Can “Value Attribution” Confound Brand Communications?

Note: forgive the long post, but this stuff was too interesting not to pass along…

For the most part we operate as marketers and communicators day-in and day-out with a built in assumption that consumers listen to us, understand us and act accordingly. Of course, there’s ongoing debate about the real level of listening. Well, it also seems there’s the possibility that our messages are misconstrued or misunderstood or misinterpreted due to some funny ways humans operate to process information.

In their remarkable book, SWAY, authors Ori and Rom Brafman take us on a truly interesting dive into human psychology with visits to compelling case studies that showcase our irrational way of thinking (on what appears to be an all-too routine basis). We find an alarming pattern of “perception leading reality” that every brand-minder should take into account about the power of words, images and mental prejudice to positively or negatively trigger consumer behavior.

The Brafmans recite examples of what experts call Value Attribution — our curious habit of mentally assigning valuations – both good and bad – to what’s in front of us. Often this is based on miscues we get from our brain’s wired tendency to by-pass rational, linear thinking. We do this apparently in an effort to get to a decision (often on incorrect or misinterpreted cues) quickly and with the least amount of mental exertion. Here are a few examples extracted loosely from their book:

Visual Perception

In a field study conducted by the Washington Post, renowned violinist Joshua Bell walks into a DC subway station wearing jeans and a baseball cap. He promptly pulls out a $3.5 million Stradivarius violin and starts an impromptu concert involving selections of some of the most challenging classical music ever written for solo violin performance. Study observers note over a 1,000 commuters walking by him, only two stop to listen. Their study produced an interesting conclusion: the attire (jeans and cap), plus the venue (subway) had caused passersby not to hear an outstanding concert but to perceive what was in front of them was simply street music.

Appearances can constitute a new reality, either good or bad.

Price Perception

In 1916 Nathan Handwerker opened a new food stand at Coney Island to sell his high quality, real beef hot dogs. He noticed the other established vendors were pricing their dogs at ten cents, so in an effort to “gain trial” he priced his at five cents. Except that Coney Island visitors interpreted the cheaper price as evidence of substandard ingredients. He upped the value-add by offering free pickles or free root beer with a hot dog purchase. This cemented the bad perception rather than drawing in new customers. It was after he started recruiting doctors from a nearby hospital to stand by his shop eating the dogs in their white coats that sent a signal the food had to be good. This of course was the birth of “Nathan’s Famous Hot Dogs.”

How many times do we miss the truth based on preconceived estimations of value?

Hierarchy Perception

Two economists studying the NBA discover a fascinating behavior that underscores our tendency to label people, ideas or things based on our initial prejudices – coupled with our inability to reconsider those judgments later even in the face of factual evidence to the contrary.

Basketball players, like many others who are on a track heading towards a pro sports career, are monitored closely to measure their playing performance. Statistics are amassed over time on such things as scoring (points per minute or free-throw percentage), toughness (rebounds or block per minute) and quickness (assists and steals per minute). Logic would suggest that players offering evidence of high scoring, toughness and quickness would in turn receive a higher share of playing time in their pro basketball careers, assuming they continue to live up to their stats.

Not so. Turns out from the analysis that the biggest determining factor in playing time universally was their draft selection order. Higher draft pick equals more playing time – even after five years into their pro careers and despite any other productivity evidence (better stats) that should sway the playing time decision. Even players with matching stats, the higher draft pick always receives more playing time. You would think after being drafted that the order of selection would be subordinate to their performance on the court. Nope. The implications of draft order reveal deep-seated behaviors that assign values based on perceptions — “low pick means lesser talent than higher pick.”

Can deep-seated prejudices impact our perceptions of brand strengths and weaknesses?

Verbal Perception

Even a single word can alter our perceptions and opinions. Students in an economics class at MIT become unwitting participants in a study to understand the power of words to impact views and opinions. At the beginning of the class, a college advisor walks in to announce that the instructor would not be in that day, but a substitute would be filling in for him. The students are also informed that the college is trying to gain better understanding of how students react to different instructors, so their professor would be someone they had not met before.

In an effort to familiarize the students with the instructor they’re each given a brief that describes him. What the students don’t know is that half the class received one version and the other a different one. Of note, the difference between the two briefs was just two words. One version describes the professor as “very warm” the other as “rather cold.” At the end of the class a questionnaire is passed out to rate the instructor. Sure enough the vast majority of those who received the “very warm” version rated him as good-natured, considerate, sociable and humorous. Those who had the “rather cold” copy described him as self-centered, formal, unpopular and humor-less. Just one word, and irrelevant to the events that transpired in front of them, altered their perception of the person. The relationship had soured before it started.

We make judgments about people, places and things in a matter of seconds based on info our brains feed in. Thus words can be a powerful creator of opinion – never mind the facts or any other stimulus.

Meaning?

The implications from all of this: move always with respect for the humanity that surrounds us. And with the consideration that in the end we are creatures who, rightly or wrongly, don’t always act logically. Our decision-making processes can be hijacked by our brain’s desire to get to a conclusion in the least amount of time with the least amount of rational processing.

So words matter. Pictures matter. Testing matters. Reputation matters. Buzz matters. Perception can lead reality and it’s likely to happen more often than not. What do you think?

PS. Read the Brafman’s book…