The Brain Thinks Brands Are People

"Brands aren't people, consumers know that, they get you're out to make a buck.” So says  marketeer Clinton Duncan from Down Under. Hmmm. Nothing new about that idea. Yes, perhaps, but it’s not quite right.

Ironically, Duncan’s agency recently created a campaign for a new Scandinavian furniture wholesaler operation in Australia that very much cast the new brand in anthropomorphic terms.  You might want to call the campaign’s success dumb luck given Duncan’s apparent defective understanding of how people mentally process brands. (You can read about it at Fast Company.)

From a left brain perspective, Duncan is right. People know that brands’ aren’t people. However, the left brain is not the only side of the brain that weighs in on decisions customers make.

All information picked up by the senses is processed in the right brain before the left brain – the analytical, reasoning language speaking left brain gets much of a crack at it. But unlike the left brain, the emotional right brain perceives reality in sensual terms. Only the left brain with its highly developed language abilities can reduce reality to abstract terms.

But something else about the right brain must be understood to know why Duncan’s view that people know that brands aren’t people is a flawed and oversimplified  version of reality. The right brain cannot process any information that is not rendered in the context of living things (conceptually or actually). If something cannot be connected to life in some way the right brain ignores it. Not so with the left brain. It has the power to see anything in any form it chooses because it organizes abstract representations of  reality. It can create its own reality in any form it is inclined to. Not so the right brain.

The right brain sticks to reality as configured by the senses. It cannot remake reality. And, as already said, the right bran’s reality is rooted in connections with life.

A brand must not simply connect with life to be a strong brand, it must be perceived as the equivalent of a life form to the deeper processing centers of the brain. The goofy looking Michelin Man is a life form to the right brain -- something more than just a cartoon character.

I am not talking theory here. The right brain's cognitive connection to life is is validated by recent brain research. All this boils down to the fact that if you fail to cognitively connect your brand with the right brain on its nonverbal terms, the brand has no chance of getting off the ground.  If speaking the sensory language of the right brain puzzles you, then need to find someone how to talk to the right brain. Truly, you are not going to get your message very deeply into the mills of reasoning in the left brain without employing the wordless language of the right brain. Without doing this any successes you have will likely be more a matter of dumb luck.

 

 

 

 

Comments

[CD]

Hello David, Does this mean it is always best for a brand to personify itself in some ways, or more use any one of the senses to create context? Is what Microsoft and Intel have done with audio tones qualify? I'd appreciate an example or 2 of companies who are not using a "character" like Michelin Man or The Burger King "King" or Disney, and are doing it right, as you would recommend?
Thanks.

[David Wolfe]

Very good question, CD.

If the sensory stimulant(s)has a connection to something living it can attract the right brain's attention. The Intel musical notes hummed by staff is an example. No brand that is represented by sound alone (no visual connection with people) comes to mind. But there is no reason why it's not possible, and indeed probably has been done. I just can't think of an example. That said, sound often plays an important role in distinguishing a commercial in terms of life. The quack of the Aflac duck is a good example of that as is the Down Under accent of the Geico Gecko. Mr. Clean's rich baritone conveys strength.

I would also say that a sound that at first does not a have strong effect on the right brain can acquire meaning to it over time. For example, the NBC signature xylophone sound has a unique standing in many people's minds because of their association with it and the network over many years. On rare occasions hearing it causes my brain to flash a scene from childhood in which we were listening to a show on radio to across my mind.

I know I haven't answered your question quite as you would like, but in sum sounds are effective for contextualizing the human experience of using a brand.

[CD]

Hi David,
thanks for response re: audio. I'm wondering if your suggesting that a brand "best" utilize a character of sorts that relates to human context (other than a living thing, like a human or animal or plant, etc) to gain the benefits you espouse? Or if there are "other" techniques beyond character and living things that can fit into the brain awareness as you suggest?

[David Wolfe]

In his remarkable book on brain lateralization, The Master and His Emissary, neuropsychiatrist Iain describes the right brain affinity for living entities and things associated with life. The left brain by contrast takes great interest in the inanimate world. Also, the right brain is by far more capable of understanding metaphors, thus metaphors can stand for living beings and the right brain gets it. I think that responds to one of your questions. The left brain has no ability to divine the reference behind a metaphor.