An interesting post appeared on Adliterate recently, titled: “A kick in the teeth for LIP”.
This got my attention because a couple of years ago, Erik du Plessis and I were involved in a running debate in Admap on whether or not Low Involvement Processing (LIP) is an effective way to grow brand equity and sales. The fact that the title got my attention reflects the essence of this debate about how advertising works.
The LIP model was first articulated by Robert Heath in his monograph, “The Hidden Power of Advertising.” Central to the concept of LIP is the idea that the essence of advertising communication can be acquired passively, without the viewer paying active attention. The LIP model concludes that learning takes place implicitly every time an ad is seen. Erik and I did not challenge this conclusion, but did point out that
- This is likely to be an inefficient way to generate an advertising effect compared to using high involvement processing (HIP)
- LIP probably only works when the impression delivered by the ad is consonant with existing brand impressions.
Robert attacked our interpretation in his own paper, but did admit that “It therefore stands to reason that ads that exploit both HIP and LIP, and work at both high and low (and no) attention, are going to be most effective.” Erik and I replied, proposing that HIP and LIP represent both ends of a continuum of response to advertising. We concluded: “What is clear from Heath’s review is that ads which might only work by LIP will require significant and continued media investment to achieve their full effect.”
At this point, Admap’s editor stepped in and said, “This debate is now over.” Well, as baseball immortal Yogi Berra said, “It isn’t over till it’s over.” The LIP monograph was published in 2001, and the world has moved on. Our understanding of how the brain works, how emotion guides attention and how we process memories and associations has evolved. Richard’s recent Adliterate post reviews the latest conclusions drawn from new research by Graham Page and Jane Raymond and concludes that:
“If people do not actively attend to a piece of communication then it is left either passively ignored or actively ignored. In the first case LIP may help us but the effects will be subtle and short-lived. While if it is actively ignored you are just storing up problems for the future.”
Richard states up front that he believes in active engagement to persuade people, so he is hardly an impartial bystander. He says, “I think that if you set out to persuade people of your brands qualities and point of view you ought to do just that, persuade them. This requires active engagement from people towards the brand or communication, not just their passive attention.” I agree. It does not matter whether the communication is explicit or implicit; what matters is that people attend to the ad so that the memories and associations are processed into long-term memory.
The fight over HIP and LIP will no doubt continue, but the fact that I felt compelled to read “A kick in the teeth for LIP,” and the fact that Richard felt Graham and Jane’s findings support his viewpoint, highlight the way in which attention and interpretation are subject to existing memories and associations. If you want to change someone’s mind about something, you have to overcome those existing associations.
If the title of Richard’s post had been “A kick in the teeth,” I doubt I would have read it. The reference to “LIP,” however, triggered my attention. That attention insured that I would click on the link and read the post. Thinking about it later, I realized that all my memories and feelings associated with the subject ensured my attention even though they did not consciously surface at the time: concern that LIP may be used to justify ineffective advertising, enjoyment from working with Erik to craft our paper, irritation at being quoted out of context. As Graham and Jane would probably say, my “representation” of LIP is strong and clear, guaranteeing attention. This is exactly the response we want brands to create with their consumers, although it would be far better if the associations were also unequivocally positive.
Richard’s post also shows the power of communication when it confirms or fits a person’s existing views or beliefs. He readily accepts the point of view put forward by “the nice people at Millward Brown” because they confirm points that he already believes. Graham and Jane would probably say that the communication is refreshing and strengthening his representations of the issue.
Given his comments, do you think we could change Richard’s mind about LIP being a “cop out”? Would it be possible to do so simply on the basis of exposure to an ad to which he paid no attention? Could we overcome his skepticism with a presentation that reviewed all the evidence to support the case for LIP? I doubt it. Instead, I think we would have to create a compelling and, ideally, personal, which demonstrates that such exposure could have a lasting effect on peoples’ affinity with a brand.
And I think that that analogy demonstrates the essential problem with LIP. In the face of pre-existing memories of the brand—created by using it, seeing other people use it, seeing it in the media, hearing people talk about it – can repeated exposure to an ad with low or no attention really be expected to change peoples’ attitudes and beliefs?
If it can, I have yet to see compelling proof. But then, I am a victim of my own experience, aren’t I?
So what do you think? Is LIP still hip or are new findings confirming HIP is where it’s at?
(20 votes, average: 2.5 out of 5)
Loading ...
Email This Post
February 13th, 2007 at 8:40 am
Sometimes folk wisdom captures the essence of the argument. I have a sugar packet that I found early in career that has emblazoned upon it: “He who has a thing to sell and whispers in a well, is not so apt to get the dollars as he who climbs a tree and hollers.” Amen
February 15th, 2007 at 4:51 am
In the UK there is a high-profile magician called Derren Brown. He specialises in psychic and mental effects. One of his best known stunts involves taking two creatives across London to an office where they had to devise an ad for a brand. He then showed that the ad they devised was heavily influenced by ads they had passed in London on the way to the office - even though they had no memory of passing those ads.
I find it interesting that the LIP argument emerged shortly afterwards.
Derren Brown is a magician and the effect he achieved was a trick.
Everything I’ve read about LIP is bsaed on either a flawed experimental effect, or shows only a very short term, short lived effect.
However, as long as Heath and Goode have livings to make, the debate about LIP wil continue. Now, if only they took themselves at their word, and relied on promoting LIP with LIP advertising, I wonder whether we would continue to discuss it?
February 16th, 2007 at 5:28 am
There is an interesting rider to this. A couple of years ago, heath quietly renamed Low Involvement Processing to Low Attention Processing - LAP - because, I think, he found there was some confusion in the US. He has used the term in every article of his since then. Curiously, neither Richard nor Nigel has remembered this. And I had forgotten. Three cheers for LAP!
February 19th, 2007 at 11:33 am
Interesting point Dom, I had not even realized that Robert had changed the name. My attention must have been low.
June 27th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
It is good to know, thank you for information