Commentary

The Difference Between "The Buy Button" and "The Belly Button"

By now, most of you have probably done as much reading as I have on the existence of the so-called "Buy Button," as it was boldly termed by Melanie Wells in her very strong cover story for Forbes last week. (In Search of the Buy Button 9/1) It seems as though there is widespread acceptance of its existence now, instead of a widespread discussion regarding whether such a thing may or may not exist.

This "B-spot" in our brains (sorry) has been discussed in agency and marketing brainstorming meetings for years. I can recall references to special "triggers" in the public brain from as long ago as the late 1980's, when I worked on advertising campaigns for arcane political and public affairs issues, like safe disposal of nuclear waste and curbside recycling. See, it isn't just the consumer campaigners who have been after this Button, it's almost anyone across the communications arts.

But, while we know what the Button's role would be - that it would catalyze a consumer to "buy," it truly may or may not exist. Compare this to your belly button, which you know exists, but which you're not sure why, beyond its former role as the portal for your fetal lifeline.

advertisement

advertisement

I trust you know I'm kidding, but there is a point. See, I think that assertions that presuppose the existence of any kind of Button along these lines are rubbish. Sure, it makes sense that our brains reflexively respond to various stimuli and that those stimuli make it easier for marketers to sell their product. I mean there has to be SOME defense of the Coors Light Twins. Sex sells because consumers like to feel sexy, especially consumers in that ever-vital 18-34 male demographic who have been keeping the ad pages of Maxim, et al. so thick. But an implied context or come-on like sexiness or the "chance to win millions" is just that - a come on. There is no cerebellum tickling going on here. I would assert that it is, in fact, the opposite that is occurring. The part of the brain being stimulated is not the part where the cognitive thinking takes place.

In my column of August 22 (And the winner is...), I wrote that there should be more industry awards geared toward the effectiveness of advertising campaigns rather than directed toward the creative only. This is supposed to be one of the advantages of what we do online, no? We can measure effectiveness far more precisely. Interestingly, the major studies under way around the "Buy Button" do not include interactive. But, discussion of that folly is for a different column.

The reason I bring this up is that I would like to see research done on the brand and product retention of campaigns that use such a come on as sex, versus the brand and product retention of campaigns that do not. A complaint I filed in that August 22 column is that I tire of people recalling "what a great commercial" they saw on TV last night, when they can't recall what was being advertised. I suspect that many creative types in these brainstorming sessions are trying to tickle that Button on a day-in, day-out basis. I also suspect that this is a key reason why we continue to see the same kinds of ads for beer and cars and other consumer products. I am afraid that this assertion about the Button is taking on the weight of an axiom, when all it may be is an easy way out of really creative thinking. How else to explain campaigns like that Coors Light one I mentioned, or the Miller Lite series with the brawling Amazon models? These campaigns get panned again and again, but they keep rising, like tires in a landfill.

You know why this is a shame? Because the proof for what a shame it is resides in some of the great creative that is being used to sell other consumer goods.

Who among you thinks that there is better creative out there on a product-by-product basis than what we see from Nike? Viewers can usually tell when a broadcast ad is for Nike within seconds and long before any voiceover narration or super appears. Even some of their overdone basketball shoe spots clearly assert what their brand is about, aligning the product right up front with the athlete on screen. What if Nike adhered to this Button premise? After all, their target demographic is pretty darn close to that 18-34 male.

Now, I know that Nike has OTHER major problems with their advertising and operations, and I know that it took years for them to build this brand that is expressed so clearly in their creative today. This is just about the strength of that creative, and the danger of adherence to a belief in the Button.

We all want to attain our objectives as easily and in as straightforward a manner as we can. I'm confident that the linear thinking that their counterparts in sales exhibit seldom surprises the creative types I referenced earlier. The velocity of a given solution can be as important as getting there at all. We need answers now, dammit!

This may be the simplest reason why the Button's existence has become axiomatic. But, it's too easy a way out, dear readers. The more acolytes that are born to the Button, the more all our ads will begin to look alike. It's already happening in some product categories.

Which brings us back to the belly button, or more precisely, to the belly buttons of all those models. The more adherence there is to the axiom of the Button, the more belly buttons we'll see. Forgive me, but I'd rather laugh at another "Whassup," myself.

Next story loading loading..