In this episode, Richard talks to Sam Tatam, global head of behavioural science at Ogilvy, about the role of evolutionary psychology and behavioural science can work together to connect with people. Sam talks about systematically approaching creativity embracing the solutions of the past to improve the future. Sam is also the author of Evolutionary Ideas, which digs deeply into the ancient innovations that can solve tomorrow's challenges.
Brandon (00:09):
Welcome to the show. This is Brandon Wyn and you are listening to the Understanding Consumer Neuroscience podcast, brought to you by the folks at CloudArmy. In this episode, Richard talks to Sam Tatum, global head of behavioral science at Ogilvy, about the role evolutionary psychology and behavioral science can play together, to connect with people.
Brandon (00:30):
Sam talks about systematically approaching creativity and embracing the solutions of the past to improve the future. Sam is also the author of Evolutionary Ideas, which deeply into ancient innovations that can solve tomorrow's challenges.
Richard (00:50):
Hi, this is Richard Campbell. Thanks for listening to Understanding Consumer Neuroscience. Today, my guest, is Sam Tatum, who's the global head of behavioral science at Ogilvy. His passion is understanding human behavior and his experience comes from organization industrial psychology, and advertising strategy. Welcome Sam.
Sam (01:06):
Thanks so much, Richard. Lovely to be on.
Richard (01:07):
I'm excited to have you on, and I love that your background is more on the psychology side, because neuroscience is adjacent to that, but they're not the same things either.
Sam (01:17):
Yeah, I think, I mean everything under the broader banner of understanding our brains and how it informs our behavior, but certainly, there's a lot to be learned in the specifics of neuroanatomy, and how we can track things more clearly, by better understanding the brain. We sort of tend to be more on theoretically based hypothesis testing, so what do we assume that someone might respond in this? So what's the basis for that, and can it be proved or disproved
Richard (01:46):
And starting with that idea that asking them is not a good idea.
Sam (01:50):
Asking them what they think, or what they think they might do, tends not to be the right idea. What we find is that oftentimes, people's actual behavior can be completely opposite to what they might anticipate.
Richard (02:03):
Yeah, absolutely. And you've got a book coming called Evolutionary Ideas. It seems like you're tying into the old ways of thinking, that modern thinking may have suppressed, that may make more sense in this modern time, than they have in the past.
Sam (02:19):
That's right. So the book Evolutionary Ideas, is really about better understanding patterns of human behavior. And really what's enabling us to spot these patterns more easily, I think, is the growing world of behavioral science, behavioral economics, that's applying a language to sort of map these consistencies, in how we respond in certain circumstances.
Sam (02:42):
So we're able to see that people sort tend to follow the herd. We call that social norming, or we're able to see that people have a broader tendency to be loss averse, or we have a tendency to pursue a sunk cost. Sometimes these sort of this vernacular, can sound overly complex, but it actually enables us to see things that we otherwise wouldn't.
Richard (03:05):
In some ways it takes the emotion out of it, when you talk about it, the sunk cost fallacy, rather than talking about, "Well, you've already invested that thing. Why wouldn't you keep investing in it, even though it's not doing what you want?"
Sam (03:18):
And that's it. That's sort of makes intuitive sense, and there's a lot of this. A lot of able scientists sort of organizing our intuition, the same sort of, a watched pot never boils, is sort of lovely kitchen wisdom to show that sort of unoccupied time feels longer than occupied time.
Sam (03:32):
Give and you shall receive is a lovely way of sort of framing reciprocity. So these are things that instinctively we've sort of known, but now we're able to sort of codify it more clearly and validate it experimentally.
Richard (03:47):
Do you think that the complexities of modern culture have accelerated this need, that the people are sort of falling back on more visceral behaviors because they are overwhelmed?
Sam (03:56):
I think we know that we have a tendency when under stress and pressure, to revert back to more hard wired responses, more instinctive responses. So I've not seen studies to suggest the increased instances of us, what might be considered for falling prey to these biases or heuristics, more so based on modern society.
Sam (04:18):
But we know in certain circumstances where they're sort of information rich or there's sort of too many sort of pieces of stimulus distraction, that they can be great examples of where we tend to close off, and maybe be sort of more prone to these instinctive drives.
Richard (04:33):
Yeah. I think it's very challenging for a marketer today, living in a world where people are exposed to so much more advertising than they were 10 years ago or 20 years ago, to say, "Is this even an effective strategy anymore? How do I get my message out, or persuade folks to pay attention to my product?"
