Is brand linkage in advertising an outmoded concept? There’s a current body of thought that thinks so. According to this theory, brand linkage is one of those old-fashioned ‘System 2’, rational metrics that has no place in ad evaluation; advertising should resonate emotionally in System 1, and if successful, the brand will reap enormous benefits. This will all happen even without the consumer consciously connecting the ad to the brand.
In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. If your advertising target doesn’t associate your ads with your brand, there’s virtually no chance that the ads are going to build the brand or produce a behavioral change.
Here’s how it really works in System 1.
Individual consumers feel the way they feel about your brand, and believe what they believe in their System 1 brains as a result of the mix of all of their past brand interactions, including advertising. It is from this System 1 space that the consumer decides what brand to reach for on the shelf. Or, in the case of considered purchases, the System 1 brand connections act as a filter through which they consider the options. Brands they feel good about make the list, brands they don’t will be screened out, or viewed with a negative ‘confirmation bias’ based on these negative feelings.
Ads that are associated with the brand have the chance to get added to this System 1 mix, and may produce shifts, subtle or otherwise, in how the brand is perceived. If the ad resonates emotionally, the chances are better that it will make an impression. But if the ad experience isn’t connected to the brand, it might make it into some space in the memory, but it won’t be the brand space.
Many Super Bowl advertisers over the years, including lots in this year’s crop, appear to have bought into the engagement over branding philosophy. They either don’t care about branding, or assume it’ll occur because their commercial is so engaging, so entertaining, and has such an attentive audience. Of course, the Super Bowl is a very different media exposure opportunity than most, due to the size and engagement of the audience, and to the clutter of best-in-class (or at least, most-entertaining-in-class) ads. But the same basic branding principles apply to all ads, Super Bowl or otherwise.
The worst way to brand your ad is to task the end tag with the job. Brain research, along with a large body of in-market evidence, confirms that the paying-attention portion of the brain shuts down briefly at the end of a story. This dynamic is called ‘cognitive closure’. The story and its meaning gets processed, then the brain re-engages, ready for the next event to take place. Guess what? The more compelling your story, the more likely it is that the brain has stopped paying attention at the very point in which you introduce your brand and tag line. Oops. Wonder why everyone’s talking about the commercial, but no one can remember the brand?
A really great ad that has weak branding might sell more product than an ad that no one pays attention to. But just as you’d not want an ad that lacks engagement power, don’t settle for ads that the viewer isn’t going to attribute to your brand. In fact, you shouldn’t have to choose between engagement and branding. The real goal should be to produce and air ads that engage, generate joy, satisfaction or other positive emotions, and connect those emotions to your brand, not just to your ad. It can be done.
Jeri Smith President / CEO
