JKR

They say familiarity breeds contempt. Neurological and marketing science argues otherwise.

“A recent study by the University of Tokyo identified two main drivers of advertising effectiveness: Newness and Familiarity. These factors are not surprising. To be consistent, yet at the same time differentiated, is one of the biggest challenges in marketing communication. It‘s a bit like squaring the circle. Little wonder then that we have many a discussion in our everyday marketing lives about this topic – what should we keep and what should we, or must we, change?”  This comes from a paper by Decode Implicit Marketing – you can read the full thing by following this link.

Basically (and in my decidedly layman terms) it boils down to this: our brains have a lot to do so are designed not to waste effort ‘over-thinking’. So they respond well to the familiar, because it takes less effort to decode. “I see it, I get it, I want it” as opposed to “I see it, it’s intriguing and unfamiliar, I will have to think about it, I…. oh stuff it, I’ll just pick up the one I know”. Or more scientifically “The human brain is not a passive organ simply waiting to be activated by external stimuli. The brain continuously employs past experiences to interpret sensory information and predict the immediately relevant future.”

The familiar is a gateway to being liked. We’ve all had that feeling of hearing the opening bars of a tune, struggled for a second to place it, then smiled as we recognise it. Turning to a pal we exclaim, “I love this one”. Perhaps this is partly about our love of the tune and partly the pleasure its familiarity has given us.

When one looks at brain activity where a shopper is gazing at a very famous brand, there is in relative terms almost nothing going on. The consistent branding and communications has done all the mental heavy lifting. So the purchase is, literally, a no brainer.

All great if you are Coke or Kellogg’s, but what if your product needs consumer reappraisal? Or wants to herald its new improved formula? According to the Decode paper, the optimal way we humans learn new things is by building on the already familiar…

Decode illustrate this principle with Ron Arad’s car seat – it reconfigures the familiar in an arresting but understandable new format. The familiar in an unfamiliar context.

So what are the implications for design? I think it boils down to something relatively simple. Identify your distinctive equities. Understand what associations they trigger for your consumers and potential consumers. Marry these two things in design that amplifies your familiar, but uses it to express your point. Do this boldly and with a degree of ‘twist’ and you will be using the familiar in a fresh way to say something new. You need newness to stimulate consumer learning. But you need familiarity for the brain to want to bother. Or again to sumarise more scientifically: “Moderate incongruities work best. Total newness has just as little effect as total familiarity.”

Failing that, whack a massive new flash in a garish colour on the pack. But Decode’s paper would suggest this is a sub-optimal strategy.

Decode conclude on the dimension of time, and its implications for research: “The preference for new, creative and innovative designs is time-dependent. On first exposure, there is a definite preference for the familiar. Further examination, however, leads to clear preference for the new. It is therefore important, especially when researching innovative ideas, to take this time dimension into account. Otherwise many innovations, which are in fact wanted by the consumer, will fail simply because consumers prefer the familiar on first contact.”

Who do you think of as the archetypal Harley Davidson rider? I’m seeing a guy with a few extra pounds, a few tattoos and a razor which does not get much use. The way the brand is used in movies helps build this, but design plays a big part: the bikes are hefty, heroic and even the exhaust seems calibrated for maximum guttural roar. Being an archetypal brand is typically seen to be a great achievement. But does it have limitations?

Given that Harley seems squarely aimed at being ‘one for the boys’ it was enlightening to read Diageo CMO Andy Fennel telling Marketing Magazine that he considered the brand to be a leader in showing how to evolve and appeal to women:

“Did you know the fastest growing segment of Harley Davidson motorcycle purchasers is women? Is this because the new chief executive is a woman? I don’t know. But what I do know is that they have insights into what women want from motorcycles, such as a lower ride height, a softer clutch, and a more comfortable seat. It’s not about spraying the bike pink. But it is about making the bike work ergonomically for people with a different frame.”

The Business case for Harley is clear: “Women riders now represent about 12 percent of Harley sales compared with 2 percent in 1995. The brand also has a 53 percentage-point market-share lead among female riders and has the leading share for people aged 18 to 34” reported Business week in 2010. Their article adds “Chief Executive Officer Keith Wandell saw that first hand at a riders event in Orlando on his first day on the job in May 2009. Ten questions were asked and nine of them were from women, and all of them were really asking the same thing: When are you going to design a bike that’s more suitable for women riders?” Wandell recalls.

Harley are winning female hearts and wallets on diverse fronts, from women only ‘garage parties’ at dealerships where the basics are explained, to social rides and shared woman rider experiences. This is a good illustration of the way female consumers like to connect with brands through recommendation:

“We know from research that women riders talking about their experiences is a huge motivator for others to say, ‘if she can do it, so can I.’” Harley’s ‘Womans Outreach Manager’, Leslie Prevish has noted.