Sam (04:54):
That's where behavioral science helps us, and also what I sort of focus on in Evolutionary Ideas, can help us to better understand the nature of the challenge that we're faced with. I mean, every time we advertise, we're looking to achieve an outcome. Whenever we're faced with a challenge, we want to either sort of shift perceptions or aid a decision, or drive a behavior.
Sam (05:16):
And if we can better understand, this is a message about trust, so we need people to trust us, actually. The media might be more important than the message. So actually having sort of choosing selecting public billboards or big red bus signs, can be actually a far more effective strategy than the message that goes on it, because this is really about ensuring that lots of people are seeing your message. So it's a signal of trustworthiness.
Richard (05:42):
Is that locale important too? Is there something about the permanency of a billboard of a side of a bus that lends credibility?
Sam (05:51):
I think there has been research conducted on digital advertising, and particularly, personalized advertising that sometimes, because it's just delivered to you, it sort of removes the benefits of the signal that actually lots of other people are viewing this too. I speak about this in the book; during the pandemic, there were moments in the UK where all sort of key free to air channels, presented the same COVID at the same time.
Sam (06:17):
I mean, so this is like, everyone is seeing this. I mean, they can't be lying to all of us. So having some sense of sort of what would be sort of reputational cost in enough people are seeing this, that can call (beep), if someone knows the truth. And also when you think about permanency again, that's another sort of investment. So we're really drawing this, we're putting it in the concrete. We expect ourselves to be held accountable, rather than a sponsored post from an Instagram feed, that's lost on the kilometer of Instagram that you scroll that day.
Richard (06:50):
Well, the folks that sell us the ads on those social media sites, are very keen on the fact that you can target the ad very precisely, but I wonder if we've hit a point with the market where they've desensitized that. That over targeted marketing now drives customers away.
Sam (07:07):
I think it's one of those annoying answers, "So that depends." So it might depend on, again, what we're trying to achieve. If it's Uber, Google, Facebook looking to reinforce trust in the privacy of their platform, we might find they're actually using more traditional means doing a Super Bowl ad, or having a more sort of physical billboard is a better strategy, because of the reputational costs and exposure that that gains.
Sam (07:35):
If it might be about building personal affiliation or triggering action or reinforcing long term behavior with a sense of loyalty and understanding and relationship building, then that's where it can actually be quite valuable. Again, we need to consider the channel just as we consider the message, in response to what's the outcome that we're driving here.
Sam (08:01):
In the book, I sort of break the sort of the doing elements of the book. So we spend a bit of time understanding these patterns of ideas, and there are patterns of ideas that we see in Evolve Biology. There are patterns of solutions, I should say, solutions that we see in Evolve Biology. There are patterns of solutions we see in Evolve Technology. And there are certainly patterns that we're now more able to spot in our Evolved Psychology.
Sam (08:28):
What we do is explore what patterns or what psychological principles might be most relevant when we're looking at reinforcing trust. When we're looking at aiding decision making in the complex environment, when we're looking at triggering action or boosting loyalty or improving an experience. So we can start to see again, rather than sort of, let's start with a blank sheet of paper, it's more everything in the world. What's a good space that we can start, where can we borrow or steal from, to accelerate that process?
Richard (08:59):
Yeah, and I appreciate that. I really like your corollary with the pandemic where government took advantage of those mediums, to create this single message, which is quite a remarkable task. We'll probably never get to repeat, as any given organization. I mean, those big tech giants can buy a lot of ads, but not like the UK government could. But now I'm thinking about how a small organization might do this. Like you've sort of poked at that trust. To me, the low cost trust strategy, is the personal influencer, the customer persuading another customer, model. And that is a different way to talk.
Sam (09:39):
It is. And that sort of a couple different ways of an old sort of mentor, Jerry [Syren 00:09:47], if he's, if he ever listens to this, had a lovely way of describing this as sort of, you can have borrowed trust, earned trust, and blind trust. And there are some things you just have blind faith, and sometimes you can put elements of deeper belief, and religion in sort of, have sort of strong sort of firm views, and that can be sort of blind trust. When you have sort of earned trust, it's the things that you do. So it's like, it's sort of, "Put your money where your mouth is," it's the classic sort of walk the talk.
