...is Behavioural Economics going to be something agencies engage with properly?
Or will it be used to justify the same old stuff?
While we're on the subject, don't you find there are as many theories on how brands work as there are agency networks?
« Simple post from Love | Main | The 5pm tea conundrum »
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
It would take a brave marketer to really embrace the idea of Behavioral Economics. The illusion of rational though gives marketers hope that they are in control. That, if we just say why we're better consumers will believe it and buy in. Behavioral Economics also goes against traditional testing and validation methodologies used by many marketers.
Theories on how brands work are interesting as well. Many were developed without the current knowledge of how the brain actually works and it's not something that is contested in marketing or advertising schools (U.S. anyway).
We've constructed the theories for how brands work based on what we want to believe. It helps justify what we do and makes us believe we're in control. The reality, that consumers really don't care that much about brands, that there is really no way to predict the complexity of the human mind, and that we've over-invested in perceived value, isn't something the majority is ready to come to terms with.
Posted by: Adam | December 15, 2009 at 03:14 PM
If behavioural economics really does work at board room'marketing-hating finance director' level; then I can see agencies trying to make it work.
The fact that the IPA seem to be behind it gives it credence and a believability.
If it helps us all to make better ads then lets hope so.
Posted by: Rob Mortimer | December 15, 2009 at 05:37 PM