What I'm saying is that the idea that quantity will work where quality fails does not work on complex systems, like humans. If you present me 10, or 100, or 1000 wrong solutions to my problems I will ignore 100% of those ads.
Not 90%. Not 99%. Not 99.9%. Not 99.99%.
Every last one.
And this behavior is the same for complex systems in general. They "lock" to a particular solution, and you can perturb their behavior, but not for long. It will go back to whatever the individual thinks is the best solution. The only thing an ad can hope to accomplish is to present a new solution, nothing more. It cannot hope to change preferences.
> If you present me 10, or 100, or 1000 wrong solutions to my problems I will ignore 100% of those ads.
I don’t think this is true. If you’re watching something and the “HeadOn apply directly to the forehead” add plays 1000 times, even if you try to ignore it, it’ll stick.
That’s why so many people know “HeadOn apply directly to the forehead” even though it’s a product that did literally nothing.
What’s more, most ads don’t even seek to explain how a product solves a problem (like in the 50s) they just try getting you to notice the ad.
Regardless, I was talking about the percentages of all the ads you see in a day. Not the times you saw one kind of ad.
Speaking about the percentage of all ads you say throughout the day is not the same as the percentage of retention of a single ad.
You're sidestepping the argument. Complex systems have "fixed point" behavior. This is true for the climate, animal nesting and breeding habits, ... everything that isn't based on chance. I'm going out on a limb here and say that includes humans.
That means there are a number of fixed solutions, and that complex beings or systems keep going back to those solutions. You can give them a little push and their behavior will change for a very short while (by the way: chaotically, in other words, impossible to control. In other words, making an ad for pepsi makes people try cola alternatives, it doesn't even make them go for pepsi), returning to either the previous solutions (the fixed point) or, if the new product is actually better, to a new solution (which is also a fixed point in that case). If you want behavior to change for a reasonable period you need to either take away the previous product or you need to make an actual better product.
Plus you do read about that promoting an inferior product with ads just does not work. It has an effect for a while, and then stops. Agencies will of course happily try this, but it does not work. This is exactly how fixed points behave and not at all how a normal distribution behaves.
Not 90%. Not 99%. Not 99.9%. Not 99.99%.
Every last one.
And this behavior is the same for complex systems in general. They "lock" to a particular solution, and you can perturb their behavior, but not for long. It will go back to whatever the individual thinks is the best solution. The only thing an ad can hope to accomplish is to present a new solution, nothing more. It cannot hope to change preferences.