Richard (10:16):
So that means I've already got your attention enough that I'm even to have an opportunity to earn your trust.
Sam (10:20):
Yeah, certainly, I've got your attention, but it's the way in which I responded, which is like, "Well, that's actually a cost to yourself, or you are really putting your belief on the line here." A lot of the work that Patagonia does for example, and the way they conduct business in line with their belief, is a really great way of... Actually, it's sort of earn trust.
Sam (10:40):
Then you have borrowed trust, and that's where as you sort of suggest in the world of influencers, and actually finding people who are aligned with our brand or aligned with our audience, to help us to gain ears or gain eyes and start to build trust. And that's another sort of powerful element of behavioral science as well. The messenger,.
Sam (11:01):
I mean, sometimes again, we know the messenger can be more powerful than the message itself, and we've explored, as Olgivy, working with very different messenger groups, for example, in the US, looking at vaccine hesitancy, where you can actually look at what might be considered quite similar messages, just delivered by very different sort of tribal identities, to gain some some sort of alignment.
Richard (11:26):
Yeah. And that creates an entire story, that's less and less based on fact, in some cases; like tribalism's a remarkable force that creates that self reinforcing narrative and creates that, "Well, that's what everybody believes," even though it's only in a very particular circle,
Sam (11:45):
That can be the something that we can work with, or that can be the challenge, that we're up against. Then it becomes an exercise in framing, how we are framing our objective, and that can be from a brand or from a government, how do we frame our objective in a way that's aligned with that world view. Doesn't feel sort of... So we're not like a sort of a bad organ transplant that's rejected by the body.
Sam (12:15):
It's accepted and owned, even if it could be sort of fundamentally the same outcome of the next tribe we approach in a slightly different way.
Richard (12:23):
Yeah. I can see that it's very costly to hammer or sort of swim against the tide there. You can keep trying to hammer your message, it's just, you're going to spend a ton to do that. Better to figure out the things that matter to folks, and be more thoughtful and spend less.
Sam (12:39):
That's right. And at worse, we experience reacting to, and so we know this, another lovely term that behavioral science gives us, sort of sense of react, that if a messenger that we see is dissimilar to ourselves, to propose an ask or an action that we see, to limit our own personal freedoms, then we tend to react against it and go [crosstalk 00:13:03].
Richard (13:02):
The message is almost moot at that point. You were already pushing away before you heard them,
Sam (13:09):
Not even just neutral, a moot can be sort of negative, if you just actually inflame the opposite, the amount of times you see sort of "Don't walk on the grass," or, tourists go home, and people sort of lovingly taking pictures in all these spaces. They shouldn't. Yeah. Lovely examples of sort of reactions in the world.
Richard (13:26):
It's an old run white joke. The sign says, "No dogs," the sign is wrong. It should say "Two dogs." But yeah, I think that's an interesting point that... And I think it's also part of the modern culture too, that you are seeing strong enough tribalism that, not only is your message not being received, but is driving them further away.
Sam (13:48):
That's right. That's right. And that's, and that's the greatest risk. Particularly when we're looking at what we've experienced recently with COVID or on as many parts of the world still experiencing; where there is good evidence to suggest that wearing a mask and keeping a distance, and certainly with the vaccine, that there is great science behind an approach, that can be accepted differently by in groups.
Richard (14:16):
Yeah. It's remarkable how unpersuasive data can be.
Sam (14:20):
Data in itself again. So it's just presenting the numbers and that's where the task of creativity and reframing the ask or reframing the data in a way that's clear that is concrete. That's motivating. So we've done a lot of work out of the US, as Ogilvy. Chris [Graves 00:14:38], who's really leading the charge in the US here, and has done a lot of work in cultural cognition and better understanding differences between groups. But we're starting to find sort of even just remember the simple power of analogy in explaining how a vaccine works.
Richard (14:55):
Right.
Sam (14:58):
I'm back in Australia at the moment, and sometimes we can pick up sort of satellite from different pockets of Australia and different communities and how different regional communities are looking to communicate the same thing, and some are framing it like a boxer, preparing for the fight.
Sam (15:14):
When the virus comes and others, which is more sort of AFL Australian Football League, sort of territory's taking another approach. So it's really sort of remind ourselves just the power of narrative and metaphor and storytelling to help-
Richard (15:26):
And that regionalization. I'm sure cricket is effective in Australia. I don't know how effective it would be in Canada.
