Dave Dye (of course), Behind The Billboard (just wonderful listening) Top Flight Time Machine (very blokey and very sweary), Full Disclosure (bit lefty but so am I), Undr The Cosh (hilarious football related chat while the season’s cancelled) and The Verb (with friend of the agency, Ian McMillan)
Make sure there’s someone on the other end of a phone/chat to bounce off or you’ll be soon bouncing off the walls.
Ban yourself from the treat jar until at least 3pm. Same applies to social media, too many rabbit holes.
Stick to office hours. It’s easy to give yourself a prolonged break and then end up spending all evening catching up. This is when the 2am thoughts creep in.

While it’s all going to hell in a handcart out there (and I really don’t mean to be flippant, as some people really are suffering or simply cannot work remotely) please try and keep your sanity if this whole ‘social distancing’ is new to you. You’re not on your own, well you are but you know what I mean.

Dare to Swear

Dare to swear in advertising

On the day the final episode of Dracula aired, I walked past this ad in Grand Central. It wasn’t the abrasive red that caught my eye. It was the term “bloody legend”.

Whilst appreciating the double meaning, I was still surprised to see the term on a D6 at 5pm. The wordplay didn’t offend, but it did get me thinking about the use of swear words in advertising.

Back in December BrewDog fell foul of the ASA following its OOH campaign for alcohol-free beer, Punk AF.

The opportunity for children to see the ad topped a list of 26 complaints. Hardly a mass outcry – but being seen to break rules of social responsibility, the campaign was removed.

This isn’t the first time swearing has got the brewers into hot water. But this is a rebellious brand that thrive on making waves. In fact point three of their BrewDog Charter states ‘We blow shit up. We take risks’. For BrewDog, swearing is part of their identity. It’s artistic expression. It’s free speech.

But whilst swearing attracts complaints, it can also invite positive attention. So is it context that makes a difference? Can swearing in advertising be 1. Acceptable, and 2. Necessary?

Abso-fucking-lutely.

Swearing is a relatively new area of psychological exploration, as people strive to understand its emotional power beyond being associated with mild pain relief (there’s a scientific reason we don’t shout ‘oh dear’ when we trap our fingers in a door).

One theory suggests swearing makes people feel more aggressive and impassioned. Studies in the US have also concluded that the use of swear words can be perceived as an intelligent use of language. Great oratory has three components: style, substance, and impact – all of which rely on masterful construction, worthy themes, and eliciting emotional response. I appreciate Martin Luther King didn’t have ‘a fucking dream!’. But I still think there’s some legs in this theory.

So, swinging this back to advertising – it appears swearing can enhance a message. And for a brand I guess this could mean four key things.

Power

Firstly, swearing can suggest a greater sense of power, control and authenticity, boosting confidence in a brand as well as our motivation to engage with it. It can be used as a source of humour, representing a release from normal social constraints (the BrewDog ad above did this beautifully). It can allow an audience to align itself with a brand’s beliefs, helping you identify with a certain group and connect to a deeper level. Finally, and I think most importantly, swearing can be a way of signalling that a brand really means something.

And like with BrewDog, effective sweary advertising doesn’t have to be explicit.

Booking.com’s 2015 ad for ‘Booking Right’ became the second most complained about ad of all time as it used the word ‘booking’ in place of an obviously implied expletive. No complaints were upheld however.

In a similar guise, Oxfam’s ‘Give A Shift’ movement to encourage volunteer sign ups used swearing in plain sight to deliver a refreshing slap to the senses.

This worked because it was delivered innocently enough that you didn’t feel like the brand were trying to shoehorn in a rude second meaning for cheap effect.

And yes, don’t worry. I haven’t forgotten the best cheeky swearing ad that made people forget a chicken shop had no chicken.

Flex

Digital Mums UK demonstrated though how swearing can fail for being “too clever” when their 2018 OOH campaign was banned for screaming “HEY, YOU IN THE SILVER CAR. EVER THOUGHT ABOUT F******* WORKING?”. It turns out it wasn’t obvious enough that there were enough asterisks there to cover the word ‘flexible’.

Things are changing though. As the world becomes more social, information more accessible, and competition for attention more fraught, it looks as though ASA, CAP and Clearcast rules could be relaxing. One day, people won’t be shocked to see the word ‘shit’ written on a 48 sheet without any asterisks or deceptive wordplay.

