• by Cory Treffiletti , Featured Contributor, March 9, 2005

Many of you know I read just about everything I can get my hands on. This endless pursuit of information allows me to view the world from the eyes of the average consumer, through the lens of popular culture. Viewing things through this set of eyes allows me to attempt to understand human behavior and how it affects advertising and marketing. Typically, this is rather effective, however one article I read this week threw me for a bit of a loop.

In U.S. News and World Reports on February 28, there was an article that dealt with the human brain and how it reads the world. In this article it discussed a number of topics, and inevitably it referred to how marketers try to understand the human brain and its management of behavior. In one specific excerpt from the book "Blink," by Malcolm Gladwell, the article referred to the case wherein Coke and Pepsi squared off in blind taste tests with participants overwhelmingly choosing Pepsi based on taste, however Coke is still the leader in the soft drink category.

In a similar study at Baylor College, 67 participants, who considered themselves a loyal Coke or Pepsi fan, chose Pepsi based on taste but when they were shown the brands prior to their tastings three out of four chose Coke. During this study researchers measured various elements of brain activity and found that the participants saw significant activity in the portion of the brain that dealt with memories and self-image while Pepsi did little to increase activity in these parts of the brain.

What is it that causes these wild shifts in perception?

Obviously there is some proof to the measures of brand association and brand perception that we all tout so regularly. Is it the millions of dollars that Coke and Pepsi spend and the associations they create by these campaigns or is it something based on the instinctual associations our minds have with the basic appearance of the brands (is red a more affecting color than blue in our minds)? Cracking this code is something that marketers have been trying to do for years and may never be able to completely understand.

It becomes even more fascinating to analyze this situation when we examine how it affects our overall perception through the course of the day. As we all know, clutter is possibly the single most detrimental factor on the effectiveness of advertising. We continue to find more effective ways of reaching the consumer but we never remove the old ways that are no longer effective. We pile new media on top of one another causing the immunization of the audience. This being the case, what are the factors that allow us to break through the clutter and speak to the consumer?

Relevancy is certainly key, as is permission. The opportunity to create a dialogue of value to the consumer is what drives an effective campaign. Outside of this basic element, what about more instinctual elements? Many advertisers use the element of color to their advantage. DHL didn't select yellow as the color of its trucks without much thought and planning. Yellow stands out. Times Square is an example of how flashing lights attempt to attract the consumer, as is intrusiveness. Pasting your message over the content you're looking at can attract attention, but it can also harm the image of a brand (see also; pop-up ads).

But what about brand? What about the perception of a brand in the eyes of the consumer? What can be done to help analyze the effects of a tried and tested brand in the minds of their target audience? Do established brands have a better shot at breaking through the clutter than something flashing yellow over the content of a page? It seems they do, but the conundrum to face is how do you build a brand in today's marketplace that can effectively attach to a consumer, knowing that we are training them not to pay attention to our advertising?

That's the Holy Grail question, after all. What do you think?