Sam (15:34):
It would be. That's right.
Richard (15:38):
Much less Aussie football, which is clearly, is its own crazy thing.
Sam (15:44):
Totally. Finding the right cultural sort of code to tap into to help us not spend our time in complex data and numbers that the brain sort of doesn't compute very well, but we've not evolved to do mathematics. We've evolved to, we've evolved to interpret and deliver stories. And so things that can be delivered in that format with really rich, vivid, concrete concepts, they, they tend to stick with us.
Richard (16:08):
So where does neuroscience come into this play? I get, I have have a good product, that seems to be the starting point or good data one way or the other. Now I'm trying to craft it into a message that is going to have meaning for a given audience.
Sam (16:22):
For us, I think where we've worked more in partnership, as I think with neuroscientists and organizations that have a stronger, new specific sort of neuro background, I personally come as you mentioned, from a psychology background, worth more broadly with behavioral economics, behavioral science for us. I think it can be a couple different ways. One is helping us get to a read of effectiveness faster, by sort of implementing some of the tools that are available through neuro-scientific methods. And there have a suite of a suite of different ways in which we can explore this from eye tracking studies to EG to better understand what elements of the, what elements of the brain are active or activity levels in itself. And look at sort of galvanic responses. We can sort of see actually how our body is responding to different messages.
Richard (17:16):
That involuntary skin response?
Sam (17:18):
Exactly. So there there's ways in which we can sort of start to see the message, having some sort of physical effect that's showing what might be considered a stress, a stress response, but that's an engagement response. Yeah. All the way down to work that we've done in the past in implicit association testing and seeing how speed of response and association can help us to see, "Well, if this is the message that we're looking to present to our audience, that's helping to frame our product as a refreshing product. This is the specific campaign or specific line that seems to be most aligned with the associations of refreshment, versus this one. And we're able to do that faster.
Richard (17:59):
Right. And presumably at lower cost, like in theory, if I simply did every ad campaign, sales would tell me which one worked, it's just kind of an expensive and slow way to go.
Sam (18:10):
It is. And I think that there's always a point in time on an innovation journey for this research because one thing that we tend not to suffer from is not having enough ideas about determining which ones to invest in. So some testing that we've done in the past with neuroscience partners, Richard, I'm not sure you're associated with CloudArmy [crosstalk 00:18:38].
Richard (18:38):
I am associated with CloudArmy, but yeah-
Sam (18:40):
This is a business that we've worked with in the past as well, but we're able to help to more cost effectively build a route or for many and variants of a message to a fewer variants, and then we can go to the field, but at least we go to the field with two.
Richard (18:55):
And is that at a story boarding phase? You're just sort of mocking it up and doing some layouts?
Sam (19:01):
It can be, at concept, almost proposition phase. This is the direction versus this direction, or this is the specific claim. I mean, we've done work, whether it's from adult incontinent pads to donation prompts. How different language makes a difference. We know that looking at sort of bladder weakness for example, tends to be the way that the category speaks to incontinence.
Sam (19:30):
But we know that's inherently negative. We found using some of these methods that actually framing it as manageable bladder weakness is a more positive way. It's so simple in retrospect. It's like, "Yes, it's not a good thing, but it's manageable."
Richard (19:43):
Yeah. And we help you manage it, right?
Sam (19:45):
Exactly. So subtle, small elements of language, even in... In one, I think our best performing in claim looked at and reframing the negative of bladder weakness to having a relaxed bladder. Being weak is bad, being relaxed is good. So it can be literally looking at some wordsmithing earlier on that is anyone within an agency, if that becomes your proposition, and that shapes an entire campaign.
Sam (20:10):
From manageable bladder weakness to having a relaxed bladder, that can take you into a couple of different spaces.
Richard (20:16):
Right. Yeah. And I think that you package it into these different kind of messages. These are hilarious products, too. It's like, "Oh boy, I have to sell this. Clearly there's people who need it. They just don't want to tell me." And you have to frame it in a way that makes it acceptable for them to want it too.
Sam (20:35):
That's right.
Richard (20:35):
It's a great set of patterns, and it is very interesting to see where that testing can take place. I guess the further down the path you are, the more assumptions you've already made and are maybe harder to reverse. You're talking in that early proposition phase, you're just throwing that's almost just straight up brainstorming. You're throwing ideas out there. It's almost a challenge to figure out what to test.