Under the right circumstances, being controversial can work wonders. But it isn’t everyone’s cup of tea. Done badly, out of context, or only used as a shock tactic, it can both offend and diminish brand equity, alienating your earned audience, and pissing off your prospects too.

But if you’re the kind of brand whose fans might appreciate a few feisty choice words then it could definitely be used to your advantage.

Here’s to the bloody legends pushing the boundaries.

Dare to swear in advertising

If you’re looking for someone to have a good old potty mouth rant with, drop us a note saying:. ‘Get your bleedin’ arses round here pronto. I’ve got the mother of all briefs for you to look at’ here.

Advertising Space

Advertising space.

The 60s were a time of economic prosperity, with disposable income and leisure time reaching new heights.

Although this was a decade of creativity, the ad industry was chastised for the way it promoted materialism and consumerism. Brands had to dig deep to come up with clever ways to connect with a new type of audience. That saw conventional approaches thrown out of the window, and replaced with new forms of advertising, frequently exemplified by comedy, irony, and self-deprecation.

Think small

Surely the best example of this is DDB’s work with VW. Celebrating the flaws of the Beetle; a car named after a bug, that was slow, weird looking, and took ages to manufacture. Headline gems including ‘Think Small’. ‘Lemon’. ‘It makes your house look bigger’. And ‘If you run out of gas, it’s easy to push’ were neatly placed alongside simple art direction, creating a thoroughly intriguing print ad that you needed to take notice of.

And with TV spend doubling, and print formats a popular choice for advertisers, this advertising was given the perfect platforms to make a real statement.

It was plucky messaging done big – blurring the lines between art and commerce. It started conversations. There was a point to it. Its appeal gave it longevity. And it led the charge for advertising courage.

Better value?

Fast forward 50 years and it’s a different story. Tech advances have boosted investment in insta-program-AI-real-time-sponsored-mobile-video-post-content. But this doesn’t mean it’s delivering better value. Evidence suggests so-called ‘dead’ channels including TV, radio, print and OOH are still the most effective. These allow brands to deliver messaging to a mass audience, and thus creating a common knowledge. In contrast, the granular targeting capabilities of modern digital advertising reaches consumers at an individual level, with lots of individual messages. They’re tiny ads that can only change one mind at a time. With engagement usually demonstrated via an empty ‘like’, rather than a memorable response.

Bravery

And as ads have shrunk, so too has the courage to do things differently. With content focusing on instant information delivery over brand building. Yes, there’s plenty of other social, political, economical and ethical factors that have affected this swing, but brand bravery has taken a hit. 

Picture a new ad revolution where creativity is always celebrated, nerve is rewarded, and rule-breaking is respected. 

When it comes to making a bold statement, the ad industry has taken one giant leap in some respects, and one small step in others.

Advertising space.

If you’d like to talk to us about how we think big even for the tineiest of media placements, drop us a note saying:. ‘I’d like you to big my brand up’ here.

Come on in, the water’s lovely.

Brand deep dive – Having trouble finding a team prepared to dive deep enough to understand your brand?
OBB could well be your lifeline.

Deep sea divers are in short supply.

The North Sea oil business offers rich pickings for those who brave its frigid depths to repair pipelines and the like – often in excess of £200k for 6 months work.

Cue sharp intake of breath.

So the money’s decent but it’s also highly dangerous. Once back on terra firma the decompression and recovery process is more lengthy than that of a returning astronaut.

The stress to complete a job before oxygen levels run thin is immense. Injuries are commonplace due to huge, submerged machinery and visibility is often extremely poor.

Not one for snowflakes then – that’s for sure.

As you’d expect, robots have replaced the more routine tasks however humans still do the more involved, exploratory exercises requiring huge experience and insight.

Something that sorts the good agencies from the others perhaps? Especially if this report is to be believed.

Often it’s tough finding those prepared to venture out further than the shoreline in order to really extol the virtues of  your brand.

But journey a bit further out and that’s where pearls are found.

Our band of intrepid adventurers remain calm around unearthly pressures or inclement deadlines.

So wave a hand to the ditherers in the shallows because you’ve just found a bunch of rare deep dive thinkers.

Thanks for reading. And breathe.

If you’d like to send us into the abyss, drop us a note saying: ‘How’s the visibility down there?’ here.

Banged to rights.

Can you trust the data?

