Down in the comments of the previous post, Dom points out that we didn't really have it wrong all along.
Rather, Stephen King, one of the grand architects of planning, pointed out quite clearly that:
"- communication is an indirect force rather than a direct persuasive one
- its primary role is to intensify a brand's meaning totality ('brand gestalt') by creating intensity of feeling, rather than conveying rational messages
- it works most effectively by building long-term brand associations & values rather than via short-term sales shifts
- a planner's role is to understand & empathise with human responses to stimulus (ie behaviours AND attitudes), not get dragged into the nightmarish mechanistic false world of purchase intent methodologies."
Fortunately, I did actually point this out during my presentation, but the slide in question was a video that I didn't put into the slideshare.
[The challenge of posting a deck, which is only ever half the presentation at best. Context is everything.]
The video in question is above.
It's from a JWT training video from the early 1970s - I have it on VHS somewhere, it's very worth watching if you can get hold of a copy.
We've always known this stuff, but the metacognitive error, by its very nature, fools us despite us knowing about it.
And, of course, it's not as simple as the naive dichotomy of emotion OR reason.
[Emotions are the lubricants of reason - they require each other, they are components of a decision making system that interoperate.]
There is no one way in which these things we do work.
To steal from Giep Franzen, as I did in my hidden persuaders paper:
No single theory or group of theories can explain it all, because advertisements work in such different ways.