Sam (20:56):
We can have too many directions, but important for us that we always have a hypothesis as behind why we would be testing as specific [inaudible 00:21:04]. Because that then helps us to stay true to that concept as we get in richer forms of execution, but from our experience it has been an earlier stage, but I know of other brands and organizations that have...
Sam (21:20):
I mean, and clearly testing adverts, and adcepts before they go into final polish, that these are ways in which we can start to track engagement. And that can even be, and Richard, I'm sure you're closer to this than I am, but even looking at micro expressions through our camera, that we can start to see subtle smiles or frowns or points of engagement where there are just really fascinating ways we can begin to use technology to get a better read than we would've otherwise. And again, going from many possibilities to the few that we should really invest in is where I think there's a great role for this kind of research.
Richard (21:56):
Yeah. A variety of technologies for measuring too, but also that variety of times. In an earlier show, we had a conversation about testing movie trailers. I mean, you're at a point where the movie's almost in its final edit, and then you're just trying to figure out what's the best way to promote it. You're a long way down the path. A lot of money's already been spent and you're still trying to optimize marketing, so it makes a lot of sense, but it does speak to that range of, "We're just brainstorming ideas. Let's test a few to figure out which ones seem to resonate with the market we care," versus, "We've got this product and we're going to the final stages to try and put it out there. Which one of these four approaches do you think will be the one that'll reach the market we want?"
Sam (22:36):
And I think it can work at either at either stage. It just sort of depends on the role of the research. If it's final selection versus consolidation, sure [inaudible 00:22:49] all learning, because the nice thing about this is we always, every time we research and whether that's through neuroscience methods that we're discussing now or intervention pilots, every time we test, we learn and we can optimize. Different appetites and stages of development can call for this kind of research at different stages.
Richard (23:07):
Yeah, no, I appreciate that different folks are responsible for different times they want to put in neuroscience into the equation. It doesn't seem like there's any one, right way. There's a bunch of ways to get it to involve neuroscience in the process to really measure things. What are you responsible for and where do you see results?
Sam (23:26):
That's right. Yeah. And this again is not explicitly my area of expertise and surrounding ourselves with organizations that can help us to recommend the best methodologies to answer the questions that we have in the most efficient way and when we can use algorithmic responses.
Sam (23:45):
I mean, I know we're exploring in other parts of our organization, how we can be in to look at better understanding personality profiles of different audience groups and other cognitive traits, and there's times, after some time, we have a group of brand advocates, that were able to actually get a read of individuals and through machine learning.
Sam (24:11):
We don't necessarily need to test adcepts against people. We can test adcepts against an algorithm that's been based off the audience that we already understand. So we are not looking again, to recruit participants to different things. We're able to, again, codify that and-
Richard (24:30):
Right. Model it. You've done it enough, now you've got to model it, is repeatable.
Sam (24:35):
We understand the expected response and we can put a different stimulus out there and essentially we'll get a read. No research is perfect, but it's about, what's the time in the journey and what are we looking to achieve, and what's the cost or implication of this?
Sam (24:53):
And the attractive thing sometimes is we can get a good read quickly, relatively inexpensively as compared to putting out two ads in two different markets and seeing what drives uptake.
Richard (25:04):
Well. And that's an interesting aspect of this and I already in the conversations around nudging and such, which says it's getting away from that idea of that one perfect ad will create the sale as opposed to, its many touches of a product's brand and messaging that ultimately lead to a sale.
Sam (25:22):
I think there's that wonderful saying, and I'll butcher it now, but brands are like bird nest. They're built one twig at a time. So certainly in brand associations about richness of touchpoints, but on occasion, again, that frustrating answer, again, it depends. It depends what we're asking of people or what we're expecting of people. If we talk about long term brand advocacy and loyalty, I mean there's lots of research to suggest that doesn't really exist anyway.
Sam (25:53):
But if it's about trial or if it's about looking at perception shift, there is a role of repetition and familiarity and just landing that, I think. When you feel that people have got the message, just tell them one more time. So again, it really depends on what we're looking to achieve is, how rich a tapestry we need to build, or whether there can be something quite simple.
Sam (26:20):
And it doesn't need to be messaging. That's where I think a lot of, actually a majority of our work at Ogilvy and the behavioral science practice, a lot of it actually doesn't live in world of communications or marketing. It's around building a context in which decisions can occur.
