I wouldn’t claim that Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow is an easy read, but if you persist, you can get a lot of insights on cognitive and behavioural biases, the heuristics we pick up and use, and the experiencing and remembering selves. I definitely started “watching” myself a lot more! But the main theme of the book is the difference between our two modes of thinking – Systems 1 and 2. System 1 is fast, automatic, and always in use, mostly unconsciously. System 2 is slow, methodical, logical and conscious. This also means that System 1 links new inputs to existing patterns to make sense of it rather than create a new understanding.
I have tried to apply this in my line of work – marketing, specifically communication. The application is fairly simple in say, ecommerce because the messaging/design can (and is) tweaked to play to the heuristics and biases the human mind has. Investments are a totally different beast altogether given there is rarely any instant gratification and definitely no gimmicks and giveaways. It also doesn’t help that our attention span as users is decreasing fast! Nudges ain’t easy. In that context, I have wondered if the two systems are too binary, and whether there is a middle path.
That’s why I was very intrigued when I came across a System 3. First, in this article, in which System 3 is when you say things that sound good but make no sense. It can get activated when you trust what someone tells you rather than figuring it out yourself. The article played at a meta level by using a statement in Daniel Kahneman’s recent book Noise as an example of System 3 in action! In this case, the book was appreciated by a long list of luminaries, but Rachael Meager pointed out a flaw in a section on causation and correlation, which clearly the set of luminaries hadn’t spotted, or assumed Kahneman et al knew more.
Celebrity endorsements, influencers mostly play on this. Most of them have little clue on the products they are endorsing, and/or are paid to say good things, but as Faris points out, when wielded well, it’s a great tool to create mental availability (the likelihood that a brand will come to an individual’s mind fluently in as many situations as possible), a necessary step to purchase. Cred’s celebrity ads are doing exactly this.
However, while mental availability is agreed upon, this also seemed like the halo effect (the tendency for positive impressions of a person, company, brand or product in one area to positively influence one’s opinion or feelings in other areas) or prestige bias (when individuals are more likely to imitate cultural models that are seen as having more prestige). Both of these seemed closer to System 1 because they are short cuts. Add to that, celebrities are expensive and pose inherent risks in the era of cancel culture.
So I searched a bit more and came upon this post that gave a different rendition in which System 3 decisions are made on the basis of our own imagination (mental simulation) of how possible futures will pan out. There are some good examples in there to highlight how it works. It has a bit of both the other systems – an attempt at rational prediction, but intrinsically guided by our biases. This is exactly what Faris’s example of the Extra Gum ad shows. Not celebrity driven, outside of the fantastic choice of Celine Dion’s song, but excellent insight, and captured the mood brilliantly.
But what both these perspectives agree on, and at least another one states, are that brands are built in System 3. “Customers use System 3 to imagine what your experience will feel like…When you advertise, you’re shaping the System 3 of the consumers so that they will respond.” By researching the granular vocabulary of the customer’s triggers, advertising and communication in general can create the ambience for a purchase decision in its favour. When a celebrity is presented well in the context of the brand universe, all the more better!
It isn’t rocket science, but as Faris brilliantly states in his post, Those of us without the publicity instincts of Goodby, Bogusky or Posh Spice will have to wrestle with our analytic minds, which tend to revert to rational models when we go to work even if we intellectually appreciate they aren’t what works. I have also seen enough examples of the other extreme – entertaining ads that don’t connect to the brand at any level. I think System 3 offers a middle path – based on good old insight, but packaged in a way that also creates mental availability.