Behavioral and neuro sciences behind effective ads

Ever since market research was introduced, one of its main goals was to provide insights which would help maximize the impact of ads to lower the waste of investments. During that time, surveys were the most widely used research method. This go-to method only taps into the conscious part of the brain and manages to lower the wasted investments from 50% to 40%. Why is explicit survey as the only source of insight not enough? Because the conscious mind only plays a fraction of the purchase decision making process.

It is not surprising that many studies have shown that subconscious measurements can predict much better effectiveness than conscious measurements. Further, the combination of both yields the best results.

The science behind ad impact

To understand the actual process of ad impact, we benefit from understanding the neuroscience and psychology behind it. Here are several notions to keep in mind.

• Our memory is associative, and this is how brands are stored. The general goal of advertising is to influence (or enhance) the perception about or the need for a product, brand or service in order to increase sales. A specific ‘neuron’ designated for a specific product does not exist – a brand is stored among a network of neurons. Our memory is associative in nature. To change the perception, you need to change the associations in the long-term memory.
• Implicit associations are the key to a good ad. According to Robert Health’s “Low Involvement Processing” theory, we do not draw explicit verbal conclusions, we process and store data through implicit associations – often without even realizing it. Awareness (and more top of mind awareness) is likely to be an offshoot of strong implicit associations. This would explain why some brilliant advertising campaigns showed scored low on tests that are using methodologies based on articulation and statements. Moreover, Heath argues that some emotional elements of advertising can elude the defense mechanisms we use to filter ads and subconsciously redirect our attention towards something else.
• We are programmed to consider products already familiar to us. “Low Involvement Processing” theory and Kahneman’s “Dual System Theory” postulate two thinking systems: automatic and sub-conscious (System 1), and rational and controlled (System 2). ‘System 1: unlocking profitable growth’ maintains that 3 elements are key for System 1: experience, emotions, and pattern recognition. This yields many questions: How can advertising play a role in experience? When making a purchase decision, will you consider all the products? Or only a few? Which few? It is more likely that consumers will consider familiar products over unfamiliar ones. But if they are to consider the unfamiliar products as well, they would need to learn about the product, include more options into consideration, etc. A selection among unfamiliar products means more and harder work, while throughout evolution our brains have been programmed to minimize energy consumption.
• Emotions as triggers of decision-making. Emotions are key for making decisions; in fact, they facilitate them. Studies have shown that people with injuries in the hippocampus (‘emotional’ parts of the brain) have difficulties to make choices. The axiom of “If you feel good about it, it is a good choice.” Picking an item the consumer does not feel good about, would result in a cognitive dissonance which decreases the likelihood of feeling dissatisfied post-purchase, which can impact repeats. Basically, emotion guides and simplifies decision making by giving us an imperceptible nudge in one direction or the other, helping us to decide between options. Emotion in advertising is important because what wires together, fires together. Moreover, the emotions evoked by an ad will (partly) transcend to the product.

How ad attention impacts effectiveness

The low correlation between surveys and ad impact must not come as a surprise. We show an ad for around 7-10 seconds to a respondent, and then ask them to fill out a survey lasting up to 20 minutes, thus completely relying on System 2 (verbal and conscious), while in contrast, we are aware that most purchase decisions are made subconsciously and in a split second. What is also interesting to consider, is how long people actually look at ads:

Showing ads only in full screen for around 7 seconds might give a biased view. A longer exposition time ensures that people see up to 5-7 messages in an ad, which is not the case when they only glance at it for a split second. One can argue that a person will be exposed to an ad multiple times during a campaign, but they do need to pass a minimal threshold. For instance, if a consumer looks at an ad for less than one second, that is long enough to subconsciously register that the stimuli is an ad and decide to skip without recalling the brand and message (because of too many messages).

An integrated Framework for Successful Evaluation of Ad Effectiveness

In a case study undertaken with >1500 respondents, predicting the viral potential of +52 online videos (complete study), facial coding was 2x better in predicting viral potential than any combination of survey questions. In another study, effective (the ones that achieved an uplift in sales) and non-effective ads were examined, and the findings showed that surveys could select the correct ad 65% of the time. This is slightly better than, for instance, flipping a coin. On the other hand, facial coding, eye tracking, and virtual shopping managed to single out effective ads in about +70% of cases. However, all the methods combined gave the best results; the combination selected the effective ads in 85% of cases.

On the previously presented theoretical grounds and empirical research, EyeSee has developed a straightforward framework for a deep analysis of ad impact:

Interested in ad testing which helps make the most out of your advertising budget? Request more details on EyeSee’s adverting testing solutions here.

‍