I think this is an important thing to read. Or, at least, it's really interesting. It talks about the ongoing understanding of how our genes and our environment need each other in order to maximize our potential as humans. And how niether genes or environment can be successful alone. You're not just born "naturally gifted" at something. Our genes actually interact with our surroundings to enhance and develop us.
Science like this re-inforces the importance of micro cultures. And if technology is one of the primary engines enabling more micro cultures it also backs up Kevin's point that one of the most important benefits of technology is that it gives us more opportunities to be our best selves.
Lately I've been thinking about the brain and how, perhaps, a better understanding of how we make decisions could lead to better marketing. To do this I dabbled in science a bit over the summer. And while many books on neuroscience were difficult to tie back to marketing, the reoccuring thing that kept surfacing was the simple balance of logic and emotion through the engagement of both sides of our brain. So that's where I went... Right now it's a hypothesis only, but it seems like the most effective and talked-about marketing today succeeds because it achieves the optimal engagement of both brain functions. Full mind engagement, if you will.
(I didn't spend too much time on that collection of words. A couple of quick searches. So if you're using it already, please let me know...)
If you don't know much about the brain, as I didn't, I think the most concise understanding for the purpose of marketing can be found in A Whole New Mind by Daniel Pink. The brain basically works like this...
The left hemisphere handles logic, sequence, literalness and analysis. The right takes care of synthesis, emotional expression, context and the big picture.
And the two need each other.
The book goes on to say...
Logic without emotion is a chilly, Spock-like existence. Emotion without logic is a weepy, hysterical world where the clocks are never right and the buses are always late. In the end, yin always needs yang.
Today, most of us know, in general, how the brain works. But we didn't always.
And before talking about full mind engagement it's interesting to look back into history and see how the understanding of our brain parallels with the development of the advertising industry...
When advertising got its start it was all logic. Advertisers went to great lengths to convey the practical reasons to buy. At the beginning of the 20th century industry pioneers like Lasker and Hopkins began creating 'salesmanship in print.' Ads like this one for Pepsodent (via 20 Ads That Shook the World) were the result...
During the time of the Pepsodent ad we only had just started to study the brain. But what we did know then, thanks to neurologists like Paul Broca and Carl Wernicke, was that the left side of the brain controlled many of the key functions that separated us from other species, like speaking and understanding language. We were logical beings and logic was how we moved through life and how we made our decisions. Hence the ads of the day.
It wasn't until the 1950s that we learned the right side of the brain had a role too. It helped us understand patterns, interpret emotions and be able to absorb non verbal expressions. This was thanks to Roger Sperry who received a Nobel Prize in medicine for that discovery.
Somewhat ironically, advertising then began tapping those right brain functions in the 50s...
This was great.
But then, during the 1960s, something terrific happened: we atom-smashed both logic and emotion together for the first time. Thanks Bill.
Terrific.
And then, I think, we never fully went there as an industry. Didn't go 100% down the road that the creative revolution paved for us. Many became overly wrapped up in creativity for creativity's sake. Went for the shock. Wanted to "stand out." Others thought we needed to be fully logical.
Cut to today...
It seems what's really working is communication that, once again, fully atom-smashes both logic and emotion together at once. Like this recent ad for Jeep:
Or this...
And this...
They all work because they play to an audience whose brains are far more alert than ever before.
And a lot of this is due to the sharable nature of the web, of course.
One of the best things the sharability of the web has brought us is the desire for marketers to work harder and give us more. Engage us emotionally and factually. Give us more information to talk about. More things to feel. More succinct pieces of communication that matter rather than volumes of generic marketing-speak. Things that make us smarter: that little bit of information that we can tell others...
The ones who do that stand out. It's the reason, I think, this works so well:
And why ads like this have helped Ford achieve record quarterly profits and, just this week, Marketer of the Year...
All of which brings me back to full mind engagement...
There are certain categories where emotion obviouly trumps logic (fashion) and others where emotion is a bit of a force-fit (interest-based financial products). But achieving both is what really engages us. It draws us in more effectively for a good brand minute, as Simon recently wrote.
So... I guess it comes down to addressing two questions early on in development:
What's the key super interesting and relevant logic point that people can carry around and spread?
What's the desired emotion that makes people relate?
We should strive to always do both.
After all, as it states in A Whole New Mind...
Put the two (sides of the brain) together and one gets a powerful thinking machine. Use either on its own and the result can be bizarre or absurd.
If you work in advertising (especially account management or brand strategy) I think you'll find reading Tolstoy'sWhat Is Art? a valuable use of time.
