Familiar things feel safer, truer, or more likable.
More quotesThe research question “Do you remember our advert?” contains the charming assumption that remembering the advert was the advert’s job.
Sometimes it was. Often the useful effect is quieter. A brand feels established without the buyer being able to name the podcast that repeated it. A familiar pack wins half a second of confidence at the shelf. Somebody hums the sonic logo and attributes it to the wrong company—which is excellent news for somebody, unfortunately not the advertiser.
Recall can therefore flatter useless work and insult useful work. A spectacular execution may be remembered while the brand falls out of the story. A modest exposure may improve fluency and predisposition without becoming an anecdote the viewer can retrieve for a researcher on Thursday. Memory for the advert, attribution to the brand and influence on choice are cousins, not triplets.
I would never excuse bad work with mystical talk about “subconscious impact”. Commercial outcomes still need evidence, and convenient effects should not be invented after the dashboard disappoints. But neither would I let one tidy metric judge a messy job.
Measure recall when recall matters. Add attribution, familiarity, consideration, distinctive assets, search and sales over a sensible period. The metric should follow the intended effect. Otherwise research becomes a pub quiz about the campaign—and the prize is cancelling advertising that may have been working.