Something to Think About: The Magic Carpet Theory and Using Memory Techniques in Advertising

Recently, at one of the museums I work at, we've mooted using the "Magic Carpet Theory" in our advertising. And after reading a recent Wired cover story on retaining and recalled memories, I actually think it may work; further to this it has implications for all advertising.

Until two years ago the museum had a magic carpet interactive - visitors would stand/sit on an Arabian-eque carpet and via the magic of bluescreen technology they would be "transported" across deserts, villages, cities and African plains. From the millions of visits the museum has received over 25 years the magic carpet (more than customer service, the exhibits or the building/its environs) is the one memory a sizeable number have taken away with them.

And now, through research, we've noticed have an issue that a majority of these millions don't return. Not because the museum is rubbish, more because they don't live in the area, don't see a reason to revisit, or they've forgotten about us (it's been up to 25 years after all).

So one afternoon recently we formulated the half-serious notion that to spur these non-returning visitors all we'd need to do was to remind them of the fun they had when they were on the magic carpet and this would instantly boost brand awareness and attendance. The museum would suddenly receive a revival in people's minds, even when they'd probably forgotten about the magic carpet itself.

This sounds quite intuitive when spelt out, and no doubt there's tons of cognitive psychology articles and experiments out there that say exactly the same thing.

Then I read the Wired cover story "Want to Remember Everything You'll Ever Learn? Surrender to This Algorithm".

Halfway through it talks about Robert and Elizabeth Bjork's research in cognition that postulates that memory recall is divided two distinct areas - Retrieval strength and Storage strength.

"Retrieval strength measures how likely you are to recall something right now, how close it is to the surface of your mind. Storage strength measures how deeply the memory is rooted."

So, as the article explains:

"Some memories may have high storage strength but low retrieval strength. Take an old address or phone number. Try to think of it; you may feel that it's gone. But a single reminder could be enough to restore it for months or years.

"Conversely, some memories have high retrieval strength but low storage strength. Perhaps you've recently been told the names of the children of a new acquaintance. At this moment they may be easily accessible, but they are likely to be utterly forgotten in a few days, and a single repetition a month from now won't do much to strengthen them at all."

Finally, and most importantly, the advice to help aid future memory "recovery" is perhaps counter-intuitive:

"One of the problems is that the amount of storage strength you gain from practice is inversely correlated with the current retrieval strength. In other words, the harder you have to work to get the right answer, the more the answer is sealed in memory."

So, with that in mind, what can we marketers and advertisers glean from this - how can we use this insight into the workings of recalling and retaining memories to get people through the doors again? Can we use the magic carpet theory?

Taking the Bjorks' research into account, if the desired outcome from a campaign is to optimise the number of returning customers, the focus should not be about advertising the new and improved, but instead about reviving happy memories of past encounters. If you did it right in the first place (and I sincerely hope that you did) then you need to use this method to entice return visits. To use the Bjorks' own term, advertisers would need to optimise the Storage Strength to attract returning customers.

The Storage Strength (that is, how far the memory of last time you and your customer interacted) might be deep-rooted, maybe up to 25 years in the case of my museum example. But to have a successful outcome we need to optimise this strength (and not the other, Retrieval).

But we can't do that in superficial way, as otherwise the resultant memory is fleeting and doesn't get to the root of the memory. We need, as the Wired article states, to push the less obvious to strengthen the connection; again, as it says, "the harder you have to work to get the right answer, the more the answer is sealed in memory".

Hence, as a campaign, the focus would change from future to past - for example:

• Come again and see the next big exhibition at the X Museum today!
  

would work less well with returning visitors than:

• Remember the fun you had at the X Museum? Relive it today!
  

Again, Storage Strength requires solid, less-obvious reminders than Retrieval Strength. That comes from focusing on a seemingly obscure part of the past and not using the Retrieval Strength, which (I'd guess) works better on attracting new visitors (it would seem to - this would be a cognitive aspect of "brand awareness" as a theory after all).

If this is the case, this whole theory raises some interesting questions for my field of study - online marketing and public relations.

For example, a good tactic might be to urge customers to sign up to email newsletters when they first visit, and then when talking to them via newsletters ignore the natural tendency to focus solely on the new, improved or the next big thing. A better focus would be to repeat the best parts of their last visit, revisiting their memories.

In my museum case, this means if we manage to attract all of our 16 million visitors back in the next 25 years and follow up their visit with emails focusing on how good the experience was, we won't have to do this all again in 25 years - by diverting the focus once, we'll bypass the need for the "magic carpet theory" later on.

It's an interesting theory and one that I'll try to test in some way to see if it works in practice; cognitive psychology has its part to play in advertising and marketing, and if it establishes a 'lever' to tip the balance then it's worth it. The magic carpet theory may not be just a half-serious one after all.

Two disclaimers. This is a stream of conciousness post and I've yet to investigate this area more fully. There's probably lots of other articles out there on the psychology of advertising and intelligent use for memory to aid advertising awareness. If you know of any, you're very welcome to post them up in the comments. And of course, this post assumes the customer had a good experience the first time around. If they didn't then I doubt focusing on the past would be a good tactic!

Finally, many thanks to Gaetan Lee for the image of the brain that accompanies this post.

Labels: advertising, cognition, magic carpet, marketing, memory, psychology, theory