Emotional v. Rational: What works in Healthcare?

It's a debate that dates back to the late 1920's. Even the experts don't agree. In March, 2009, Advertising Age published a piece by Hamish Pringle and Peter Field on the topic. Their take? From their research, the data showed that emotional campaigns are almost twice as likely to generate large profit gains than rational ones...with campaigns that use facts as well as emotions in equal measure falling somewhere in between. They were able to document that successful emotional campaigns reduce price sensitivity dramatically. Additionally, there is an increased sense of differentiation causing greater endurance and a likelihood to survive new competing product launches.

Jack Trout would respectfully disagree. In his blog posting to Branding Strategy Insider on Jan. 10, 2009, he cited a study conducted by TiVo back in June of 2008 that measured which ad campaigns people most frequently fast forwarded through. His conclusions: The top three least fast forwarded through, thereby assumed to have been watched and "sticky", were more effective, and he states that they were all three rational by his definition (he doesn't exactly share his framework for his definition, however). They included the least which was Bowflex...he said that wanting to look like the buff, fit guy on Bowflex was somehow a rational arguement...hmmm...seems emotional to me, invoking desire, envy, etc. Let's look at the other two top vote-getters for sticky...Dominican Republic tourism...relaxation, fun, pleasure....seems emotional again. Ok, surely the last of his arguments holds....Hooters....of course! It's the food! Now we all know that's a rational argument.

Ken Orwig, in a white paper posted to his website, www.orwig.net, says the bottom line lies with the brand itself. The dominant mood (emotional v. rational) is best determined by the brand's elements, including uniqueness (the more unique, the greater the need for the rational argument); price (the higher the price for the brand, the more rational the argument needed, with the exception being purely luxury items where it's mostly an emotional purchase); the more defined the customer perception of the brand category also drives rational v. emotional; the more innovative or intangible the brand, the greater the need for rational messaging; and, the higher the importance to the target, the greater the attention to the rational messages.

Yet, Orwig notes that "neurological research as well as a substantial body of anecdotal evidence supports the premise (sic) that People buy on emotion then justify their decision with facts." He went on to quote Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas who pointed out "At the constitutional level where we work, 90% of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections." Now we understand the debate in Congress over Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor...will she use emotion or rational reasoning in her decisions?

So what about healthcare? Let's look at the taxonomy of Emotional advertising...ads taking this approach must invoke fear, humor, fantasy, hope, compassion, relief or engagement, at a minimum. Ads using rational will feature technical expertise, scientific evidence, comparisons, or third party validation. Today's more successful brand campaigns involving health care organizations use some combination of emotional and rational. With the proliferation of transparency, they have to.  The debate will continue. I leave you with this question...what is word of mouth? Emotional? Rational? Hmmmmm...would love your thoughts.