Channel 4 have just launched a new series ‘Banged Up – Teens behind bars’.
The premise is: “Difficult Brits do time in a full-on Florida jail” and as a result will be scared into seeing the error of their ways and adjust their current behaviour and attitude to crime before it becomes too late.

In his book ‘Black Box Thinking’, Matthew Syed explains how the same experiment took place in the late 1970s in New York. In a programme titled ‘Scared Straight’, the idea was exactly the same. Take a bunch of delinquent (or near-delinquent) teens and introduce them to real inmates. These would both be intimidating and terrifying in delivering what real life is like for hardened criminals in one of the world’s most notorious prisons.

It makes for great television. Parents love it as a tool to hopefully cut through all the nagging. Kids love it as they watch and think they’re too cool or ‘hard’ to be intimidated by it. The exact same emotions of those families participating. However, the bravado soon turns to tears and on the face of it, they commit to change their ways.

Oscar winner

The 1979 film won an Oscar for best documentary feature and the programme was rolled out across the world. It was massively effective and backed by judges, prison warders and a whole host of experts. The data was amazing and Judge George Nicola said “When you view the programme and review the statistics that have been collected, there is no doubt in my mind… that the juvenile awareness project… is perhaps the most effective, inexpensive deterrent in the entire correctional process.”

20 years after the original broadcast, in 1999, the documentary crew revisited the original seventeen teenagers. The results did indeed appear to be as brilliant and solid as had been stated. When interviewed they talked about their new lives and how their visit to the prison had put them on the right track. Their stories were inspirational to all who watched, from stealing cars to becoming a preacher. From drug dealing to a book-keeper and mother. One by one they credited the programme with saving them from a life of crime.
The stats backed it all up too. Evidence presented spoke of an 80-90% of attendees going straight and was hailed as “An amazing success story… unequalled by traditional rehabilitation methods.”

Hold on a minute

Then something happened. A professor of Criminal Justice, named James Finckenauer decided to look a little deeper into the data and statistics. He wanted to know how the 80-90% success figure had been arrived at. It was through responses to a four question questionnaire sent to parents of the teenagers who had taken part in the prison visits.
He didn’t believe this method was particularly robust or reliable.
The organisations and agencies responsible for running the programme were asked to write letters of commendation. In essence, asked to mark their own homework and determine future investment.
The professor then looked into the background of the thousands of teenage participants before the visit. They found many of them were not delinquent before, so how solid was the assertion that they had changed their behaviour?
Finally, the questionnaires to parents were often sent out within a few weeks of the prison visit and only the ones who responded were included in the data. So it was entirely plausible that only the parents of kids who had shown a positive response to the visit actually bothered to fill them in.
Add to this, the data never looked to any other mitigating factors. What was happening at home? Was anything being done different at school? Even, how was the economy performing? All possible contributing elements that were ignored.

Evidence ignored

Finckenauer conducted his own research by holding treatment groups vs control groups. The evidence now was overwhelming that the programme DID NOT WORK. More than that, the teenagers who went through the programme were more likely to get caught up in a life of crime. The damage it did to them psychologically tipped the vulnerable over the edge. In some instances, crime amongst participant groups increased as much as 28%.

With rigorous research proving overwhelmingly that ‘Scared Straight’ didn’t work and even worse had the opposite effect to that desired, how did the authorities react? You’d expect them to instantly drop it but here’s the interesting thing. Cognitive dissonance kicked in. The top brass were so invested in it as they’d been doing it for years. They believed the data told them it was the right thing to do. They couldn’t admit it had been a waste of time and money and worse still, was even having an adverse effect. So much of them and their reputation was invested in the programme. There was no way they were going to allow themselves to look like they had got it wrong. That they had in fact been fooled by dodgy data and measuring techniques.
40 years later and here we go again. Sending British kids into a situation that is proven to be dangerous for their future. Having learned nothing because the data being used is selective and the emotion (and TV viewability) attached to it means we want to believe it works.

