I write a lot about the important role emotion plays in cause marketing. If you don’t lead with emotion, you’re toast. I also talk a lot about mobile technology, which will be a key driver of cause marketing in the years ahead. But here’s the rub: emotion and smartphones may not be a good mix.
That’s my conclusion after reading a post by Mediapost’s Steve Smith on research by A .K. Pradeep, founder and CEO of Nielsen NeuroFocus, on the connection between brainwave analysis and ad response. I won’t repeat what Steve has done a fine job of summarizing, but I will share what I like to call his Famous Last Words – that thing we should remember after all else is forgotten.
As screen size decreases so does the viewer’s emotional response to what they are watching.
Think about the implications for nonprofit marketing. You’ve worked hard to create a strong emotional message with your nonprofit videos but on smartphones it will fall on blind eyes.
So, if you can’t make people cry on their smartphones, what should your goals be?
Get their attention. Just because you can’t engage people emotionally on smartphones, that doesn’t mean you can’t get their attention. You might need to grab them with something totally unexpected, or emphasize another component such as audio. The background music to a video, among other things, may play a bigger role in getting and keeping a user’s attention.
Timing is everything. The impact of emotional messages depends on where and when it’s viewed. This makes sense to me. When I had the chance to add a QR Code on a pinup sold at the register I didn’t link it to a video on my nonprofit. Who has time to watch a video when you have to lug the groceries out to the car? Instead, I linked it to a question and answer page on the program so people could quickly find out to what they just gave a buck to – a common question/complaint after shoppers donate at the register. But you might be more successful with a video if the QR Code is on a cause product that people can scan after they get home and have the time and inclination for a good cry.
Focus on tablets. Nielson’s research shows that some of the emotion lost with smartphones is restored on their big brother, tablets. Nonprofits may want two mobile strategies. One for tablets, the other for smartphones. That latter may require a more practical, utilitarian approach. If sales of Apple’s iPad 3 are a good indicator (3 million sold in 3 days compared to the 80 days it took the first iPad to sell 3 million units) the word mobile, at least for nonprofits, should mean tablet.
Of course, Nielsen’s research isn’t the final word on emotion and mobile technology. A lot depends on what emotion is being engaged .
I’d love to talk about this more, but my 9-year old just sent a video to my phone that he says will make me LMAO. Gotta go.
Joe, absolutely love that you're talking about this stuff..(this stuff meaning mobile stuff!) Can't say I"m surprised with most of this research, what I do challenge is the direction nonprofits must take indeed because of these findings.
Ok, so emotion isn't as strong when something is viewed over a smartphone. People on these are, as Mobile First Guru Luke Wroblewski calls it "one eyeball, one thumbing it" not lounging around ready to read a heart-wrenching story or watch a compelling video. More likely, checking sports scores while waiting in line at the store! OR they could just as easily (if adapted for mobile) check their goal thermometer on their mobile fundraising app for next month's bike-a-thon, shoot out a thank you email or two while their at it, adding to that, 'wow, I just accomplished something while having my time wasted in this line euphoria.' The idea is that they are completing mini-tasks that they wouldn't otherwise spend as much time or attention on if they are only able to engage through a desktop, and they aren't going to have their tablet handy. (which frankly, depending on size adapts most websites just fine).
Back to the 2 strategies for mobile due to the massive tablet adoption. Most businesses, let alone nonprofits,don't even have even 1 strategy – however I do agree with you, these two 'mobile' sizes should be looked at differently.
Mobile phones, increasingly smartphones, are personal mobile devices, whereas tablets are a little bit more of a luxury item. (until we are able to text and talk with them that is) The ability to have ONE device that enables us to have two way communication while also consuming content, what I believe tablets are better suited for, will always make the smartphones the device of choice for nonprofits to consider their mobile strategy for.
For most younger and under-served populations a web-enabled mobile phone is their only device for home or on the go. Broadband access and pricing will only continue this device adoption and thus client facing social programs must also be adopted to mobile at a faster rate than they are.
Either way you slice it, we all need to accept and embrace that the rate of change in mobile will not slow down anytime soon. Good stuff, Rock & Roll!
This is, indeed, interesting. I suppose the comparisons of size also depend on what medium we are talking about. Sure, if I see something on a big screen at an event, that video is going to be more powerful. But that's kind of comparing apples to oranges anyway – watching something in an audience is also going to be more compelling probably (at least for me) compared to watching alone on my phone.
So I suspect Pradeep is talking about computer, versus tablet, versus smartphone? Another important factor to consider here is how LONG someone is willing to watch a video, which depends in part on the device they are using. According to Ooyala, folks are more inclined to invest the time to watch a video on a tablet, versus a smartphone or PC. (http://bit.ly/tqhggB). So that might outweigh the benefits of a bigger picture on a PC…