A (2:48)

Sure.

B (2:48)

Each of these four dimensions were rated in every ad in the sample. Then they linked those ratings to actual sales using Nielsen scanner data and weekly ad spend. And the one that was the clear winner was preserving brand essence, which should not be super surprising to those of us who subscribe to marketing effectiveness principles. Ads that stay true to their brand's identity, its tone, its distinctive assets, its personality performed better in both the short and the long term. Even more interesting, the effect followed a U shaped curve. That means that both highly consistent ads and sharply divergent ones performed well. But the middle of the road stuff did not do well. So, Rob, why do you think that ads that totally break from a brand's usual work or general vibe might actually work those on that other end of the U curb?

A (3:33)

I think by the nature of going divergent, you probably don't just separate yourself from where you've been, but also from where the category has been. So if you think about Classic Case Dove, right, their campaign for real beauty, that was a pretty big move for not just them, but for the category or the real old campaign, Classic vw, think small. Right? That was in a time when everybody was talking about having a larger car. They were like, okay, how do we not only present ourselves differently, but that really went against the category and therefore they could own more mind share of that category. That'd be my guess.

B (4:11)

Yeah, agreed. It makes me think of like Coinbase in a QR code.

A (4:15)

Yeah.

B (4:16)

That was so divergent in the TV category and it performed well. I would say that this would probably be hard to do if I had to pick a spot on the U curve that I wanted to try to hit. I'd rather stick to who I am and my distinctive assets. I mean, occasionally it could be fun to try to go really divergent, but I could see that being it's hard, a little bit hard to do well. These authors, they suggest it's because those ads grab attention. So if you're going to shake things up, go all in. But if you only kind of change things and you're in that bottom of the U curve and people get confused and confused brains generally don't convert. The other three dimensions, however, were not so clear cut in the data. So brand heritage proved no real effect. So consumers, we might say we care about tradition, but referencing your company's founding year doesn't move the needle. Unless you're a small brand trying to build legitimacy, then it might help. And realistic plots, those often backfired. So showing everyday life didn't drive sales. In fact, some of the most effective ads were highly unrealistic. And the takeaway is that realism isn't always engaging. And absurd can sell. Rob, do you have a favorite ad that was totally unrealistic, but it worked very well?

A (5:21)

Yes, a great question. The unrealistic versus inauthentic. Right. They're two different things. So obviously. And I know this is a. I've talked about it before and everyone talks about Old Spice, right? Total absurdity. But at the end of the day, it has an authentic promise that says, hey, you're going to smell like a dude. You know, you're going to smell like a man. So as ridiculous as it is, you don't use Old Spice and smell like sunflower, Right? So it delivers on its brand promise, but it does it in a very memorable and unrealistic way. Just in terms of the visual storytelling that they use.

B (5:55)

That finding made me think of, we did an ad once for a mattress company called Sleep Like a Baby and we put adult heads on babies bodies like. Well, that's probably why that performed well, because it's absurd, but it's still connected.

A (6:07)

To the brand and to the end benefit of Sleeping Like a Baby.

B (6:11)

Yes, exactly. All right, well, here's something that our legal team will not love. Credible messages also backfired. So the more believable the claims, the worse the ad performed. But vague or slightly exaggerated claims actually help because consumers expect ads to be dramatic. If you play it too straight, they might tune you out. But the nuance here is key. It's not about lying or misleading. Consumers substantiate your claims. People substantiate them. It's about drama. People don't want a shampoo ad to sound like a science report. They want it to promise them shiny hair. Now, I will say you gotta be very careful what you say in your advertising. So don't take that and start making like exaggerated. Your claims have to be substantiated. But can you present them in a more creative way, a more fun way? I think that's maybe the takeaway.

A (6:57)

It's about telling the best version of the truth.

B (7:00)

Yes, but not making something up. Then you're going to get in trouble. The authors also explored how these effects vary depending on two factors. Whether the product is hedonic, like chocolate or perfume, or utilitarian like shampoo or detergent, and whether the brand was small or large. Here's what they found. Hedonic products did better with exaggerated messages and unrealistic plots. Realism made them boring, but utilitarian products benefited from credible messages and a bit more realism. Only up to a point, though. Small brands gained more by preserving their brand essence and referencing heritage makes sense. And big brands stood out more with bold, unrealistic ads and didn't need to lean back on their backstory. So if you're a small upstart brand, you might want to stick to your core tone and maybe mention your origin story. But if you're an established brand in your category, go ahead and make that wild ad. You're not fooling anybody, but that's okay. In conclusion, authenticity can help, but only if you define it clearly and use the right kind of authenticity for your brand, your size and your product category. Now for our robgpt, using authenticity in ads without a plan is like wearing hiking boots to a black tie gala. You might be genuine, you might be comfortable, but you're not winning anyone over. Some brands need polish, others need grit. The trick isn't being real, it's knowing what kind of real your audience wants. Which I love that as a takeaway because I think especially with social media and all these social brands, I think there's a tendency to assume that it's always best to use a bunch of user generated content, be really real in your advertising. And I'm not saying that's a bad thing. But if we want to be research driven, depending on your brand and your category, that might not work for you. Like those user generated content, iPhone, video, TV ads are not always the best thing for your category. And sometimes people don't want to see something real. They want to see something that's telling a little bit more of an imaginative story.

A (8:54)

You kind of see the pendulum swing. At times I think that user generated content or that really gritty who's the woman that she does the ads that are on CNN with the stick that you wipe on your. Oh, Lumi, Lumi. Right. So it stood out during a time of overly polished or overhyped ads. So I think there was a time for that to actually feel more divergent or wild. Because who would spend all this money on a national television ad and have it look like it was a piece of user generated content, but then everyone does it and then it's no longer remarkable. Sometimes the lack of an idea can be the idea, but that only will last for so long.

B (9:37)

Yeah. It just really also just depends on what you're selling as well.

A (9:42)

Right.

B (9:42)

So sometimes I think there's trends in a category and we all think, oh, my brand needs to jump on that. But it's worth taking a pause and seeing. Does this actually apply to me? I thought that said it was really interesting. I was surprised by it. I thought it was going to say that authenticity is always better, trumps everything.

A (9:58)

Yeah.

B (9:59)

Yeah, for sure. Does not. Sometimes what we say and how we react with our dollars is different. I'll bet if you just surveyed people and asked them, would you buy more from a brand that's authentic? Everybody would say yes. But then you look at the data.

A (10:12)

Such a good point.

B (10:12)

Different story.

A (10:14)

Such a good point.

B (10:15)

Yeah. That's why these studies that have real sales data behind them, I tend to maybe believe or value a little bit differently. It's like, all right, well, this came through in the data. That's it for this episode of the Marketing Architects. We'd like to thank Taylor de Los Reyes for producing the show. You can connect with us on LinkedIn and if you like the podcast, please leave us a review. Now go forth and build great marketing Marketing Architects.