The Soft Stuff is More Important than the Hard Stuff
Sports commentators love to use the word “soft” to describe mistakes - “That was a soft goal” or “that was a soft dismissal”. However, at the elite level, sports professionals tend to be just about equal in terms of skill, fitness and strength. It is well known that it is soft issues like belief, talent and resilience that sets the top performers apart. This is why so many top performers have sports psychologists in their teams.
It seems to me that there are several ways of dealing with this topic. I’m not a clinical psychologist, just someone who conducted attitudinal and behavioural research in marketing and advertising, as well as observing business interactions. So, I shall share my learnings about hard and soft issues from this perspective.
In business, hard issues tend to include things like skills, training, techniques, measurement, product quality. Soft things are things like intuition, gutfeel, branding, image, reputation. Hard issues can be understood by reasoning and rational analysis. Soft issues are best understood through examples.
Some time ago my business partner introduced me to a phenomenon he called “The Pope Syndrome”. He said that if you were seen standing next to the Pope, people would assume that you were also a “good guy” (this may not necessarily be as true today!). In retrospect, he was referring to the halo effect, which is a type of cognitive bias.
The halo effect was first identified in the 1920s by psychologist Edward Thorndike, who observed it during performance reviews in the military. He found that officers who were rated as physically attractive or neat were also deemed more capable in unrelated areas, such as leadership or intelligence.
The halo effect plays a significant role in consumer behaviour. For example, if a smartphone manufacturer is renowned for its flagship devices, consumers may assume that its laptops are equally excellent. Celebrity endorsements amplify this effect. A product endorsed by a credible celebrity is often perceived as more reliable, desirable, or innovative, regardless of its actual quality. Think golf and golf balls endorsed by top PGA golfers, such as Tiger Woods or Rory McIlroy.
This raises the question of what exactly is “value for money”? Unfortunately, the consumer marketing and retail industries have corrupted its meaning by equating it with “low price”. I guess this is true if all else is equal. Value for money, however, is what you get for what you pay. All else may appear to be equal, but it seldom is. What you get consists of the hard stuff (quality, features, etc), plus the soft stuff (the halo effect, celebrity endorsement, brand image and personality). The Lexus brand may have very similar physical attributes to Mercedes, but its intangible “soft stuff” probably differs.
Concrete evidence of the importance of intangibles in branding is evident when brands are valued. At its simplest, a brand’s value is defined as the price a branded product can sustain compared to the price it could command if completely unbranded.
Another example of hard versus soft issues is evident in business meetings. When it comes to power, the perceived “weakest” person often turns out to be the strongest. The person who sits quietly at the corner of the table waiting for the loud, brash rivals to finish having a go at each other generally commands an audience when he or she starts speaking calmly and more quietly.
Advertising is a great source of examples of hard vs soft approaches. At one end of the spectrum there are “performance” ads that sell product features. At the other are “image” ads that create imagery in your mind. Think about infommercial brands (“But wait - that’s not all …!”) as opposed to the visual imagery of Colorbond advertising. In both categories there are ads that, for whatever reason, simply resonate. You will know which ads they are for you. Ask yourself what it is about the ad that you enjoy so much. It will invariably be something intangible, more than humour (which often wears off after a few exposures) and more than just content. It will be about how it makes you feel, rather than think, about it.
Which brings me to the phenomenon that annoys people universally. Why are television ads repeated so frequently, sometimes two or three times in the same advertising slot? It is the fault of a “hard” advertising rule called the rule of three. It stipulates that, for a television ad to be effective, it should be seen by each consumer at least three times during a purchase cycle. A purchase cycle is the time between successive purchases. The rule is based on the idea that:
- The first impression helps the viewer understand the ad
- The second impression helps the viewer evaluate its relevance
- The third impression is a reminder
Originally based on data analysis, it has been interpreted simplistically and abused by media owners and agencies. I think you would agree that bombarding consumers with three exposures of the same ad in the same advertising slot is a total abuse of the rule of three.
Over the years I visited many hundreds of clients. It amazed me that, within a few minutes of entering their reception areas, you could sense the culture. Was it a happy, positive place to work? Was there a supportive, energetic atmosphere? Was there a sense of a successful, winning company? Or was there a dog-eat-dog culture?
Some of this may have been due to hard issues (like over-work and under-pay), but it seemed to me that the soft issues (particularly leadership competence) predominated.
What has been your experience with hard and soft issues?