Sam (26:36):
So if we're looking at security processes in an airport, actually some of the most effective elements, aren't the posters that people read on their way to it, because as we spoke at the very beginning, you're at the airport...
Richard (26:49):
People are pretty blind to that. They're just walking.
Sam (26:51):
You're panicking. Totally. The stimulus rich environments that you are just on autopilot, and you are just wondering if you've forgotten your passport. So there could be other ways in which we can achieve a desired outcome by communicating and needing to go necessarily through consciousness, to understand that. So a lot of what gets us excited is about context change or subtle shifts in a procedure or a process that can have a desired outcome, even if we don't necessarily need to consciously process it.
Richard (27:20):
Yeah. And preferably not consciously process it. I also think it's fascinating. Now you made me think about airports and goodness knows, I spend enough time in those. You have a harder time seeing the sign on the wall or the scroll of stuff or even if they're calling your name, you probably miss all that, versus, as soon as you look at your phone, you give so much more attention to your phone.
Richard (27:40):
If the information is there, you'll get it right away. It's really in my best interest as a marketer to get to the device that you trust versus the broader things that you trust less.
Sam (27:54):
And to tap into something that, again, you're naturally habituated to go to. So if there's a push notification that can tell you about a slight difference in our security process, so you naturally go. So that's just a way of increasing that degree of [crosstalk 00:28:13]. So being creative with the devices and the way to interact.
Sam (28:19):
But you're right. I mean, I find airports to be a fascinating context for this work. We've several projects in airports, and I do write about it a little bit, because in airports, it's one space that you can't guarantee any one language, right? In the book I explore concreteness, and we've talked a little bit about concrete language and metaphors just now, but actually there are examples where visual concreteness can be really important.
Sam (28:47):
So if you're looking to encourage people to recycle, don't have a sign that says, "Coffee cups here." Have a bin that's shaped like a coffee cup. If you're looking to warn people of, "This is slippery when wet," there's a wonderful, that's called the banana cone safety devices. It's a safety cone, looks like a banana appeal. That's really intuitive right. There is sort of cultural relevance there.
Richard (29:11):
I don't know, bananas are everywhere in the world. I think we've all seen the slip.
Sam (29:16):
But it's a lovely, intuitive way of communicate.
Richard (29:23):
And we've both got a little bit of a grin on a talk, audio talk show, but it's the slight bit of humor probably triggers the mind the right way to acknowledge what that actually is.
Sam (29:33):
It just draws you to, it's different. It's not relying on language-
Richard (29:38):
Reading words.
Sam (29:40):
Completely. I mean, again, we evolved drawing cave paintings and telling stories, not reading texts. So actually using the visual domain, and again, it shouldn't be news to us as marketers and advertisers that the visual world is super important, but there are ways in which we can start to, particularly in airports, where you can't assume one language works anyway, that we tend to find these patterns of ideas and pop up.
Richard (30:05):
Yeah. This iconography, this sense of symbols that are universal, and still persuade, so we get to the things that matter. I mean, this pokes against the... and maybe a whole other show I should be doing, that the creation of a great logo is a fascinating side of symbology.
Sam (30:24):
Yes.
Richard (30:24):
Why is this more effective than that? How does this swoop convey trust and much less the color choices. Certainly in past conversations, we had this, "We showed it in blue, got this set of reactions, showed it in red, this set of reactions." Otherwise, same picture. That to me, I find extraordinary marketer. How could this be true?
Sam (30:45):
Yeah. And as you say, it's probably another podcast, maybe one I'm less qualified to speak to but It is a fascinating category when you are looking at what you can communicate in something So single minded. I think there's two things here. One is what's, what's embedded within a logo design?
Sam (31:07):
I mean, there's always the classic FedEx that uses the diametrically opposed colors of the purple and the orange, and there's a subtle arrow in the E and the X or the D. So really these lovely nods by design, but I think there's also then the meaning that you imbue on a logo over time.
Sam (31:28):
So whether a swoosh starts being trustworthy, or whether over time that swoosh is associated with trust. What we build over time versus what we embed from the beginning.
Richard (31:43):
Yeah. Is the entity trusted and the swoop is associated with the entity, and so that's why the swoop is trusted or can a logo, independent of an entity actually engender trust? That seems crazy to me.
