ZenithOptimedia’s Richard Shotton explains how a simple office experiment can shine light on how consumers react to messaging.
One behaviour that links offices everywhere is that food left out is fair game. Whilst this irritates those trying to keep hold of their lunch it provided us with a natural laboratory to test how communications work.
The experiment was simple. We broke up a few big bars of chocolate, placed the pieces on a platter in the kitchen and left a message asking people to help themselves. We then surreptitiously timed how long it took for the food to be taken.
The next day, at the same time, we repeated the experiment but with a twist. The message no longer just said “Please help yourself”. Instead we added “no-one has spat on the chocolate”. Then, just as before, we timed how long it took to go.
Now, if you believe that communications are interpreted at face value then the second message should be more appealing. After all it stresses that not only is the chocolate free but also that it’s uncontaminated with spit. A pretty good combo you’d think.
[advert position=”left”]
But, perhaps unsurprisingly, our results tell a different story. The chocolate was eaten five times as quickly when accompanied by the simple “Please help yourself” note.
This is not just a gross experiment; it also shines a light on how consumers react to messaging. The exact learnings depend on which explanation for the results you believe.
It might be that the chocolate is left when spit is mentioned because raising a negative, even to dismiss it, makes that problem more salient. This scenario might explain why airlines should avoid talking about safety records, however close to 100% they are.
The alternative explanation is that consumers assume that explicit messaging tells a partial, flattering version of the truth. Therefore, consumers give more credence to a brand’s body language than its claims.
So in this experiment participants might focus not on the message but on the underlying system of belief that led the brand to think mentioning it was a good idea. They’d naturally wonder how bad the standard of hygiene must be for them to think not spitting on chocolate is something to be proud of?
At first glance it might seem that our experiment has few advertising applications. Surely no brand would make such a foolish mistake?
However, any brand running regular promotions is making a similar error. The explicit message might be that the brand is now great value but the implicit message is far from ideal. The natural reaction from a consumer will be to wonder how bad the brand must be if it can’t sell at full price?
Over time a brand that runs repeated promotions will become as unpopular as one that advertises that no-on has spat on it.
Richard Shotton is head of insight at ZenithOptimedia
Twitter: @rshotton
