Emotional versus Rational Advertising

22/09/10 14:53
On page 134, table 9.1 of "How Brands Grow" I write that rather than saying thinking is emotional OR rational we should realise that most thinking is emotional And rational.

I question the value of the emotional rational dichotomy.  It's based on an out-dated view of emotions, and thinking.

On page 134, table 9.1 of "How Brands Grow" I write that rather than saying thinking is emotional OR rational we should realise that most thinking is emotional And rational.

I question the value of the emotional rational dichotomy.  It's based on an out-dated view of emotions, and thinking.

There are ads that present only stark factual information.  These are classically what people call “rational ads”.  But what if the information generates an emotional response...e.g.

"baby dolphins are dying because of plastic bags you throw away"

or even

"Jimmy Choo shoes are half price at David Jones tomorrow"

Similarly, emotional appeals can help us remember rational arguments ("your child's life depends the quality of your car's tyres").

Some emotional appeals may gain attention and increase brand appeal while others may turn us away (e.g. disgust).

Also emotional responses can look like rational ones.  Erik du Plessis in his book "The Advertised Mind" used the example of jumping when seeing a snake, an emotional reaction that uses no rational thought, but is clearly rational/sensible.

When people propose this dichotomy I feel that what they are really getting at is that there are ads that try to present a sales pitch "this is why we are better (for you)" compared to ads that focus on entertaining.  It's the latter group that people call "emotional" rather than "rational" - but this is a very sloppy way of describing the real difference.

I'd suggest that a dichotomy of persuasion-oriented advertising vs entertainment-oriented advertising is more useful. Both sorts of ads can be rational and emotional.

Byron Sharp, September 2010.