The Science of Subtext

Implication is more powerful than explication

In our last article on Subtext, we argued that agencies should start treating subtext as not only essential, but as the whole point of good advertising. To be fair, many agencies already do this, they just may not realize it – good design is good subtext. Bad font choices are bad, for example, because every font carries a subtext with it, its own history and context of use. Kickstand’s position is: when agencies engage with subtext consciously in the creative development phase, all advertising gets better.

In this article, we bring receipts. Let’s dive into some evidence.

When subtext goes wrong

There’s a famous* story about the Petrified Forest National Park’s attempt to reduce petrified wood theft. The park had struggled for years to discourage visitors from taking pieces of the petrified wood home with them, so in frustration, they put up signs all over the park saying things like “If everyone keeps taking pieces of the forest, there will be no forest left.” This tactic backfired spectacularly –?as soon as the signs went up, so did the rate of theft. It wasn’t until they removed the signs and replaced them with new ones that theft finally declined. We’ll come back to the new wording once we unpack what went wrong with the first attempt.

What happened here? What was the subtext the Petrified Forest National Park got wrong? To understand, we’ll first have to turn to some neuroscience.

The brain is lazy by design

In the late great Daniel Kahneman’s seminal book on Sociology and Neurology, Thinking, Fast and Slow, Dr. Kahneman shows that the brain consists of two distinct systems for decision-making. He calls them System I and System II. System I is fast, gut-level thinking. System II is slower, comparative thinking, based in reason and logic. What Kahneman demonstrates is that logical System II thinking literally takes more energy - the brain burns more glucose when using that circuitry. As a result, people generally try to avoid bringing that system online unless absolutely necessary, reserving it for only the most important decision-making. Most of the time, people make gut decisions without even turning logical thinking on.?

What that means for us advertisers is that if we want to break through, we have to be realistic about how our messaging will be evaluated. Deciding whether to trust an ad is something people have to do hundreds of times a day. They literally can’t afford to spend the energy evaluating our messaging with anything other than their gut. So to make messaging that works, we have to understand how System I works.

System I, according to Kahneman’s research, is associative. Associative thinking is typified by “X reminds me of Y, and I don’t like Y, therefore I don’t like X.” If a man in lederhosen punched me in the face once, I’m likely to steer clear of men in lederhosen in the future, regardless of how logical that decision is. If I’ve liked other shows with Nick Offerman in them, I’m more likely to consider seeing the next show with Nick Offerman in it. (note how the last example is evidence that system 1 is not always synonymous with “illogical”.)

The evidence suggests overwhelmingly that System 1, despite its limitations, is, on average, a very reliable decision maker, especially in terms of avoiding decisions that could harm us. Its power arises from the fact that the associations it draws on are not limited to the individual.? In fact, most of System 1’s focus is on the experience of the larger group. Behind the scenes, an enormous part of each person’s brain is asking “what are other people doing?” and then conforming their behavior to match the group. This leads to a change in action without ever arising to conscious awareness. This is the human equivalent of ants zeroing in on food sources by following the strongest ant trail scent.?

You see where this is going

Which is exactly how The Petrified National Forest got themselves in trouble.

The subtext of “If everyone keeps taking pieces of the forest, there will be no forest left” is “everyone else is taking pieces of the forest.” Which leads the reader to modify their behavior to fit the group. System 1 in action.

So what did the signs that worked say?

They made the positive group behavior they wanted to call attention to explicit. They made the subtext text. “Most visitors choose to leave the forest as they found it. Thank you for preserving the beauty of our park.”

That’s how you collaborate with the strengths of System I. And make the subtext the hero of your marketing messaging.

That’s the talk for today. Next time we’ll put some meat on our claim that when advertising works it’s because the subtext is aligned with the message, and when it fails, it’s because the subtext was making an entirely different argument than the text.

*well, so I believed until I failed to find a source to link to, but you’re all cool trusting my memory of a decades-old NPR interview right?