Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ads work by cultural imprinting, not emotional inception

meltingasphalt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 103 posts

Re: Ads work by cultural imprinting, not emotional inception

#91

Post by RangerScience »

GuiA wrote: post #18
tedks wrote: post #16

Oh man. That's a doozy. Well, uh. >We may not conform to a model of perfect economic behavior, but neither are we puppets at the mercy of every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a billboard. We aren't that easily manipulated. Yeah. Yeah we are. It looks like the author of this is just some random engineer without a lot of backround in marketing or persuasion psychology. That's a shame because he's clearly interested in it an…

> It looks like the author of this is just some random engineer without a lot of backround in marketing or persuasion psychology. That's a shame because he's clearly interested in it. Little parenthesis: if you're interested in a subject, make the effort to read about it from well established sources (very often, books). The author of the posted article relies on sources like LifeHacker and pop psychology journalism…

There's an issue with pursuing these kinds of newly-discovered interests: You have no idea what they're called. He's calling it "cultural imprinting", but I learned it as "lifestyle advertising". Neither turns up much on the google (well, his does, but it turns up his own article)

Re: Ads work by cultural imprinting, not emotional inception

#92

Post by Tloewald »

tedks wrote: post #16

Oh man. That's a doozy. Well, uh. >We may not conform to a model of perfect economic behavior, but neither are we puppets at the mercy of every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a billboard. We aren't that easily manipulated. Yeah. Yeah we are. It looks like the author of this is just some random engineer without a lot of backround in marketing or persuasion psychology. That's a shame because he's clearly interested in it an…

While some of what you say is true, it actually doesn't do a good job of explaining Brand advertising, which is exactly what the article naively seems to do a pretty good job of. (I have read Influence by the way). The writer states he is coining the term "emotional inception" (which is catchy so why not?) so pointing out it's not a real thing is just a cheap point.

The first points he makes about a lot of advertising simply being true or intended to be true are very valid, and sidestep persuasion theory altogether (since it is chiefly concerned with persuasion via heuristic).

The point about cultural imprinting (or whatever you want to call it) is, again naively quite insightful and explains brand advertising rather well. Of course a lot of this cultural imprinting is simply intended to trigger standard persuasive principles sometime down the line. (Corona is a beer drunk by relaxed, young, attractive people; that's the crowd I want to identify with, so I'll drink Corona -- this is classic social proof, one of Cialdini's six principles. And, incidentally, this works best on people being forced to make a decision that makes little difference, such as pick a beer or laundry soap.)

So the problem isn't so much that the thesis is wrong, as that it is naively right, but is simply explaining the mechanism by which existing theory in fact applies.

Re: Ads work by cultural imprinting, not emotional inception

#93

Post by kbenson »

tedks wrote: post #16

Oh man. That's a doozy. Well, uh. >We may not conform to a model of perfect economic behavior, but neither are we puppets at the mercy of every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a billboard. We aren't that easily manipulated. Yeah. Yeah we are. It looks like the author of this is just some random engineer without a lot of backround in marketing or persuasion psychology. That's a shame because he's clearly interested in it an…

> It's a really fun field and it's very rewarding.

I'll bet it is. ;)

In all seriousness, have you seen tangible benefits in your interactions with others from your interest in persuasion?

Re: Ads work by cultural imprinting, not emotional inception

#94

Post by electromagnetic »

pknight wrote: post #68
tedks wrote: post #16

Oh man. That's a doozy. Well, uh. >We may not conform to a model of perfect economic behavior, but neither are we puppets at the mercy of every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a billboard. We aren't that easily manipulated. Yeah. Yeah we are. It looks like the author of this is just some random engineer without a lot of backround in marketing or persuasion psychology. That's a shame because he's clearly interested in it an…

After 5 years of getting my degree in psychology the dirty little secret I have found is this: all of the persuasion studies are incredibly appealing to marketers and the general pop and also the researchers who are incentivized by money and reputation. Making deep insights is akin to crack for a scientist. But the truth is most effects and mechanisms are overemphasized and exaggerated, because it makes a more compel…

Definitely, this is exactly my understanding based on what I've read on the subject.

Pepsi markets way more than Coke. It's adverts are usually funnier and all around 'better'. However, that only works on a raw customer who's never built an association. I like coke, I think Pepsi is too sweet. If Pepsi is half off and come isn't, sure I'll grab a case of pepsi because it's now an unequal choice.

This is the same for everything. Marketing is only brand awareness. It does not sell a single thing. I will not see an advert for ladies tights and go "oh, as a man I really need a pair of nude tights!" You can market it all you want, run it for every second of every advert break of every day, put a billboard outside every window of my house, play audio on police speakers. I'm not gonna buy a fucking pair of tights.

However, the day I'm at the store and my wife sends me a text and says "I need a pair of tights for tonight" I'm probably gonna remember the company who raided my house in swat gear and strapped me into a chair and Clockwork Oranged me.

On a perfectly level playing field, marketing is an advantage by making the field unlevel. However, between massive conglomerates where everyone on earth knows the competing sides and everyone has tried both, marketing is just maintaining the field. Whomever stops marketing risks being mistaken as no longer around.

It's no different than me picking between two friends of mine who both do roofing. If I haven't seen Bob in six months, I'm assuming he's dead and I just hand it to Joe I saw on Tuesday.

