[Summary] Buyology: Truth and Lies About Why We Buy by Martin Lindstrom — 3 Takeaways, 2 Quotes, 1 Question.
We’re not as rational as we think we are.
When it comes to purchase decisions, what we say is rarely the same as what we actually do.
According to Martin Lindstrom’s Buyology: Truth and Lies About Why We Buy, the challenge with traditional market research is that it can sometimes fail to fully capture the thoughts and emotions behind these purchase decisions.
This is where the field of neuromarketing comes in — or as Lindstrom puts it, the “marriage of marketing and science”. Although somewhat verging on an episode of Black Mirror, neuromarketing simply involves studies which scan consumer’s brains as they respond to marketing stimuli (brand colours, logos, commercials, or jingles), all in the noble effort of understanding the forces that drive our purchase decisions.
I’ll be the first to say that while the topic is interesting, this book was not perfect. Like many non-fiction books, there was a not-so-healthy dose of self-serving anecdotes and ramblings on the author’s own accomplishments — which is especially clear when you count how many times the author has to say “the point is” within the span of three pages.
What I did find interesting though was how it connected with some existing concepts we explored in Byron Sharp’s How Brands Grow and Jonah Berger’s Contagious.
Anyways, take a look below and let me know what you think!
3 Takeaways
#1: Strong brands build a lifetime of associations that go beyond just a logo and brand colours.
Lindstrom explores an experiment with Marlboro, where participants (who were smokers) were exposed to imagery strongly associated with the brand, such as cowboys on horsebacks or a bright red Ferrari roaring through a backdrop of the American Rockies. Without even showing the Marlboro logo or its brand colours, fMRI scans revealed a noticeable response in participants’ brain regions associated with reward, craving, and addiction — in essence, activating a need for the brand without explicitly advertising the brand.
How was this possible? Firstly, by this point Marlboro had spent years and millions of dollars building these associations through traditional advertising. What’s more interesting though is that because no logos or branding were shown, participants weren’t aware that they were viewing an ad — therefore their guard was down, making them more receptive and susceptible to persuasion.
While I question if Lindstrom’s results would be the same with other categories outside of tobacco, I think it’s safe to say that the strongest brands are ones which have forged a complete sensory experience for the consumer — thus allowing them to transcend advertising, which we’ve learned to mentally block out over the years. For instance, think of the buttery feeling of the lid sliding off the box of a new iPhone, the roasted smell of coffee beans as you walk past a Starbucks, or the fizz of a Coke bottle being opened on a scorching summer afternoon.
With our mental guards down, these sensory cues have the power to trigger a need for the category or — better yet — the brand. All without spending a single dollar in advertising.
#2. Product placements can work, as long as they’re integral and relevant to the story.
In a similar vein to the first takeaway, brand sponsorships tend to be more effective when the placements don’t feel like an ad and are more subtle (but still relevant in context).
Lindstrom explores a study with Coke and Ford both sponsoring American Idol. Coke’s sponsorship took the form of subtle product placements such as the judges drinking out of Coke glasses or the contours of the contestant lounge sofa featuring the iconic Coke ribbon. Ford’s sponsorship was less subtle with traditional commercials or overt musical numbers featuring contestants washing a Ford truck during commercial breaks. The results of the study revealed that the more subtle product integrations had an effect on Coke being far more memorable than Ford to the study participants.
Even within movies, we see the same effect. For instance, did you know that FedEx had a product placement in Casino Royale? (I definitely didn’t.) However, if you’ve seen Cast Away, what did Tom Hanks deliver at the end of the movie? (a FedEx package, you say?)
Again, whether it’s with sponsorships or movies, product placements have to make sense within the story: the more relevant the integration, the more memorable your brand will be.
3: Find ways to associate your brand with a ritual — or create one yourself!
Lindstrom argues that “in an unsettled, fast-moving world, we’re all searching for stability and familiarity”, and rituals provide us with a sense of control.
Rituals can take many forms ranging from having a coffee before checking your emails, to applying anti-aging face cream before bed, to eating a Kit Kat before an exam.
This also applies within the context of purchase decisions. As we’ve seen with Sharp’s book, the act of selecting a brand amongst a sea of options can sometimes be a ritual in itself (i.e. “I’ve always bought this brand since I was a kid, so I’m just going to keep buying it”), as opposed to any conscious or rational act of “brand loyalty”.
Outside of the book, some studies have even shown that knocking on a table before eating a baby carrot makes it taste better — or to put it more generally, rituals can add additional value for a product… without changing anything else!
Think of the last time you added a wedge of lime to a bottle of Corona or when you dunked an Oreo in a glass of milk — would we truly have an objectively worse experience without performing these “rituals”? More importantly, how did Corona or Oreo come to own these rituals, when they could easily apply to Heineken or Chips Ahoy? Could we argue that owning these rituals is a competitive differentiator for Corona and Oreo?
Regardless, I think the key takeaway is that the strongest brands help consumers feel some sense of control in their lives — either by attaching themselves to an existing ritual in their lives which uniquely “triggers” a need for their brand, or by creating their own unique brand ritual.
Before this gets too long, there’s so much more written out there on the topic of brand rituals, so I encourage you to read more on it, if you’re interested!
2 Quotes
#1:
“All the positive associations the subjects had with Coca-Cola — its history, logo, colour, design, and fragrance; their own childhood memories of Coke, Coke’s TV and print ads over the years, the sheer, inarguable, inexorable, ineluctable, emotional Coke-ness of the brand — beat back their rational, natural preference for the taste of Pepsi. Why? Because emotions are the way in which our brains encode things of value, and a brand that engages us emotionally — think Apple, Harley-Davidson, and L’Oréal, just for starters — will win every single time.”
#2:
“Remember that the more stress we’re under in our world, and the more fearful we are, the more we seek out solid foundations. The more we seek out solid foundations, the more we become dependent on dopamine. And the more dopamine surges through our brains, the more we want, well, stuff.”
1 Question
Why is my favourite brand… my favourite brand?
Thanks for reading!
P.S. The link above that drives you to the book’s Amazon page is an affiliate link — meaning that, at no additional cost to you, I’ll earn a commission if you click through and decide to purchase.
