Going negative can be positive but results may vary
Back in the early 70s I was fascinated by the book Subliminal Seduction which made a big splash by purporting to expose the nefarious techniques that the advertising industry was using to get us to buy, buy, buy. Everything from airbrushing (how quaint) silhouettes of naked women onto ice cubes (maybe that’s where my teenage fascination came from) to imprinting the word “S-E-X-” in Ritz Crackers. Of course these claims have been roundly denied and James Vicary’s infamous “Drink Coca-Cola” movie theater study has been soundly debunked.
Now comes a study from UCL Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience that seems to show that subliminal messaging can in fact be perceived and negatives are more readily identified than positives. From the announcement:
Today the journal Emotion publishes a study led by Professor Nilli Lavie (UCL Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience), which provides evidence that people are able to process emotional information from subliminal images and demonstrates conclusively that even under such conditions, information of negative value is better detected than information of positive value.
I wasn’t that surprised that we can pick up subliminal messages. One, because everything I’ve ever heard about the human brain is that it can process information really quickly. Say, in the blink of eye. Second, because I’m a victim. And so are you. We are influenced by subliminal messages everyday. These aren’t images or words secretly inserted into movies or advertisements to influence us. They are things we notice but that have deeper meaning than what is on the surface – like the model who is talking about a new automobile, the photograph chosen to depict a vacation spot or the smell of fresh roasted coffee beans coming from a coffee shop.
What did surprise me was that negative words and images were better perceived than positive.
The researchers found that the participants answered most accurately when responding to negative words – even when they believed they were merely guessing the answer.
(In marketing) “Negative words may have more of a rapid impact,” she explained. “‘Kill your speed’ should be more noticeable than ‘Slow down’. More controversially, highlighting a competitor’s negative qualities may work on a subliminal level much more effectively than shouting about your own selling points.”
So if this is true (and not being a researcher I have no way to evaluate the veracity of the study) when and how do we wield this power? Do we assume an “anything goes in the battle for sales” posture and go negative at will? Or should we consider the wider ramifications of the constant use of negative imagery and words to make a point. What is the long-term affect on a brand that sells from a negative position. What would be the long-term affect on society as a whole?
I was involved in a conversation around this topic recently when a client responded unfavorably to a differentiation statement I had written. The approach I had taken was to begin by stating the problem so readers would appreciate the gravity of the situation. He saw it as being fear based - in other words, negative - and didn’t believe that kind of approach would work. His feeling was that a fear-based message was unbecoming of an industry leader and that it would potentially do more harm than good for the brand. (I understood his concern but still believe that acknowledging a factual condition is not being negative but instructive.)
This article, The Wizard of Beck by David Brooks of the NYT, (published 10/2/09) discusses, among other things, the non-results of the “all negative all the time” tactics of ultra-conservative radio hosts during the 2008 presidential primaries.
Then there is this new campaign from 1800 Tequila.
Not exactly over the top negative. But still, taking cheap shots at the leader of the category? Not exactly the message a brand that is trying to gain back the super premium tequila crown should be delivering. Petty is a trait of followers not leaders.
So what to do with this new found power of negative? As with most questions like this, the answer is a definitive “it depends.” What are the desired results? Will the brand gain in the short term but loose long term? How will customers react? Will anyone be hurt?
The researchers suggest that evolution may play a roll in the dominance of negative emotions. It is clearly advantageous to quickly perceive and react to a threat or warning. But what about our inborn desire to be happy? Isn’t there instinct there, too? Maybe for humans survival is more important than feeling good. For your brand? You’ll have to make that decision on your own.
Thanks to MediaPost for first calling my attention to the referenced study. You can find their writeup here.
Written by: Bruce Kaechele
Email the author: brucek@fathom.net
The researchers suggest that evolution may play a roll in the dominance of negative emotions.
thats not a bad ideea,yes yes yes!
Post a Comment