Data junkies

Sad really and of course we’d never blindly follow false and misleading data in our own world, would we?
We wouldn’t ignore the stats about digital ad-fraud because 10+ years ago we were promised a new era of advertising accountability.
Collectively we’d scoff at anyone who suggested last click data wasn’t the most important metric and anything before that moment was vitally important.
We’d de-friend anyone who exposed the latest social fad, showing it was misusing our personal information to hound us with awful information and change our voting habits.
We’d close our ears to the merest implication that voice activated devices were gathering information on what you want for dinner tonight.
And of course we would all take with a pinch of salt the amazing results generated in agency case studies. Presented on their spangly websites and whizz bang creds documents.
Agencies and clients up and down the land are so invested in the shiny new toys that we’re terrified that the uprising of real information will show us all to have been hoodwinked. The digital revolution made everything accountable but never more so has the old saying of ‘lies, damn lies and statistics’ been more relevant.

The Emporor has no clothes

How would we ever explain to the boardrooms holding the purse strings that we got it all wrong? We can’t, we daren’t. So we keep on doing it. Cognitive dissonance insists we pretend everything is okay. That if we don’t trust in the data, someone else will and in turn win the battle for expenditure.

Maybe it’s time to be fierce and get back to doing what we agencies have always done best. Creating work that shifts perceptions and product and concentrating on one metric. Sales.

You can and should get hold of a copy of Black Box Thinking here.

Can you trust the data?

If you’d like an honest appraisal of what metrics you should really be looking at, drop us a note saying:. ‘I just want to sell more stuff’ here.

Wake up and smell the coffee tax

Carrot or stick marketing

Pret offer 50p off a purchase if you bring in a reusable cup. Leon offer 45p, and Costa 25p reduction in price. A great approach to save these businesses and I money, whilst minimising waste to save the world at the same time. The second point being most poignant when you consider the UK throws away 5,000 coffee cups a minute!

Starbucks on the other hand went from offering 25p off (which saw a 126% increase in the use of reusable cups) to adding an extra 5p to the standard purchase price if you didn’t. Whilst this initiative seems to stem from a similar idea, to me the message is very different. Buy from Leon, Costa or Pret and I’m rewarded. But now buy from Starbucks and I’m penalised. It’s carrot and stick with added caffeine.

Pret reported a 10-fold increase is the use of reusable cups, and equally all chains seem to be reporting a positive behavioural change. They could all have the same ethics and positive intentions, but to me it doesn’t feel like they do. Varying offers suggest varying levels of commitment to a cause. Indeed, Pret’s CEO Clive Schlee stated the chain “would prefer to be generous to our customers than tax them”. Unlike our friends at Starbucks then?

The products for sale aren’t really that different, and I have no allegiance to one brand or another. But my perception of the brands differs a lot.

Let’s filter this a bit…

Whilst the term was initially used as a way for farmers to identify their animals, by the late 1880s the term ‘brand’ was used to differentiate products against their more generic competition. 100 years later, David Ogilvy defined a brand as ‘the intangible sum of a product’s attributes’. So, a brand essentially is, and apparently always has been, an artificial creation that helps consumers differentiate one product from another. So that’s pretty straightforward.

But there’s a fascinating relationship between brand and brand perception. The former being owned by a company and the latter owned by the consumer. Brand owners may feel they understand exactly what their brand represents by stamping their stamp on a product. However, this may be more reflective of their aspirations for the brand, rather than the reality of public opinion. Negative brand perception will not only make people more likely to turn to rival brands, but encourage them to share unfavourable opinions with others, fuelling further negative sentiment. Your real ‘brand’ could be released in to the wild before you can say frappé-caffé-mocha-chino. Not great when you consider humans use a lot more energy analysing and picking apart negative views and experiences than they do positive ones.

Bean counters

Back to the money point. Whilst there’s an environmental action that needs to be taken, these corporate giants will obviously have eyes on the money saving results these incentives bring. But brand perception is inextricably linked with a company’s bottom line, so actually negative reaction to these incentives could be doing more harm than good. And I know the money off idea doesn’t work every time. People only stopped using disposable carrier bags when the mandatory charge was introduced. Not because supermarkets said you could get your shopping any cheaper. And on the flip side, incentives don’t always rely on a money off approach anyway – you still collect stickers from paper cups at McDonalds – an incentive that actually encourages the use of more disposable cups. A pretty outdated approach considering today’s environmental concerns.

Reusable

Anyway reader, I got my coffee. In a reusable cup. At a reduced price. That’s one less cup in the bin, and a few pennies saved for me. And the decision of where I purchased this heavenly beverage was mine, not the brand’s. Their incentive got my interest, but it was the way they executed their incentive, and what I discovered while writing this that ultimately made my decision.

