Consumer Psychologist posts an interesting note on variable positive reinforcement - the power of semi-unpredictable rewards to reinforce behavior (think slot machines). And asks this:
Why then, do all marketers give consumers such a predictable outcome. You pay this, you’ll get that. You watch this TV show you’ll see this TVC. You drink this you’ll feel that. You fly this much, you’ll reach this level. Marketers are missing a massive opportunity by injecting randomness into the consumer experience.
I think he’s talking here about marketing providing variable rewards in its own right - not so much products that do - which is an important distinction.
Of course the traditional structure of marketing is sort of the opposite of VPR. It’s based on diminishing returns. You put out a campaign, commercial, sneaky viral video or whatever and let it run for as long as it works or is entertaining or interesting. Then it fatigues. Then you do another.
I think moving away from the world of diminishing returns and toward VPR requires two things:
- Wanting to create marketing with standalone value in the first place. Itself a relatively recent(?) phenomenon and not altogether widespread. And by value I mean something that still communicates something useful or meaningful about your brand. Beer cozies with your logo don’t count (unless you’re a brewer I suppose).
- Hiding that value inside a system that demands interaction. In other words making the value something generated rather than available to any passive viewer. I think any random reward system requires a level of interactivity. But this part is scarier and harder to “control”. (And to me the drive to control message is why interactive marketing is mostly crap.)
The best example of VPR that I can think of offhand are the Burger King video games everyone loved so much. Standalone value high enough that people even paid for it. And games are the ultimate example of systems where interactions are their own reward.
Gareth Kay also mentioned slot machines a while back with reference to a piece from frog design but made a somewhat different point - focusing less on randomness and more on the question of scale:
Will we keep people engaged with our brand through doing one big spectacular thing or through developing lots of stuff that is more “high frequency and low value” in nature? I’d argue human behavior encourages the latter.
Which sounds right to me. If you think you can’t manage or afford or are too risk-averse to create marketing with truly variable rewards - you can still do plenty of interesting or generous things on a smaller-scale, ongoing basis. Fewer big all-in campaigns, lower risk per effort, and maybe a certain sense of brand velocity or momentum that lends itself to… if not randomness, then at least texture.
Hope that made some sense.
One Comment
Hi. Nice commentry and builds. Rarely do I do this but I agree with everything you and Gareth say. Some of your commentry leaves the VPR thought behind and puts forwards arguements for positive reinforcement of communications. Which is a worthy coversation.
On your point about comms having value - at Naked we have a simple analogy for ALL communications - does it give more than it takes? ie at it’s most base if your taking 30 seconds away from someone in a TVC are you genuinely useful or entertaining, or if you are getting some kind of interaction happening is the pay off worth the effort?
As for Garath’s points - these are well made too by John Grant. Marketers need to stop thinking we need to do few things well and do lots of things well and even a few averagely.
Hope you keep the blogging going.