I was listening to a recent HBR IdeaCast titled, Strange-But-True Insights that was an amazing collection of groundbreaking research across industries and situations. One piece of research by Leif D. Nelson, a Hass School of Business professor at Berkeley, was particularly fascinating as it challenged a commonly held assumption in human behavior. Professor Nelson has spent the past few years looking into “consumer adaptation” which deals with how we react to certain stimuli including marketing messaging. One of his earlier works was titled, Interrupted Consumption: Adaptation and the Disruption of the Hedonic Experience. Not surprisingly in this study, he and fellow researchers, found that people tend to choose breaks in negative experiences and avoid breaks in positive ones.
 
Basically, we humans naturally attempt to intensify our positive experiences and mitigate the negative – really no big surprise. However, Nelson and colleagues argue that “consumers should insert breaks into positive experiences, but not in negative ones”. They explain this counterintuitive rationale with the following, “we argue that consumers will often fail to anticipate adaptation and the intensifying effect of breaks. We propose that consumers instead assume that breaks actually weaken the intensity of the experience. In other words, we argue that consumer’s preferences for breaking up experiences are often in direct opposition to the strategies that would maximize their enjoyment or minimize their suffering.”
 
In simple terms, they are saying – insert breaks into positive experiences because each ‘start-up’ of that experience actually mirrors and intensifies the original emotions and impact. These are positive adaptations. Further, we should as people and consumers not insert breaks in negative experiences as it just causes us to relive it over and over rather that dealing with it directly and in total.

Where Nelson and his colleagues work really engages is in a piece published in the Journal of Consumer Research in January, 2009 (Download). The essay is titled, Enhancing the Television-Viewing Experience Through Commercial Interruptions. Here is a verbatim summary whose insights are very counterintuitive:
 
“Consumers prefer to watch television programs without commercials. Yet, in spite of most consumers’ extensive experience with watching television, we propose that commercial interruptions can actually improve the television-viewing experience. Although consumers do not foresee it, their enjoyment diminishes over time. Commercial interruptions can disrupt this adaptation process and restore the intensity of consumers’ enjoyment. Six studies demonstrate that, although people prefer to avoid commercial interruptions, these interruptions actually made the programs more enjoyable (study 1), regardless of the quality of the commercial (study 2), even when controlling for the mere presence of the ads (study 3), and regardless of the nature of the interruption (study 4). However, this effect was eliminated for people who are less likely to adapt (study 5), and for programs that do not lead to adaptation (study 6), confirming the disruption of adaptation account and identifying crucial boundaries for the effect.”
 
Lots of academic language, I know. But in short, the authors are saying that consumers actually benefit by changes that challenge our adaptation processes so we are more stimulated. In effect, commercials break a pattern that contributes to overall pleasure and value of television-viewing. While I contend that consumers would prefer to watch an informative, entertaining and quality advertisement over one that does not deliver the same value, I cannot dispute Nelson and colleagues’ primary finding regarding the benefits of interruption. Very cool stuff and worthy of further research.

Jeff Swystun, Chief Communications Officer, DDB Worldwide

Posted on August 18, 2010 10:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

It is an understatement to say that the advertising and communications industry has experienced a great deal of change in the last five years. Economic conditions, consumer engagement, social media, digital technologies, tangible metrics and much more, are changing how we do business. Clearly the industry needs to be fluid and adaptive while leaders within the industry need to be bold, take a stand, and lead the change. The Cannes Lions International Advertising Festival has not been immune to these forces and is doing its best to be increasing relevant within these new dynamics.

This year entries are up 7% and attendance has risen 35% which is comparable to pre-recession levels. This indicates a general restoration in faith in the economy but more importantly it signals a need to invest in the future and celebrate the strategic and creative accomplishments of the industry. Since arriving in Cannes, I have noted a refreshing seriousness amongst those in attendance. People are here to learn and to challenge themselves. I have never seen such active note-taking at the sessions and more earnest, intense discussions at the breaks.

If you check out the homepage of the Festival, you will see a section, “Creative Advertising = Business Success.” This section features a report that purports to prove that creative advertising equates to business success. This is incredibly relevant to clients who, by the way, are back in force this year representing approximately ten percent of attendees. This is a good thing. Client participation can only result in more relevant and rewarding work from their agencies.

Another growing segment of attendees are what can be called "tech companies." Over the last few years, Microsoft, Google and Yahoo have become a staple and a force (this year Yahoo scored a minor coup by sponsoring the infamous Gutter Bar). Now these companies are joined by Adobe, Nokia, and HP. Global consulting firms are relatively new entrants with ones such as PwC joining session discussions on the changed marketing landscape. Hollywood too is increasing its presence supporting the theory that communications and entertainment are a natural combination.

The Festival will always be a great time, a great place to network, and a time to celebrate great work. Increasingly, it needs to be synonymous with effectiveness and results. By what I have observed, this transformation is underway.


Chuck Brymer
President & CEO DDB Worldwide

Posted on June 25, 2010 3:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Budweiser is the official beer sponsor of the 2010 FIFA World Cup, and as part of the Bud United sponsorship platform, DDB Worldwide is debuting Bud House - the first reality show tied to a global sporting event.

At Bud House, we have gathered 32 football “fanatics” -- one from each country in the World Cup draw -- to live together in South Africa, under one roof, during the entirety of the World Cup. The fans will watch all the matches together and share the ups and downs of the world’s most global, and highly anticipated, sporting event. Naturally, they will also represent their country through a series of competitive, charitable and sure-to-be-entertaining activities. In short, Bud House is the perfect physical manifestation of the way Budweiser brings people together.

As each team is eliminated from the World Cup, the corresponding fanatic will be eliminated from the competition and lose their chance at the ultimate grand prize – awarding in-person the Budweiser Man of the Match Trophy on the pitch after the final championship game. This is truly a once-in-a-lifetime prize on the largest global stage possible.

Bud House is a product of collaboration between DDB Chicago and Tribal DDB Amsterdam and our clients on the Budweiser Global Team at Anheuser-Busch InBev.

Check it out, follow the fanatics on Facebook and Twitter, tune in to the episodes, and share it with your friends:

www.BudUnited.com

Gill Duff
Global Account Director, Budweiser
DDB Worldwide

Posted by Juliette Seguret on June 9, 2010 9:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (11)