But, doing a quick bit of background reading on the topic, I found what I thought was a really insightful comment:

“Perhaps, HD will learn a lot from the women because their current stock of motorcycles are old technology, chrome crap (all show and no go), and based on unchanging male attitudes of what is tough and cool…If it takes the women to get this across to HD, so be it. Otherwise, only women with hairy chests and big balls will ever ride Harleys.”

In other words, for Harley, perhaps targeting women has a far greater benefit than getting a few new riders. Rather it forces a change of thinking at a cellular level. Perhaps that archetypal sense of Harley had lead to closed thinking and predictable design that was taking the brand ever further up a blind alley. And perhaps considering women has been the catalyst for better products across the board? As Marti Barletta, who consulted on Volvo’s designs for women noted (and apologies for those who have read this here before, but it’s one of my favourite design quotes) “If you meet the expectations of women, you exceed the expectations of men.”

Of course, not everyone likes the idea of their ‘club’ opening up. Here’s one gentleman, commenting on the new HD designs and those who supported them:

“I have been riding H-D’s since the 70’s, just like I have been driving Fords…I am happy you like thow-away crap. I am happy there are so many organ donors now on the road – cause the medical community sure needs extra parts…you ride no history.”

I guess you can’t please all the people all the time…

It’s not new, but over the last few months the concept of augmented reality (a type of virtual reality that presents the world’s environment merged with, or augmented by, computer-generated imagery) has really exploded. Despite the apparent obstacles – need for a webcam and willing consumers who have the time to understand the concept – more and more brands are using AR to engage with their audience.

Is this just another gimmick or is the technology just being used in a gimmicky way? As with Apps, doing it is pointless unless there is a compelling idea or functional benefit attached. As the medium takes off, surely we’ll see it used to dramatise brand truths, run competitions, provide instructions, hints and tips, richer nutritional info, links to relevant sites etc etc. We are at the tip of the iceberg, but at a macro level, along with animated Apps and moving ads on the tube, basic brand communication is becoming more and more about movement.

And even at the basic promotional level there are some pretty engaging examples of creative augmented reality strategies. “Doritos’ Lovers”, launched in Brazil, is a great example as it allows consumers to create their very own Doritos 3D Lover Monster which can then be uploaded onto the owner’s social network profile, and unleashed to interact with other Lover Monsters (watch below). It’s not about the crisps, but instead being part of the brand, so it cleverly extends further than simple product promotion.

Also available to watch here

Levi’s is adding this label to their jeans stateside, recommending sustainable washing behaviour and encouraging passing the jeans onto others more needy when you are done with them. On one hand it is very scrooge like to be cynical of any CSR initiative. On the other…well, all the communication here puts the responsibility on the consumer, who might feel a bit nagged and wonder if the company itself practises what it preaches. It’s kind of like reading in your hotel room that the management want you to re-use your towel, not to save them a job, heavens no, but to save the planet.

Encouraging good behaviour is fine, but it risks looking like token CSR messaging if the brand isn’t overtly leading the way somehow. Secondly, I thought the whole point of Levi’s was to wear them till they fell apart – that they got better as they got older, and giving them up was only possible when they were truly past physical redemption. But perhaps as a brand introducing new lines regularly, the shelf life on a pair is now only as long as a passing fashion for a particular cut? My point being not that do-gooding is wrong, but that the most powerful and inspirational way to motivate consumers needs to feel like it comes from a brand’s heart, rather than appearing tacked on (even if the basic motivation is pure and well-intentioned). Levi’s are also doing work with “obey” designer Shepard Fairey in the US – perhaps they should get André the giant to lay down the law on how we should behave?

Douwe Egberts concept, BeMoved vending machine, turns buying a drink into a physical game for the young at heart, allows on-screen click and drag coffee customisation, gives you real-time news and weather and lets you log your personal preferences. All very Minority Report. And all indicative of the way technology is broadening our choices (I was told by someone in the know recently that our relationship with comparison sites is about to invert – rather than us choosing from what’s available, we will soon be putting our needs out to tender, for competitors to bid on).

But this general movement towards more and more choice and noise must surely also be creating a space where simplicity can have a certain cachet. Brands offering over-information and over-engineered complexity feel like they are locked in an arms race, all those whistles and bells signifying little that will build lasting brand value, and what consumers want (beyond a little novelty) is not always at the heart of the thinking. But perhaps these are just the views of a Luddite who is out of step with the amount of time and attention folk want to give to buying a vended beverage?