In 1906 Francis Galton, the country's foremost statistician, attended the West of England Fat Stock and Poultry Exhibition and uncovered an intriguing phenomenon.
Does implicit research predict customer behaviour better than conventional (rational) research? Often it does, but this is probably asking the wrong question. Because brands work at both a System 1 (emotional/implicit) level and a System 2 (rational) level, no brand can be fully explained by emotion alone.
What is it that connects the great brands of the internet age? The brands that are constantly referenced by marketers as benchmarks of performance. The inspirational usual suspects from Red Bull, to Apple, to Google, and beyond. What is the behaviour they all share - no matter their market or position in it - that allows them to capture public imagination and escape cynicism and indifference?
Put simply these great brands don't win fans by creating interesting advertising; they win fans by being interesting companies, full stop.
The market-led strategies of the past based on growing consumer segments with increasing spending power won't cut it in a slower-growth global economy. In this guest blog, J. Walker Smith, Executive Chairman at The Futures Company, examines the economic backdrop and the way forward for businesses and brands.
Increasingly, it looks like there's a new normal for the global economy and it worries the current crop of business leaders, who are accustomed to operating in a higher growth economy with stronger consumer spending.
I've just come out of a dispiriting advertising research briefing and I wish I could time-travel back to 1974. The briefing was dispiriting because we're in danger of testing an early-stage, pre-production, TV advertising execution with qualitative research when we should be using the research to understand how the execution works in the hearts and minds of our target audience, and to provide objective feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of that execution. This research should be an aid to decision making, not act as judge and jury, handing down a 'Go/No Go' verdict. It's this idea of 'testing' that is so dangerous. And I've said all this.
About a decade ago, Copernicus Consulting did a research study in the US to look at how we saw brands. Its most startling finding to me was the lack of differentiation people saw between brands. Four out of five categories were seen to have increasingly homogeneous brands and only 7% of ads were seen as different. The lack of remarkability was in itself remarkable.
This is a guest blog written by Jose de Cabo, co-founder, Olapic
Marketers have heard the mantra "content is king" so many times now they are probably saying it in their sleep. But producing enough engaging material is going to be the biggest content challenge for UK marketers in 2016, according to the Content Marketing Institute. The reality is, it's difficult and expensive to continuously create quality content from scratch. The cost of developing enough owned content to meet the pressures and demands of always on communications is simply unsustainable for most brands.
I was recently speaking at a Google event in Sydney. The topic I was asked to speak on was 'Digital storytelling', so let me tell you a tale.
Humans love stories. We use them to make sense of the world. When we cannot understand something, we use stories to explain it to ourselves, and each other. Stories are everywhere because everything is literally complex, the product of many things interoperating and creating endlessly emergent effects.
Who will succeed in the new age of data discovery? We asked a panel of four international experts across academia and business to share their views on where the world of insight is going, and how it is adapting to a data-rich, connected, and social world. Speaking at the 2016 MRS Impact conference held in London this March, the panel drew a large crowd for a lively debate.
Think of a song. A simple, well known tune. Now tap out the rhythm on your desk and ask a colleague to guess the name. Easy, right?
Well, an experiment from Elizabeth Newton, a psychologist at Stanford, suggests not. She split participants into two groups: 'tappers' and 'listeners'. The first group chose a song and then, without revealing its name, they tapped out the rhythm for the listeners to guess. The tappers estimated the probability of the song being recognised at 50%. They were wildly wrong. Of the 120 songs in the experiment only 2.5% were identified correctly.