If you tell a lie often enough people will think it's true.

Of all the things that I learned in 2017, this one surprised me the most.  Researchers call it the Illusory Truth Effect. 

The seminal study on the subject was done in 1977, so it's not exactly new news.  And, the basic effect has been studied and replicated dozens of times since then.  But the recent emergence of a variety of strong held beliefs based on falsehoods has led to people to take a closer look at the phenomenon.

The bottom line is that repetition of a statement makes it easier to process relative to new statements.  This leads people to the sometimes false conclusion that the initial statement is more truthful.  The more times something is repeated the more we perceive it as true.  Even if it isn't.  (Fazio, Brashier, Payne & Marsh, 2015)

Essentially what is happening is that we are mistaking familiar for true, because the more times we hear something the more comfortable we become with it.  Then our brains convince us to believe it is true because we feel it is true.  (Tsipursky, 2017)

Knowing all this I probably shouldn't have been surprised when I read last week that 44% of Republicans think Trump repealed Obamacare. (Kliff, 2017) 

And yet, I still was.

Fazio, L., Brashier, N., Payne, B., Marsch, E. (2015, August 24)  Knowledge Does Not Protect Against Illusory Truth.  Journal of Experimental Psychology. Retrieved January 3, 2018, from

https://apa.org/pubs/journals/features/xge-0000098.pdf

Tsipursky, G. (2017, October 27)  A brain science expert explains how to deprogram truth-denying Trump supporters.  rawstory.com.  retrieved January 3, 2018, from

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/10/a-brain-science-expert-explains-how-to-deprogram-truth-denying-trump-supporters/

Kliff, S. (2017, December 27)  44 Percent of Republicans think Trump repealed Obamacare.  vox.com.  Retrieved January 3, 2018, from

https://www.vox.com/2017/12/27/16822748/republicans-trump-repeal-obamacare

If you want me to come to your restaurant tell me the cross street.

Last week, I wanted to go out to eat at a restaurant in Manhattan.  Should be easy to find one - right?  Not. 

As all students of marketing know, what makes decision-making hard is having too many choices.  And in Manhattan there are way too many restaurants to choose from.

But what made the process even more frustrating was the wealth of lousy websites out there.  I don't know what's worse, photos that fail to convey the tightness of the locations, or menus that don't download.  But what really makes me nuts is not including the cross street.

I don't get it.  How hard is it to add "between 42nd Street & 41st Street?"  Do they think for some reason that avenue addresses are classier?  More important?  If so, I can't imagine why.  And forcing me to go the extra step and goggle the street address in order to find the cross street is a losing proposition.  Most times I just move on.

But here's the thing.  It's not just me.  Including that cross street could make all the difference, and a map might be even better. 

In Howard Leventhal's seminal research about tetanus shots, follow-through increased by 28% when a map was added to the flier. 

Such a simple fix with such significant effects.  Hopefully the restaurants are reading this. 

Sethi, R. (2011, January 19)  5 fascinating experiments from the world of psychology and persuasion.  businessinsider.com.  Retrieved December 27, 2017, from,

http://www.businessinsider.com/5-fascinating-experiments-from-the-world-of-psychology-and-persuasion-2011-2

Of course context matters in digital - why wouldn't it?

Back in the Stone Ages when we bought print for clients we realized pretty quickly that context mattered.  It makes sense that someone's mindset when reading the Wall Street Journal is significantly different from what it is when they are reading In Style.  But it's also true that being adjacent to a piece of complementary editorial can increase effectiveness even more.  So why would it be any different with digital?

Apparently it isn't.  According to new research from IRI and The Advertising Research Foundation, relevant content strategies can increase ROI (return on investment) by as much as 30%. (Baar, 2017)

Interestingly, the research, which focused on both thematic and attention compatibility, was done on CPG products, which seem to be struggling the most with digital - as evidenced by the fact that P&G's elimination of $140 million in digital media last spring appears to have had no negative effect.  In fact, the company's sales went up 2%.  (Neff, 2017)

Better start rewriting those programmatic algorithms.

Baar, A. (2017, December 19)  For Digital Ads, Context makes A Difference.  mediapost.com.  retrieved December 20, 2017, from

https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/311823/for-digital-ads-context-makes-a-difference.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=headline&utm_campaign=106655&hashid=ybq2buULrntyGS6NfbELk0afrrI


Neff, J. (2017, July 27)  P&G Slashes Digital Ads By $140M Over Brand Safety.  Sales Rise Anyway.  adage.com.  Retrieved December 20, 2017, from http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/p-g-slashe/309936/