Ken Roberts explores Robert Heath’s thesis that ads are more effective when consumers pay scant attention to them and wonders if marketing research is barking up the wrong tree.
If Robert Heath is right then a large part of every dollar spent on advertising related marketing research is a waste of money.
There are few fence-sitters when it comes to the ideas of UK communications specialist and academic Robert Heath. Heath believes that TV ads are more effective if they are processed with low attention; his so-called “Low Attention Processing” (LAP) theory. That is, ads work better if they are largely processed subconsciously, raising concerns about stated conscious awareness as a measure of effectiveness.
It is timely on the 10th anniversary of Robert Heath’s theories to revisit his views.
Ads that are disruptive and score well on traditional marketing research measures such as awareness are considered by Heath to be less effective than ads that are processed below a conscious awareness threshold. One supposed justification for this is ads that are processed subconsciously avoid the conscious brain’s seemingly ever-developing cynicism filter.
Being a Heath fan is the anti-thesis of believing in the hierarchy of effects model, AIDA – Attention, Interest, Desire, Action. For LAP supporters it is considered unhelpful to be measuring awareness when determining the effectiveness of a campaign. Indeed, LAP proponents point to studies that have shown TVCs with high emotional content being significantly correlated with lower levels of attention and therefore weaker unprompted awareness.
For some years neuromarketing has been telling us about the imperative of emotional content in communication. Ingrained in many practitioners’ thinking is the idea that the higher the level of emotional content, the greater the outcome on brand favourability.
Accepting for a moment that high emotional content is correlated with low attention processing, it follows that awareness of effective ads may be lower than less effective ads – Yes, that is counter-intuitive. According to Heath, an ad that is mediocre in awareness may be highly effective in bringing about behavioural change.
So, where does that leave the marketing research fraternity and every brand tracker that purports to measure advertising efficacy?
To go one step further, Heath has argued that ads can be effective even when someone has claimed not to have seen the ad. Given that around 90% of the brain’s activity
is unconscious and 95% of our vision is peripheral, perhaps that is no surprise.
And yet, the AIDA model is perpetuated in just about every pre-testing market research brief that calls for assessment of items that indicate high levels of awareness such as message take-out, saliency and persuasion.
It is not just pre-testing; when research examines advertising it is largely focused on cognitive thinking rather than feelings. How could it be otherwise? No matter how many times focus group moderators ask participants, “How does this ad make you feel?” the participant cannot delve into their own subconscious to answer. So the participants’ reply is a shallow cognitive response that is tapping into perhaps 10% of the brain’s processing – thoughts – and is not a reflection of the subconscious feelings.
So what if Heath is wrong? No trouble – despite the advances in neuroscience, research practice has largely ignored him anyway and continues to apply techniques largely developed in the 1970s. But if he is wrong, insight into subconscious processing of communication remains the elusive horizon. Asking respondents to say how they feel about advertising is equivalent to asking Neanderthal man to tell us about his rational thoughts.
Unquestionably we have one thing to thank Robert Heath for;
he has reminded us that consumers pay little attention to advertising and, while sitting passively
on the couch, people are not ordinarily reconsidering their shopping behaviour. <
Ken Roberts is the managing principal of Forethought Research.
Have something to say on this? Share your views in the comments section below. Or if you have a news story or tip-off, drop us a line at adnews@yaffa.com.au
Sign up to the AdNews newsletter, like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter for breaking stories and campaigns throughout the day.