Being direct... AdVantage Jul 2002
Information and Decisions:
Interdependent … or Adding to the Consumer's Mental Conflict?
One of the things that has always intrigued me about the perceived cause-and-effect nature of the world of marketing and advertising, is the belief that consumers wait with baited breath, just poised to react to the triggers contained in the 'what-it-does' brand communications exposed by marketers. Even if it was once the case (which is itself debatable), some new work has come to the fore, which suggests that this cause/effect nature of marketing communication is just simply not true.
Why? Quite simply, it's becoming evident that marketers spend a great deal more time effort and money thinking about (and controlling) their communications strategies, than consumers even begin to spend rationalising why they buy brands!!
Just think about it for a minute. If nobody knows about my product or service, then I have an obvious communication task: I need to try and make those who are targets for such product or service - aware of it. How successful I am is usually a function of two things: how much money I have in my piggy bank to be able to keep exposing messages to people who may not be particularly interested in my product or service - until that moment in time when it suits them to be so. The second factor has to do with level of consumer interest in my specific communications - let alone in my chosen product/service category. Interest itself may well be a sub-function of awareness (and perhaps stimulated by creativity), but degree of interest in buying is primarily driven by individual need.
This suggests that our historic approach may have only been 'flawed' insofar as we misunderstood the specific aspect of control in the business relationship model. We assumed that because we created and 'exposed' the messages about our brands, we (marketers) were 'in control' and our targeted consumers had to do just one simple thing: respond! In truth, the consumer has always been the one 'in control' because it is he or she that recognizes his/her need for the product or service, and provides a bridge between such need and any communication (mass or personal) that may suggest a solution to such need.
To amplify on this point, lets consider a recent issue of the USA Journal of Consumer Research, and a paper called Toward a Theory of Consumer Choice as Socio-historically shaped Practical Experience. My thanks once again, to Peter Wells of Nilewide for bringing this content to our attention.
The way people make decisions and the role of influences 'outside' of normal experience has long been the subject of much discussion. Rational choice theory says that people are inherently rational and will always look for the best means to the end that they seek - from whatever the source. Constructive choice theory recognises that decisions are made on-the-fly using heuristics (or choice-making processes), which also have no means-end element and can be influenced by a variety of factors. The latest idea is something called "fit-like-a-glove" (FLAG), which is based on Practice theory and takes a much more holistic viewpoint. It is characterised by someone saying: "This is it! I just know it".
The way to understand the somewhat abstract 'practice theory' is to consider an athlete, who develops a "feel for the game" or a carpenter, for whom hammer, nail and board have ceased to be separate. It is also characterized by an understanding that experience happens through body, mind and spirit. Social and historical forces, known as "habitus", shape it. Thus, all these forces influence choice making and are part of the FLAG framework. The FLAG framework shows that culture has a pervasive impact on decision making and that researchers may well be "thinking way too much" about understanding buyer motives. They seem to believe that consumers think a lot about their decisions.
This issue is not only being questioned in itself, but the role of information overload in a perhaps non-existent decision-making process is very worrying. An increasing body of international opinion suggests that consumers are really being overwhelmed by information, and people frankly cannot fully evaluate and completely rationalise each and every new purchase decision that they have to make. They seek assistance to sort the needed from the irrelevant. By, the way - if the consumer is actually 'in control' it is the consumer who decides what is relevant and what is not relevant (to them).
Although the amount of information available to us these days is increasing exponentially, the ability of the human mind to assimilate and process it has not changed. There are still only 24 hours in a day and 7 days in a week. This means that many sources of information are considered burdensome, and cannot be used as may have been intended. For example, a new cell phone comes with a 156-page manual. Few people would give up the time and energy to read it and put the instructions into practice.
Not everyone has the patience or skill to navigate the Web, stand in lines, read very small print on packs at the point of sale, or indeed search many other available sources - for the information necessary to find accurate and unbiased solutions to their needs. There are clearly opportunities for companies that could evaluate and distil information to genuinely make peoples' lives easier - particularly if those companies are willing to relinquish control. It seems that most marketing companies do not appear ready(?)/willing(?)/able(?) to take up such challenge.