Advertising is just a large scale way of saying "hey, I'm still here! I'm just waiting on when you're ready."

The notion advertising sells anything is absurd. The notion that not advertising costs you sales is very real.

Re: Ads work by cultural imprinting, not emotional inception

#95

Post by benihana »

tedks wrote: post #89
spindritf wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the mechanisms I mentioned have been replicated many times, by different researchers Could you offer some references?

No. I'm not going to hold your hand and feed you links. You'll go off and get another link and think that your link is as good as my links. I mentioned two books in my first comment. Read them. They summarize about a half century of research.

>No. I'm not going to hold your hand and feed you links. You'll go off and get another link and think that your link is as good as my links.

k. Who are you, random pseudo-anonymous hacker news commenter? And why are your links superior?

On the internet, anyone can claim that what they are saying is what is actually correct. And no matter how much they think what they are saying is actually correct, the burden of proof is on them, not the reader, to prove it.

Re: Ads work by cultural imprinting, not emotional inception

#96

Post by philh »

gress wrote: post #88
philh wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My argument doesn't rely on dentists being experts on toothpaste. It relies on them knowing more than I do about toothpaste, on average. I can think of plausible mechanisms that would discriminatingly push an unusually good toothpaste to the top of dentists' recommendations. Offhand, I can't think of any that would discriminatingly push an unusually bad toothpaste up there. By "discriminatingly", I mean that e.g. adv…

It sounds as though you are assuming that the signal that dentists receive from advertising will be equal for all toothpastes and so the signal from some evaluation of knowledge of toothpaste quality will still be enough to make the better product be the one they recommend.

I'm not assuming that. Advertising is noise, and knowledge is signal. I can't cancel out the noise, I can only observe noise+signal. But I expect the noise to be uncorrelated with the signal, which means that wherever noise+signal is highest is my best bet for where noise is highest.

The more noise there is relative to signal, the less effective this method gets, but it's still better than any other strategy (in this toy model).

Re: Ads work by cultural imprinting, not emotional inception

#97

Post by tedks »

electromagnetic wrote: post #94
pknight wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After 5 years of getting my degree in psychology the dirty little secret I have found is this: all of the persuasion studies are incredibly appealing to marketers and the general pop and also the researchers who are incentivized by money and reputation. Making deep insights is akin to crack for a scientist. But the truth is most effects and mechanisms are overemphasized and exaggerated, because it makes a more compel…

Definitely, this is exactly my understanding based on what I've read on the subject. Pepsi markets way more than Coke. It's adverts are usually funnier and all around 'better'. However, that only works on a raw customer who's never built an association. I like coke, I think Pepsi is too sweet. If Pepsi is half off and come isn't, sure I'll grab a case of pepsi because it's now an unequal choice. This is the same for…

>The notion advertising sells anything is absurd. The notion that not advertising costs you sales is very real.

So in other words, advertising gains sales. Half-full vs. half-empty.

Re: Ads work by cultural imprinting, not emotional inception

#98

Post by electromagnetic »

tedks wrote: post #97
electromagnetic wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely, this is exactly my understanding based on what I've read on the subject. Pepsi markets way more than Coke. It's adverts are usually funnier and all around 'better'. However, that only works on a raw customer who's never built an association. I like coke, I think Pepsi is too sweet. If Pepsi is half off and come isn't, sure I'll grab a case of pepsi because it's now an unequal choice. This is the same for…

>The notion advertising sells anything is absurd. The notion that not advertising costs you sales is very real. So in other words, advertising gains sales. Half-full vs. half-empty.

No, not at all.

Advertising doesn't generate additional sales for an existing player it merely maintains the status quo. Not advertising destroys the status quo and loses you sales that existed when people become unaware you even sell a product.

Re: Ads work by cultural imprinting, not emotional inception

#99

Post by gress »

philh wrote: post #96
gress wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds as though you are assuming that the signal that dentists receive from advertising will be equal for all toothpastes and so the signal from some evaluation of knowledge of toothpaste quality will still be enough to make the better product be the one they recommend.

I'm not assuming that. Advertising is noise, and knowledge is signal. I can't cancel out the noise, I can only observe noise+signal. But I expect the noise to be uncorrelated with the signal, which means that wherever noise+signal is highest is my best bet for where noise is highest. The more noise there is relative to signal, the less effective this method gets, but it's still better than any other strategy (in this…

What makes you think the signal is stronger than the noise?

Re: Ads work by cultural imprinting, not emotional inception

#100

Post by philh »

gress wrote: post #99
philh wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not assuming that. Advertising is noise, and knowledge is signal. I can't cancel out the noise, I can only observe noise+signal. But I expect the noise to be uncorrelated with the signal, which means that wherever noise+signal is highest is my best bet for where noise is highest. The more noise there is relative to signal, the less effective this method gets, but it's still better than any other strategy (in this…

What makes you think the signal is stronger than the noise?

It doesn't need to be. My argument never assumed that. I don't know where you get the impression that it did.

Take nine 0s and a single 1, then generate ten random numbers, identically distributed however you choose, and add one of them to each of your starting numbers. Ask someone to pick out where the original 1 was. However you generated the random numbers, their best strategy is to choose the largest resulting number.

Probably tapping out here.

Post reply on HN