In this relatively short book the author of War and Peace and Anna Karenina articulates a guide that helps distinguish between what is indeed "art" and what is not.
As you can imagine, it sparked lots of debate and criticism in the early 1900s upon release but it's a fascinating read with Tolstoy's key definition of art coming down to this:
To evoke in oneself a feeling one has experienced and having evoked it in oneself then by means of movements, lines, colors, sounds or forms expressed in words, so to transmit that feeling that others experience the same feeling--this is the activity of art.
I like that.
What it's basically asking is: Did the artist communicate with clarity that which was intended?
Tolstoy's definition preceded film... But this is probably art:
Moving beyond art, I believe the same guideline should be used today when we call something "creative" in marketing. Labeling something as really creative is, of course, an accolade for the idea. Is it creative? Well, are we clearly and concisely conveying our intentions?
This sure did:
But we use the word 'creative' all the time. Perhaps too much. We just all assume everyone universally knows what it means. What Is Art? talked about this tendency too...
As is always the case, the more cloudy and confused the conception conveyed by a word with the greater self assurance do people use that word pretending that what is understood by it is so simple and clear that it is not even worthwhile to discuss what it actually means.
Isn't that the truth when you think about it? "Cool" immediately comes to mind. (A good definition of that can be found here.)
Anyway, I revisited What Is Art? after I read Newsweek's much forwarded article, "The Creativity Crisis," which is simply the best article on creativity I've read in a very long time.
The first key takeaway from the article is their rather simple definition of creativity: the production of something original and useful.
Excellent.
But I'm really interested in how that definition turns the corner to define creativity in marketing which is why I loved the second key takeaway from the article: that creativity is about problem solving.
And the good news about that is, interestingly, the process of creative problem solving can be taught and practiced. It's a way of thinking that engages both sides of our brain, not just the right hemisphere.
From "The Creativity Crises":
...When you try to solve a problem, you begin by concentrating on obvious
facts and familiar solutions, to see if the answer lies there. This is a
mostly left-brain stage of attack. If the answer doesn’t come, the
right and left hemispheres of the brain activate together. Neural
networks on the right side scan remote memories that could be vaguely
relevant. A wide range of distant information that is normally tuned out
becomes available to the left hemisphere, which searches for unseen
patterns, alternative meanings, and high-level abstractions.
Having glimpsed such a connection, the left brain must quickly lock in
on it before it escapes. The attention system must radically reverse
gears, going from defocused attention to extremely focused attention. In
a flash, the brain pulls together these disparate shreds of thought and
binds them into a new single idea that enters consciousness. This is
the “aha!” moment of insight, often followed by a spark of pleasure as
the brain recognizes the novelty of what it’s come up with.
Now the brain must evaluate the idea it just generated. Is it worth
pursuing? Creativity requires constant shifting, blender pulses of both
divergent thinking and convergent thinking, to combine new information
with old and forgotten ideas. Highly creative people are very good at
marshaling their brains into bilateral mode, and the more creative they
are, the more they dual-activate...
So taking all of this in, I'm currently thinking about creativity in marketing as: The creation of something original and useful that successfully solves a business problem.
I dunno... I may not like that next week but I'm going with it today. After all, a recent IBM survey of 1,500 CEOs identified creativity as the No. 1 “leadership competency” of the future so it's good that we all try and concisely define and understand what creativity means in 2010...
Inside our brains we have something called oxytocin. It's a human stimulant of empathy, generosity and trust. We all have it. In particular, moms develop high levels of oxytocin during early motherhood forging tighter bonds between themselves and their baby.
When we interact with people socially our oxytocin levels naturally increase. We feel more generous and trusting and we want that reciprocated. Additionally, the more oxytocin we release the less cortisol and ACTH we harbor, which are stress hormones.
Some recent studies--in their very early stages--are exploring how this hormone is not just released during in-person interaction but also how the brain produces more oxytocin during social web engagement, perhaps up to 13% more. (Article here.)
Leading neuroeconomist, Paul Zak, is in the process of studying oxytocin and the relationship between neuroscience and economics so that will be good to follow...
It's always interesting when we begin applying scientific explanation to the things we're seeing in the world...
If indeed we are scientifically experiencing more empathy, generosity and trust when we are engaged in social networking it means we are more sensitive to expecting it back in return. This goes for people as well as brands. The brands who tap into these feelings receive even more of our support! Conversely, those who anger us risk feeling heightened backlash. That's our oxytocin at work.