Why advertisers should strive for distinctiveness
If distinctiveness is such an obvious strategy then why do few brands employ it, asks Richard Shotton.
Thinking differently, or being distinctive, is the best way for brands to overcome the issue of clutter which hinders ad recall.
Academic evidence proving the value of distinctiveness stretches back to 1933 and the pioneering work of Hedwig Von Restorff. The fantastically named German paediatrician gave participants a list of objects and then, after a short time, asked them to remember the items. The results showed that it was the items which stood out from the others that were most recalled.
Recent evidence
The world has changed since 1933 but Hedwig’s findings still stand. ZenithOptimedia recently conducted a test among 500 nationally representative consumers in which they were shown 24 numbers, all written in grey, bar one.
When asked to recall one of the numbers 98% of the participants spontaneously mentioned the number fourteen, which had been written in blue. Distinctiveness ensures memorability.
So if distinctiveness is such an obvious strategy then why do few brands employ it?
[advert position=”left”]
The case of the comparison site market is instructive. At launch all the brands focused on the savings you’d get from them. Comparethemarket.com then broke the mould by shunning dry price messaging and instead relying on the humour of Aleksandr the meerkat. Their sales shot up.
However, it wasn’t long before their competitors reacted with copycat approaches. Quirky spokespeople soon became commonplace.
What should brands do?
One way to be distinctive without fear of being copied is to admit a weakness. The UCLA psychologist, Eliot Aronson, showed in an ingenious experiment that admitting weakness makes people more appealing.
Aronson recorded a colleague answering a series of quiz questions. The colleague, having been primed with the answers, answered 92% of them correctly. At the end of the quiz the colleague then pretended to spill a cup of coffee over himself.
The recording was played to a large sample of students, who were then asked how likeable the contestant was. However, Aronson split the students into cells and played them different versions: one with the spillage included and one without. Overwhelmingly, the students found the clumsy contestant more likeable.
What is true for people is true for products. Three of the most successful ad campaigns ever, Good things come to those who wait, Reassuringly Expensive, Naughty but Nice, all admitted a weakness.
Admitting flaws will always be a minority tactic because of the the principal-agent problem: what is in the interest of the brand, the principal, is not in the interest of the marketing manager, the agent. If the campaign flops then it might be the end of the brand manager’s career.
Imagine explaining to the CEO as sales dive that the key message of your campaign was that the brand was expensive. Even referencing Aronson might not save you.
For safe career progression then this tactic is questionable. However, if you want the best chance of growing your brand then revel in your flaws.
The principal-agent problem ensures it will always be a distinctive approach.
Richard Shotton is head of insight at ZenithOptimedia
Twitter: @rshotton