Encoding Variability

What it is

Advertisers had long observed that a set of varied executions of a campaign is remembered better than one execution shown again and again. Two explanations compete for that result. One is attention: a new execution holds the eye longer than a familiar one. The other is encoding variability: each different execution stores the brand name with a different set of cues, so there are more ways to find it later.

Unnava and Burnkrant designed their experiments to separate the two, so that the effect of variety could be measured with attention held apart.

In effect

The two experiments found that attention and encoding variability each contributed to brand name memory on their own. The benefit of varied executions held even when differences in attention were controlled, which supports the idea that variety itself builds memory.

The Why We Project article on branding agencies and brand strategy agencies uses the finding to make a practical point: strategy fixes what a brand should mean, and identity and campaign work can then express that meaning in varied ways without losing the thread a buyer remembers it by.

What it does not say

The experiments concerned advertising executions and brand name memory. They do not test logos, colour systems or whole identity systems, and they do not say that a brand should change its core assets often. Varied executions of one consistent message are a different thing from a brand that keeps changing what it says.

---