In doing our jobs we all have certain truths that we hold to be, well, true. Assumptions which influence how we do what we do on a day to day basis.
Here are a couple of mine, when it comes to developing brand comms stuff:
- keep things simple - we live in a complex and cluttered world, so why make things worse;
- paying active attention isn't (neurologically speaking) a necessary condition of success - as someone who was very involved in developing the Low Involvement theory of how ads work, I would say that obviously;
But then you read something which, if not fundamentally changing what you think, does challenge you to look at these truths differently. (see here for a blog piece on reviewing your assumptions, which I have linked to before)
The Neuroscience of Leadership is an article that appeared recently in Strategy + Business. Its particular focus is change management within organisations, and why those organisation often don't want to change. But by looking at this in light of our improving understanding of the brain's inner workings, it is much more broadly relevant as well.
It’s well worth reading in full, but in very brief summary, it makes 4 key points...
- Firstly, that we are (at least when initially presented with new information) hardwired to avoid changing our mind - it's all down to the energy used by the different parts of our brain, and how the 'fight or flight' mechanism links in with this;
- Secondly, that we all have uniquely different mental maps, the internal hardwiring that dictates this 'steady state' our brains like to adhere to - i.e. there is no consistent point of view or set of beliefs that 'everyone' has, and which you need to change (there are only generalities and platitudes): there are as many as there are people;
- Thirdly, that when we do have to make decisions, our brains prefer coming to their own conclusions rather than be told what the answer is, or what they need to do - when we solve a 'problem' for ourselves, the brain gets a beneficial adrenaline-like rush which (unconsciously) reinforces 'self completion' as a more positive approach to challenges we face in life;
- Finally,that attention helps 'fast track' our brains in adopting these new modes of thinking and behaviour - focus helps hardwire new beliefs and behaviours;
Implications?
This suggests my assumptions probably work fine when you are looking to reinforce existing beliefs and behaviour. But when you want people to think or act differently (or the other way round, depending on your position on cognitive dissonance), something more may sometimes be required. And it's here that my assumptions possibly need to bend a bit.
To begin with, there may be time when complexity has advantages over simplicity. Clearly and simply telling people your message seems intuitively sensible. And should deliver great communication scores in pre-testing and tracking. It may even generate trial. But there won't be that epiphany moment that really weds people to new thinking and behaviour (adopting and staying loyal to a new brand, for instance). As an alternative, it could be better sometimes to make people work a bit harder; to allow some (intriguing) confusion up-front, and the buzz of discovery that follows.
Reinforcing the benefits of self completion is the fact that, if our mental maps are all so different, you can't actually guarantee how your carefully prepared message will be received anyway. So introducing some complexity and ambiguity, allowing people to work towards understanding, and letting them come to their own conclusions (based on their own mental maps) may get better results. And though the beliefs and behaviour generated may not be exactly what you intended, were you in complete control, does that really matter if people are positively engaged?
The second way my assumptions might need to change, is in the role attention has to play in this process of self discovery. Maybe there ARE times when focus is a necessary condition for success.
But I would add the following caveat. When talking about attention, I don't mean the 'look at me' flag waving so prevalent in much advertising, where the sole objective seems to be to deliver high ad awareness - i.e. yes, I remember seeing that; and yes I may have even found it entertaining (whether I did anything as a consequence is another matter entirely).
In neurological terms, according to S+B, the kind of attention required to shift belief and behaviour is very different. It is a focused, interactive attention; the attention that comes from involving people and giving them something relevant to do. In this way, mental connections are strengthened to the point where they become hardwired: the new steady state of our mental map.
This combination of self completion born of complexity and interactive attention does, I think, lead to quite a different comms model, one that lends itself particularly well to the digital arena, although that isn't a reason for not doing it elsewhere as well. All I would say though, is that it's probably time for us to find alternatives to the one-size-fits-all marketing panacea (or is that placebo? Look we're doing something!) of 'user generated content'.
So at the end of the day, and as Confucius once said, "tell me, I forget; show me, I remember; involve me, I understand". Which is probably what it's all about really.
