A few months ago, I wrote about marketing's repetition rule - repeat a message multiple times (7 or more) and it will stick in the memories your audience. Leslie Stahl and producer Shari Finkelstein of CBS's 60 Minutes presented a 2-part series about the fragility of eye witness testimony and memory as evidenced in the case of Ronald Cotton. While it was a shocking indictment of our reliance on memory, it also showed when and how memory can fail us and ways to avoid that outcome.
By just about anyone's standards, it's a tragic story. When then 22-year-old college student Jennifer Thompson-Cannino was raped in her home in 1984, she did everything she could to not only survive the attack by her knife-wielding assailant, but to also remember as much as possible about him. The police soon identified Ronald Cotton as the prime suspect, which was verified through both a photo and live line-up. Following a 2-day trial, he was quickly convicted in 45 minutes based in large part on Thompson-Cannino's eyewitness testimony.
For years, Cotton denied he'd committed the crime. And, eventually, found the man who did, Bobby Poole. But, despite sitting across from Poole during retrial, Thompson-Cannino was unwavering in her identification of Cotton and he lost again. It wasn't until the emergence of DNA testing that Cotton was able to clear his name and the true criminal was convicted. And that turned out to be an even luckier break since the only viable evidence was part of a single teeny sperm.
Thompson-Cannino was mortified. She'd been sure of her memory and secure in the knowledge that she'd done her part, carried her weight, in this case to convict Cotton. Now she asked his forgiveness, which he readily gave. And they embarked upon the most unlikely of partnerships, traveling the country to teach law enforcement professionals and attorneys the lessons they've learned about building cases with eyewitness testimony.
Statistics show that more than 75% of the 232 people exonerated with DNA testing in the U.S. were convicted in cases with faulty eyewitness testimony. And, in all the cases in which the testimony was wrong, the perpetrator was not in the line-up. This was the situation in the Cotton case. The real perpetrator, who looked eerily like Cotton, wasn't included in the line-up. Why? Memory is "easily contaminated and susceptible to suggestion."
Stalh interviewed Dr. Gary Wells at Iowa State University, who has conducted research on eyewitness testimony. They focused on these key areas:
The Nature of Recognition
According to Wells, "five minutes is too long" for a witness to recognize the perpetrator in a line-up. Recognition is nearly instant, occurring in a matter of seconds rather than minutes. In the Cotton case, Thompson-Cannino spent a lot of time identifying Cotton in both line-ups, wanting to ensure she didn't make a mistake. This cautiousness actually indicated a struggle with the memory in relation to the line-up.
Lining It All Up
When the police use line-ups with multiple candidates, there's a greater chance that the witness will pick the wrong person -- especially if the perpetrator isn't even in the line-up. A witness will try hard to pick between all of the "obviously valid choices" (emphasis mine), thinking the perpetrator is there. So, it's best to show line-up candidates one at a time and let the witness know that it's okay if s/he doesn't pick one of them.
Bias and Benevolence
After Thompson-Cannino chose Cotton in the live line-up, Detective Mike Gauldin told her the perpetrator was the "same person she picked out in the photo line-up." This is a common practice among police, which also serves to innocently encourage and help empower the witness and/or victim. They come away feeling like they've made a valuable contribution. However, research shows that the witness will stick with that choice -- even in the face of convincing, contradictory evidence. In fact, reinforcement can literally change memory. "We weren't schooled in protecting memory, treating it like a crime scene," said Gauldin. Wells says it's better to have someone outside the investigation conduct the line-up process, helping to eliminate bias.
So, you ask, "What's this got to do with marketing and the repeat rule?" And, you might ask, "Isn't this a grizzly example to use for the blog?" Second question first. Maybe, maybe not, but it is an incredibly fascinating topic that's valuable in daily life. Now, how it relates to marketing's repeat rule:
- Once your brand is burned into the minds of those in your target audience, they'll recognize it quickly and it will produce the feelings and opinions they've experienced in relation to your business or organization and the brand. How do you feel about Coke? I usually think about having a "Coke and a smile" or that "I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony". And geez, that was from the 70s. Lots of good feelings.
- It's important to differentiate yourself from the competition. What use is it if customers think of your business as interchangable with another business. For example, Fedex is what you want "when you absolutely, positively have to have it overnight". UPS encourages us to ask, "What can Brown do for you?" Very different messages about express package services and how they impact your business, which makes them each unique.
- Reinforcement is important to conveying your message. I am completely serious about repeating roughly 7 times to your audience. You want them to have difficulting spouting any other message in regards to your brand. Read my blog post, "Lies Darn Lies: The Science Behind Marketing's 'Repeat Rule'", for more details.
There's far more to the Cotton story than what I've written here. He and Thompson-Cannino wrote the cleverly titled, Picking Cotton about their shared experience. And, I encourage you to read about the story background and view the segment at "Eyewitness: Anatomy of a Story". By the way, if anyone wants to offer to redesign Wells' website, I have first dibs.
Weirding Word®, a division of G.L. Honeycutt Consulting, LLC, is a virtual publication department that provides editing, freelance writing, and publication and web design services.
Copyright 2007-2009 Gaea L. Honeycutt. All rights reserved.
Recent Comments