Communication is fundamental to marketing. Clear messaging is key in building consumer perceptions and driving future purchases. Comms must also land internally; marketers require briefs with specific objectives, original insights and sensible targeting.
It’s no surprise, then, that marketers primarily view communication as a tool to influence other people. But they rarely stop to consider how it influences themselves. After all, decades of psychological research has shown how language impacts our perceptions. It’s clear that metaphors influence our understanding of fundamental concepts, even when we’re not aware of them.
So how do metaphors shape our perceptions? And why do key marketing metaphors present a challenge for the industry?
Metaphors hiding in plain sight
To most of us, metaphors are a literary device used to make writing more evocative (‘all the world’s a stage’). A matter of extraordinary not ordinary language. But neuroscience has shown that metaphors are an unavoidable part of thinking. They don’t just embellish language – they help us to understand abstract concepts in familiar terms.
One common example is the metaphor of time as money: we refer to time in terms such as ‘earned,’ ‘spent,’ or ‘wasted.’ Like many metaphors, this example is notable because of its subtlety; we don’t realise we’re using it. But what’s more interesting is that metaphors actually shape how we think about concepts.
In one study, two groups read a crime report and were then asked to suggest solutions to fix it. The reports were identical except for the metaphor used. In the first report, crime was described as a virus (e.g. ‘infecting the city’), while in the other it was described as a beast (e.g. ‘preying on the city’). Although neither group noticed the metaphor, it had a significant impact on suggestions. The virus metaphor called for social reforms such as fixing the economy and improving education. On the other hand the beast metaphor led to enforcement based solutions: hiring more police officers and building more jails.
Without metaphors, we would struggle to grasp complex topics like crime. The challenge is that metaphors are inherently selective. They only highlight certain aspects of the concept, leading to an inaccurate understanding of the whole. And this is just as relevant to marketing as it is to crime.
Marketing as salesmanship
Arguably the most dominant marketing metaphor is salesmanship: a transaction between two parties sharing factual information and paying full attention. The metaphor is so ingrained that it is rarely questioned; marketers frequently use words like believability, persuasion, comprehension, benefits, and messaging when judging advertising. While this metaphor helps to describe some short term ‘activation’ ads, it doesn’t explain the more common (and more powerful) ‘brand-building’ ads that drive long-term sales.
For starters, it’s easy to think of brilliant campaigns that are devoid of persuasive messages. Cadbury’s ‘Gorilla’, Budweiser’s ‘Wassup’ & Sony Bravia’s ‘Balls’ all show that surprising stories trump factual information. Nor is this finding limited to a few winners. The conclusion of the IPA’s meta-analysis of hundreds of campaigns is that ‘the most profitable advertisements are those with little or no rational content.’ This discovery is certainly at odds with current practice, given that ‘the key message’ or the ‘one thing we want to say’ are still at the heart of many brand-building briefs.
This salesmanship metaphor prioritises persuasion because it implies the audience is already paying attention. But in reality, attention can’t be guaranteed: 85% of all digital ads are viewed for less than 2.5 seconds, barely enough to leave a lasting impression. Even traditional media struggle to cut through, with the average 30 second TV ad receiving 12 seconds of attention. What’s more, eye tracking data shows that this attention is fleeting: consumers are constantly switching from active attention (looking at the ad), to passive attention (looking around the ad).
The reality then, as marketing scientist Jenni Romaniuk puts it, is that “most brands are failing to get into the room.” The problem is “they’re spending all their money on arguing as if they’re already there.” Brand building ads should grab attention and not take it for granted; replacing product benefits with a compelling narrative. It might not help the salesmanship metaphor, but it’s more likely to help the bottom line.
Marketing as a relationship
Marketers also understand their work as building a relationship: it is the language of engagement, love, care, trust, attachment, and togetherness. This metaphor would be more useful if we treated brands like people, but findings from neuroscience show we see them differently. When consumers associate personality traits with people, they use parts of the brain associated with social and emotional processing. But when they associate the same set of traits with brands, they use brain regions involved in object processing.
The main drawback with this metaphor is that it implies brand love is a necessity for growth. Ryanair is a prime example of a brand that suggests otherwise. It carries more passengers than any other airline in Europe, and frequently ranks as the continent’s most profitable carrier. Yet it’s consistently voted as the worst airline in consumer satisfaction surveys. Rather than love, it’s distinctly inhuman traits – low costs and accessibility – that drive the brand’s success.
In practice, these functional traits are usually the ones that consumers care most about. But marketers deprioritise them when the relationship metaphor is taken too literally. In 2010, Pepsi’s ‘Refresh Project’ asked consumers to submit ideas for improving local communities, promising to grant $20 million to the winning idea (as voted for by the public). It was especially bold because the hefty budget meant Pepsi stopped advertising at the Superbowl for the first time in 23 years. With 80 million votes cast, the project achieved its aim of ‘deeper consumer engagement’, but it failed to improve the brand’s declining sales. Pepsi learnt that local communities are important to consumers; they just don’t encourage buying soft drinks. Pepsi’s attempt to build a relationship had blinded them to what makes consumers buy in the first place.
A new way forward: Marketing as a street performance?
These metaphors are so ingrained that they are unlikely to disappear any time soon. So the best we can do is create a viable alternative. Rather than describing marketing solely in terms of salesmanship or relationships, perhaps we can also think about it as a street performance – the kind you might see on London’s Southbank.
Street performers know their starting point is indifference. Most people walk by without giving any notice, so they start by grabbing attention; using the twin forces of surprise and entertainment to get noticed. These performers rarely impart rational information and they don’t try to persuade the crowd why they’re the best; preferring to leave them with a memory rather than a message. And as the audience eventually starts to move on, the best these performers can hope for is a donation for their efforts – not a deep relationship.
If we accept this is more representative of how marketing tends to work, it’s not just our language that will change for the better, but our thinking too.
Want to read more?
Want to stay in the loop?
