Americans are fond of saying, “If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.” That's probably not a literal invitation but in the US it’s hard to tell these days.

I’d like to offer an advertising corollary instead: “If you think being daring is risky, try being dull.”

The Extraordinary Cost of Dull, a white paper co-authored by Peter Field, Adam Morgan and System1 Research, provides plenty of evidence that safe is risky. I’ll share the link to the article, but you gotta read on.

We know that triggering emotion triggers action. Emotion triggers hormones and hormones trigger response. For example, when hormones such as cortisol and adrenaline are released, memories stick. Hearing jarring news can cause you to recall random things about your surroundings. I remember what I was wearing when John Lennon was shot.

It’s a weird phenomenon called a flashbulb memory. This is what great advertising should do. Advertising folks like to say great ads create an emotional connection. I think great ads create an emotional reaction. You should feel a pop of joy or a little thrill. You might laugh or at least smile. Wax sentimental. Or experience awe. That emotion is what makes the message stick.

Sadly, 47% of advertising leaves people completely neutral. No reaction. Room tone.

Advertising has been shown to drive both revenue and profit in both the long and short term (check out studies by Kantar and Nielsen such as this). But boring ads are 10-30% as effective as those that stir an emotion. Dull ads require 3-times more media spend than non-dull ads to create the same business impact. The Boredom Tax on dull advertising is valued at US$189 billion per year. That’s 45% of the total US ad spend!

What’s the difference between a “non-dull” and “dull” ad? Successful ads elicit a feeling of surprise and happiness. They’re less literal and avoid cliché smiles and reactions. They have simple messages and storylines where the product isn’t forced.

I had a client whose business was to sell pleasant, mid-priced suits to pleasant, mid-income men. “Why do we need the 20-seconds of schtik before we get to the meat?” he once asked. Fair enough. But when the meat is a $299.00 stain- and wrinkle-resistant suit, it ain’t sirloin. As most guys know, suit shopping can be intimidating and stressful (measure my inseam???). Suits are a nuisance purchase, at best. The schtick makes the experience feel approachable, interesting and different. The schtick is the meat.

Speaking of meat. Check out this work which was called "A total disgrace" by @MrsLottiePops on YouTube - but was called “Tastes like you’re getting a raise!” by Burger King’s CFO. It took the leadership and foresight of Katie Evans, Burger King’s UK CMO (and the chutzpah of BBH London) to resist QSR tropes and make this bundle of brilliance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFX6lHi6SZs

No one sets out to be boring. Even ads testing in the highest quartile cause some people to yawn. But from my years of seeing advertising uppers and downers, here are a few things to chew on.

Take a page from SNL

If your creative approval process is as layered as a wedding cake, odds are the work will be dull. This is not a criticism of teams. Even successful writers’ rooms like those at Saturday Night Live need collaboration. But if you want great work, there needs to be a standard bearer. And a clear process with defined roles and decision making. SNL wouldn’t be great without Kent Sublette, Bryan Tucker, Colin Jost and Michael Che weighing in. But it’s not a committee. Without Lorne Michaels, SNL wouldn’t be brilliant week after week for 5 decades.

If you’re trying to make more than one point, you won’t.

We’ve all heard the advertising dictum, focus on one compelling message ever since Rosser Reeves wrote Reality in Advertising in 1960. And yet too many creative briefs aren’t brief. As Einstein said, “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” When you write a brief, simplify the bejabbers out of it. If you have multiple messages, kill your darlings. Or put them in a second execution. Or in a post. People have the attention span of a goldfish. So simple and entertaining is your only goal.

The genericness of personalization

With 70% of Canadian media spend going into digital channels much of the content looks and feels homogeneous despite the rise of personalization. Platforms now provide templates and music, and teach 'best practices' all which add to the sea of sameness. This type of advertising targets those already primed to buy what your selling, not inspire new behaviour. Don’t be seduced by the notion of performance versus brand advertising. All good advertising sells.

Can you spot the difference? Recent automotive social posts.

Bottom line, playing it safe is risky.

No marketer wants to be called out on Reddit. Social media has given the world a microphone and people love to use it to trash talk. But one troll does not a crisis make. Humans have a negativity bias – we focus on threats and dangers more than positive outcomes. The news media has monetized this for centuries. Resist catastrophizing. Very few ads actually elicit any negative reactions at all. The real boogieman we should fear is being dull.

Pay attention to your initial reaction when presented work. If you leaned forward in your chair and felt something, your consumer probably will too.

As promised, here’s The Extraordinary Cost of Dull. I'd love to hear your thoughts. If you feel like chatting about it, let’s connect.

The cost of being dull

Business won’t survive on activation alone