Why all consumer decisions are rational

Many years ago I did a research project for Rolex interviewing men in a number of European countries.  In England, wearers solemnly described the exquisite time keeping, the Oyster movement, the hundreds of years of Swiss watchmaking expertise.  In Italy, the men dispensed with all that and simply said ‘bella figura’. They were happy to acknowledge they wore Rolexes because world leaders, film stars and sports heroes wore them.

When I was studying branding 101 (the text for which was ‘What is a brand’ by Stephen King written in 1971!) the basic principle was that strong brands are mosaics of meaning – a blend of three elements: functional,  sensual and emotional. The point about the emotional values attaching to a brand (where communication is  most influential) was that these were the only truly unique elements and hence an important  basis for discrimination amongst competitors.  For consumers to buy on the basis of emotional values – whether these are obvious like the status values of cars or brands of alcohol or clothes or gifts or the warm feelings of being a good mother or father or husband or wife  – is perfectly rational.  Indeed, the great contribution of neuroscience in recent years has been to provide scientific evidence of what had hitherto been essentially theory: the overriding significance of the emotional component.

Somehow though, the terms rational and irrational have crept into the discourse and now seem to be used to mean the same thing as functional and emotional.   I think this happened around the time Behavioural Economics arrived the scene and people were reading books like ‘Predictably Irrational’ (Dan Ariely).  But the meaning here is different. These insights are a backlash against traditional economics which sees all purchasing behaviour as price driven. In other words if people don’t buy the lowest priced item in a category they are, in economists terms, behaving irrationally. But what do economists know about marketing?  Not much it would seem.

A genuine problem though is in measurement; and perhaps because functional elements are easier to articulate (and because companies after all like to have evidence that their products actually work), advertising   testing systems tend to be biased in that direction.  But measuring emotional responses is not insurmountable (Brainjuicer has good evidence on this as does the IPA databank).

The fascinating debate on the impact of the internet on marketing being conducted elsewhere on this blog (which I urge you to read and contribute to) raises the issue of whether the internet  with its vast proliferation of  facts and opinion is making purchasing decisions more functionally based.  Perhaps this availability makes the search easier for big ticket items. But that misses the point.  The real lesson for marketers is the now even greater importance of building in emotional values because that’s where the ultimate discrimination (and profit) for the brand owner lies. And from the consumers’ standpoint, that’s where the satisfaction (and loyalty) lies. What is more rational that that?