I guess like a decent coffee, to instil behavioural change through incentives, brands need to invest in incentives perceived as strong, full of body, and give you a warm, happy feeling. Not weak, milky, and leaving a bad taste in your mouth.

Carrot or stick marketing

If you’d like to have a coffee with us and discuss marketing incentives, drop us a note saying:. ‘Mine’s a frappé-caffé-mocha-chino please’ here.

It’s time I faced up to things

Advertising and the subconscious

I am working in my third agency. At my first agency, my manager always asked me to deliver information “In a nutshell please Beth!” when time was of the essence, and my detailed narrations were perceived to be a little much. In my second agency, it appeared I had mastered the art of verbal summary but to the detriment of my expressions.

Having observed my capabilities in a client meeting, this next manager took me to one side. She politely advised me that I had absolutely lost control of my face. She’d apparently observed a variety of eye widening, nostril flaring and brow furrowing movements. Unknown to me, these were explicitly showcasing my unimpressed-ness to everyone in the room.

When I joined One Black Bear, I warned the team about this impairment. I’m less Mona Lisa. More Mr. Bean.

But having explored how the way we communicate is changing in my last blog, maybe my face isn’t quite as dysfunctional as I originally thought. If what we see can truly convey emotion better than what we hear or read, then facial expressions could reveal more than what we say, and even what we think.

Take it at face value

Even when we try very hard to hide our real feelings, our faces will often display the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And the reason for this is pretty straightforward. Actors and pathological liars aside, human emotions are an unconscious reaction, typically lasting up to four seconds, and displayed via facial muscles. But four seconds is a long time, and there’s plenty that can go wrong in that time.

In the 1960s psychologists coined the term ‘Micro-expression’. Typically lasting a fraction of a second, micro-expressions are an innate result of an involuntary emotional response. Occurring when the brain responds appropriately to the stimulus that a person experiences, but need to hide. This results in a very brief display of a true emotion, followed by a false reaction to cover it up. It was originally thought that micro-expressions were mostly negative, encompassing disgust, anger, fear, contempt etc. Though in the 1990s, these were expanded to include more positive sentiments like pride, pleasure and amusement.

So, back to my face for a second. It could be that my micro-expressions are too long (though working in client management, I’m opting for the term ‘thorough’). My micro’s gone macro. But I am an honest person. And as neither a professional actor, nor pathological liar (though if I was both how would you know I was either?) I can only assume that while my face is broken, it is telling the truth. And if there is so much truth to uncover, could studying these facial reactions bring a new perspective to marketing research?

Say it to my face

The core of marketing research lies in understanding what people think and feel. But if people aren’t always aware of their own perceptions, they could be consciously saying one thing, but unconsciously really thinking another.

We already know that effective advertising appeals to emotions. Keeping in mind the fact that people aren’t always aware of their expressions, the use of things like eye tracking and facial coding can bring a new dimension to research. And thinking about other variables that can affect a ‘truthful’ verbal or written reaction (Is this what they want to hear? Will one answer benefit me over another? Am I in a good mood? Do I have time for this?) this could be really important.

Tui tested this out, asking people their thoughts on the impact, execution, and message of one of their ads. At the same time, they used facial coding to gauge the same insight. This second implicit approach uncovered that next to dominant expressions of mainly positive emotions towards the advert. People also showed signs of anger and sadness that weren’t apparent through explicit questioning. Aligning changes in facial expression with actual scenes in the advert also allowed Tui to pinpoint when particular emotions were displayed, delivering clear guidelines for optimisation. But advertisers still need a combination of the two. Analysis of facial expressions provide important insight, but will not explain why these reactions occurred. Feeding this information back to people will allow for emotional validation, but more importantly allow for a better understanding of the reasons behind them.

Time for a face off

I guess my face works at One Black Bear as the agency prides itself on intuition. We aren’t afraid to ask questions and dig deeper to find the real drivers behind what’s being said and, importantly, what isn’t.

So, as a message to my manager from agency two, maybe it’s ok that my face doesn’t always work, so long as I can explain why this is, and get myself out of any trouble when I need to. In fact, perhaps my face conveys so much information, I may never have to speak again – music to the ears of my manager from agency one.

Advertising and the subconscious

If you’d like to see our reaction to a shiny new brief, drop us a note saying:. ‘Is that a little glint of fire in your eye?’ here.