From trademarks to lovebrands

[Irfanabdulla1111]

How to stand out in the ocean of information?

How to meaningfully connect with consumers?

How to create holistic brand experiences?

The answer is to stop chasing fads and focus on creating emotional connections with consumers.

According to Kevin Roberts , author of “Lovemarks”: what moves human beings is emotion, not reason.

95% of human mental processes occur in the unconscious mind, and it is precisely there where the mechanisms that condition decisions reside.

However, most brands do not convey emotion.

In my article on neuromarketing , I discussed the importance of emotion as one of the 6 triggers that influence decision making.

Brands that are able to create emotional bonds with consumers, going beyond rational arguments or product benefits, are called lovebrands , also known as lovemarks.

Lovebrands somehow have that 'magic button' capable of arousing passions and exciting their customers beyond what is strictly rational.


Lovebrands - Features
In the biochemistry of emotions everything is interconnected and makes two neurotransmitters very involved in the purchasing decision process: dopamine and serotonin.

The brain's reward circuits are activated when a person encounters stimuli that cause pleasure, producing dopamine.

Images that generate positive emotions somehow increase serotonin levels.

Neuroscientist Alex Korb on Psychology Today says that the simplest strategy to increase serotonin levels is to think of happy memories.

Somehow, spots that reflect nice and funny situations, with good music, also achieve this effect.

To the extent that a brand, its messages or its products generate the secretion of the neurotransmitters dopamine and serotonin , the customer will feel pleasure, be satisfied and increase feelings of empathy , increasing trust.

One of the most famous cases in which the emotional connection is part of the purchasing decision was that of Pepsi vs. Coca-Cola, which Martin Lindstrom cites in detail in his book Buyology.

This case fascinates me because they managed to explain it some 20 years later thanks to functional magnetic resonance imaging.

In 1975, Pepsi ran a super campaign in shopping malls in several countries around the world called “Join the Pepsi Challenge.”

The campaign consisted of a “blind test” in which people passing by were made to taste, by taking a sip, a glass of Coca-Cola and another glass of Pepsi, both glasses without any kind of label to identify them.

The result was surprising as more than half of the volunteers said they preferred the taste of Pepsi to that of Coca-Cola.

In his book Blink, Malcolm Gladwell proposes the "one sip test" of drinking an entire can.

People tend to prefer the sweeter drink (like Pepsi) when they take just one sip, but that's not the case when they drink a whole can.

This could be an explanation for the behavior of consumers in that campaign.

With the results of 1975, it was easy to think that Coca-Cola was beginning its decline and the Pepsi era was starting.

It was the “rational” thing to do since it had been “objectively” proven that Pepsi was more popular, however, sales did not reflect this reality and Coca-Cola has continued to enjoy excellent health.

What happened then?

Are we talking about the fact that a market study such as carrying out a blind test did not work?

Almost thirty years later, in 2003, scientist Read Montague, director of the Neuroimagin dubai mobile number list free g Laboratory at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, performed the experiment again , but this time using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).

He did it in the same way, in a first part, through a blind test, and the first result obtained was very similar to that of 1975: more than half of the volunteers responded again that they preferred the taste of Pepsi to that of Coca-Cola.

Their brains showed greater activation of the ventral putamen when drinking Pepsi than Coca-Cola.