Researchers at Duke University in the US are publishing a paper next month that purports to show that logos can carry strong attitudinal and behavioural associations. One of the examples given was that when the IBM and Apple logos were paired those participants exposed to the Apple logo were more creative in subsequent tests.

What the researchers were interested in is the power of unconcious constant brand exposure. In the US it is estaimated that everyone is exposed to 3k - 10k 'ad exposures' per day. The vast majority is unconsious via branding on clothes, packaging, signage and posters. Things that we think we have screened out but maybe not according to Duke. Find those figures hard to believe? I did.

As I am writing this at the kitchen table I stopped for a few minutes and started counting logos I could see. I counted 68. What were they on? There was food packaging and plastic food carriers but also logos on varios kitchen appliances including fridge, cooker, kettle etc. There were publishers logos on cook books. Company correspondence and envelopes carried corporate logos as did pens and pencils. Even my glasses case had the supplier logo on its side. Clothes I was wearing carried the manufacturers logo and so the list went on and on....I stopped at 68 without me having moved from my kitchen table.

What is even more interesting about the research at Duke is that the logos where shown subliminally. In 1957 James Vicary claimed that in his experiments on advertising effctiveness the consumption of Coca Cola and popcorn increased significantly after movie goers were shown subliminal adverts for those products. The advertising industry quickly moved to utilise this finding. Other researchers tried to replicate the results but without success. Equally consumer advocates voice strong opposition and the US congress passed legislation to have the practice of subliminal adverts banned. In 1962 Vicary admitted that his reasearch did not produce the results to support his claims.

So does the Duke research actually support the concept of subliminal advertising as well as the power of brands to effect behaviour? CNetNews has a video from the researchers. I assume they have avoided any subliminal messaging on either their research results or the sponsorship of their work!