For decades, marketers have relied on brand lift studies and ad recall surveys as gospel for measuring advertising effectiveness. The logic seems sound: if people remember our ads, they must be working. But what if this fundamental assumption is flawed? What if conscious awareness of advertising isn't nearly as important as we've been led to believe?
The first time this topic triggered me was by reading the article "Do Attention Levels Drive Ad Effectiveness? Byron Sharp Says No " from Charles R. "Ray" Taylor at Forbes . At that point I was already into behavioural science and I realised was missing an important point that , in my opinion, was central : the scientific evidence around unconscious processing and the mere exposure effect, so I decided to gather the scientific foundation around unconscious processing and its potential superiority over conscious attention in order to strength Sharp's argument against paying premiums for attention metrics.
The evidence
This challenging perspective emerged in 1968 when psychologist Robert Zajonc [2] made a groundbreaking discovery: people don't need to consciously remember seeing something to be influenced by it. This "mere exposure effect" demonstrated that simple exposure to a stimulus, even without conscious awareness, could create a preference for it. This finding doesn't just suggest tweaks to our measurement approach – it fundamentally challenges the entire premise of brand lift studies.
"mere exposure effect" demonstrated that simple exposure to a stimulus, even without conscious awareness, could create a preference for it. This finding doesn't just suggest tweaks to our measurement approach – it fundamentally challenges the entire premise of brand lift studies.
The evidence supporting this challenge is compelling. Herbert Krugman's 1977 [3] research demonstrated that "memory without recall" and "exposure without perception" can significantly influence consumer behavior. More recently, eye-tracking studies by Lee and Ahn [1] revealed that users often actively avoid looking at ads, particularly animated ones, yet these same "avoided" ads still influenced brand attitudes. Perhaps most tellingly, their research found that higher conscious attention sometimes correlated with negative outcomes . The explanation is simple, due to users’ limited cognitive capacity , efforts to bring attention to banner ads via animation for example, negatively affects the relationship between attention (total fixation duration) and memory. Therefore, users may not be able to recognize a visually complex banner ad, despite attention paid, because of the extra cognitive resources required for processing the ad as you can see on the figure below.
This paradox becomes even more interesting when we consider Hong et al.'s [5] findings that attention-grabbing features can actually reduce ad effectiveness. It suggests that our industry's pursuit of memorable, attention-grabbing advertising might be counterproductive. We're optimizing for conscious awareness when the real impact might lie in subtle, unconscious exposure.
The problems with traditional brand lift studies run deeper than just missing unconscious effects. Bornstein and D'Agostino's [6] research found that recognition can actually interfere with the mere exposure effect – ads that aren't consciously recognized can have stronger positive effects than those that are. When we conduct brand lift studies, we might be giving higher scores to less effective advertising while undervaluing ads that work primarily through unconscious processing.
When we conduct brand lift studies, we might be giving higher scores to less effective advertising while undervaluing ads that work primarily through unconscious processing.
This disconnect becomes even more apparent when we look at long-term effects. Havlena and Graham's [8] research showed that while conscious recall decays quickly, unconscious effects can persist. Brand lift studies might be missing these enduring unconscious impacts entirely. Byron Sharp's [11] extensive research has consistently found weak correlations between ad awareness and sales, with strong performance often coming from ads with low recall.
So where does this leave us as marketers?
It doesn't mean we should completely abandon brand lift studies, but we need to dramatically reshape our approach to measuring advertising effectiveness. Instead of focusing solely on what people remember, we need to look at how advertising shapes behavior through both conscious and unconscious channels.
Instead of focusing solely on what people remember, we need to look at how advertising shapes behavior through both conscious and unconscious channels.
This might mean supplementing traditional brand lift studies with implicit association tests and physiological measures like eye-tracking. It means tracking subtle shifts in preference over time rather than just immediate recall. Most importantly, it means focusing more on actual behavioral outcomes rather than claimed awareness or recognition.
The implications for creative development are equally profound. Rather than pursuing attention-grabbing elements at all costs, we might need to consider the value of subtle, repeated exposures. Instead of optimizing for memorability, we might need to design for unconscious processing, as suggested by Yoo's [7] research on unconscious processing of web advertising.
As we move forward in an increasingly complex advertising landscape, we need to embrace this more nuanced understanding of how advertising works. Zajonc [2] showed us over 50 years ago that you don't have to remember seeing something to be influenced by it. Perhaps it's time we started measuring advertising effectiveness accordingly.
The question isn't whether brand lift studies have value – they do provide useful insights about conscious processing of our advertising. The real question is whether we're overvaluing conscious recall and recognition while undervaluing the subtle, unconscious effects that might actually drive behavior. In an era of increasingly sophisticated marketing measurement, are we sophisticated enough to measure what really matters?
The future of advertising measurement might not lie in asking people what they remember, but in understanding how advertising shapes behavior through both conscious and unconscious channels. As we continue to evolve our measurement approaches, we need to ensure we're measuring what matters, not just what's easy to measure.
References:
- [1] Lee, J., & Ahn, J. H. (2012). Attention to banner ads and their effectiveness: An eye-tracking approach. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 17(1), 119-137.
- [2] Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2p2), 1.
- [3] Krugman, H. E. (1977). Memory without recall, exposure without perception. Journal of Advertising Research, 17(4), 7-12.
- [4] Cho, C. H., & Cheon, H. J. (2004). Why do people avoid advertising on the Internet? Journal of Advertising, 33(4), 89-97.
- [5] Hong, W., Thong, J. Y., & Tam, K. Y. (2004). Does animation attract online users' attention? The effects of flash on information search performance and perceptions. Information Systems Research, 15(1), 60-86.
- [6] Bornstein, R. F., & D'Agostino, P. R. (1992). Stimulus recognition and the mere exposure effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 545.
- [7] Yoo, C. Y. (2008). Unconscious processing of Web advertising: Effects on implicit memory, attitude toward the brand, and consideration set. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 22(2), 2-18.
- [8] Havlena, W. J., & Graham, J. (2004). Decay effects in online advertising: Quantifying the impact of time since last exposure on branding effectiveness. Journal of Advertising Research, 44(4), 327-332.
- [9] Binet, L., & Field, P. (2013). The Long and the Short of It: Balancing Short and Long-Term Marketing Strategies. IPA.
- [10] Nielsen Catalina Solutions. (2017). Five Keys to Advertising Effectiveness: Quantifying the Impact of Advertising on Sales.
- [11] Sharp, B. (2010). How Brands Grow: What Marketers Don't Know. Oxford University Press.