Sam (31:54):
Seems crazy, but I'm sure we'll find, on, and I can't necessarily explain the differences as to why, and it could be about [inaudible 00:32:03], it could be about associate... Again, the wonderful thing about the brain is its infinite complexity. It could just be round enough to remind you of a Starbucks, but has nothing to do with Starbucks. That's what we're picking up on, but again, by having options and asking questions and having consistencies in response, sometimes we don't need to know. We just need to be able to select.
Richard (32:27):
There was a period in human evolution where we weren't writing, but we were making glyphs. Somehow we were making logos that conveyed meaning.
Sam (32:34):
Yes.
Richard (32:34):
So it is pretty ancient part and a part of our evolved self to create symbols of meaning one way or the other.
Sam (32:42):
Yes. That's a fascinating place.
Richard (32:44):
Fascinating place, and may be a great place to leave off here. The book's Evolutionary Idea is coming out in May of 2022?
Sam (32:51):
In May. So 10th of May, it launches. It's been a lovely project over many years to help, to hopefully frame the category of behavioral science and its role in innovation in a slightly different way and to remove some of the complexity and to actually see that it's all around us. These ideas and these solutions are all around us. We just haven't necessarily been able to spot them as easily as we can now.
Richard (33:19):
Or they're so apparent that you don't even see them anymore. I mean, you talk about a lot of physical things that have evolved. The shape of a dorsal fin, those sorts of things. They're all evolved actually whether we think about it or not. We tend to see only the end game.
Sam (33:34):
That's right. As you say, you can see a dorsal fin, you can see a wing. You can see these amazing evolved biological solutions across a bat and a flying fish and a bird. They've all evolved to [inaudible 00:33:47] evolved into a wing, but we don't tend to see them, these patterns of idea, so easily between a baker and a banker and a bus driver, but once you know what you look for, you can say, "Actually, there are some things that are fundamentally the same," That if you're faced with the same challenge, just as a shark and a dolphin are faced with the challenges of navigating the oceans and capturing prey-
Richard (34:13):
Yeah. Pursue the prey, avoid the predators.
Sam (34:16):
Exactly.
Richard (34:16):
You listed off three B-rolls and I'm like, "You need to trust all three of those."
Sam (34:21):
That's right.
Richard (34:23):
The trust may be somewhat different, but it's the same problem.
Sam (34:24):
It's the same problem, and then we go back to, again, aiding trust, aiding decisions, listing action, reinforcing loyalty, informing experiences. These are, shared challenges that we face almost universally, so we have no excuse to learn from each other. Because oftentimes you might think, "Well, I'm not in the insurance category." "I sell bread, not [crosstalk 00:34:47]."
Richard (34:47):
But I got to trust you that your bread's not going to harm me as much as I have to trust you as a banker, that my money is safe.
Sam (34:55):
Exactly. So what can we borrow from a bank to help [crosstalk 00:34:59]? And the that's where, I think creatively, certainly is a key driving force for me, and certainly for us at Ogilvy, that it helps us to totally reshape the frame of reference we're in. So often we're in creative reviews or competitive reviews and we're seeing, "Okay, so we're in the bread category. Let's see what other breads are doing."
Richard (35:23):
And we emulate them.
Sam (35:27):
Totally. We fail to look at the same challenge, just one step removed.
Richard (35:30):
It's interesting. And I've often said this talking to marketing folks. "You are too immersed in your product. You care far more about your product than your customer does."
Sam (35:39):
Yes.
Richard (35:41):
So you're at a place where it's like, "Of course they want to buy this. It's awesome." But you never got that kind of attention and likely never will and yet you can still make sales. You've got to change that and move it to things that they are concerned about.
Sam (35:55):
Or, "We need to invest in this because our competitors have just done that and we need to be this," versus, "Actually, this is an issue of trust. There are many other spaces that we can learn from and change our category rather than just be aligned with it."
Sam (36:07):
And that's where I think, by being able to spot these ideas, see these patterns, have an approach by which we can systematically come up with ideas through those and we can really accelerate our innovation process.
Richard (36:20):
Fantastic. Sam, so much fun to talk to you. Thanks so much for your insight on this. It's really enjoyable.
Sam (36:26):
It's been my pleasure. Thanks so much, Richard.
Richard (36:28):
And we'll talk to you next time on Understanding Consumer Neuroscience.