Can the brand bias sideline our other search biases?

 This post describes why I bought a Mountain Hardwear Ghost Whisperer UL down jacket. However, the post is not a product review, rather it is an exploration of how cognitive biases and brand associations play out in the purchase process.

Why did I choose to talk about the Ghost Whisperer down jacket rather than anything else? Well, I have a sneaking suspicion that a color cue triggered my thoughts. You see, this post about the "messy middle" on Think With Google has these rather nice yellow icons to represent cognitive biases, and, as you will see from the photo above, my new jacket is a similar shade of yellow. And it is precisely that sort of cue which can be important when it comes to buying a brand.

The Google post focuses the reader's attention on the messy middle; on some of the cognitive biases involved when exploring and evaluating a purchase. While one bullet point does talk about the need to ensure brand presence, so a product or service is strategically front of mind while people explore, little else is said about what happens before and after the messy middle. And in my opinion, that is a huge omission. I get it. The authors chose to focus on the messy middle because that is what matters to them. But marketers would do well to remember that people have a life outside search, and if nothing else, building a brand's presence outside of search can have a huge influence on whether someone searches by its name or a category generic.

OK, so let us get back to the Ghost Whisperer. What was the trigger for my decision-making process? Winter is coming? I do not have a down jacket? I just like shopping new outdoor gear? Well, the first was true, but actually, it was reading this article in Outside Magazine that triggered my purchase.

And, yes, cognitive biases played their part in the decision. My wife is always telling me I am fixated by jackets, so maybe the category heuristic described in the Google post was at play. I have subscribed to Outside Magazine in the past, so maybe the authority bias was at work. But more important than these was the scarcity bias. The article clearly states that this year offers a rare chance to buy warmer and lighter 1,000-fill down jacket. OK, so now I am ready to buy, but why Mountain Hardwear specifically?

The article mentions Mountain Hardwear's Ghost Whisperer in the first paragraph, references it extensively throughout, and ends with another reference. However, the article does also name other manufacturers that will be offering the same down in their jackets. Maybe there was a position bias which meant I forgot the brands mentioned in the middle of the article? Maybe the Ghost Whisperer was simply more salient because of the repetition of its name in the article? While those factors might have played a part in my choice, I believe the biggest influence on the decision was the positive associations that I already had toward the Ghost Whisperer before I read the article. And where did they come from? Prior experience.

You see I already own a Ghost Whisperer. It is red. It is light. It is warm. And it is a great item to stuff into my carryon for a long trip in case I get the chance to escape from the plane, hotel and conference room (although that lifestyle now seems a lifetime ago). So, what was not to like about something that promises to be lighter and warmer? A few seconds after reading the Outside Magazine article I was on the Mountain Hardwear web site and fumbling my debit card from my wallet.

To my mind, this is a good example of the pre-existing brand bias that seems to be under-valued in the Google article. My positive predisposition toward the Ghost Whisperer sidelined the exploratory and evaluative loops highlighted in the Google post and drove me straight to the purchase. Did cognitive biases have an influence, yes, but of far greater importance was the role of experience. Using the previous jacket had confirmed in my mind that it fit well with what I wanted from a down jacket, but also built up positive associations that made it more meaningful to me.

In this case, direct experience of the brand in question drove me to buy, but that will obviously not be the same for everyone. When I bought my first Ghost Whisperer I went through the explore and evaluate loops described in the Google post. I probably typed in "down jacket review" or some such generic and then read through a couple of them, comparing specs before I decided to buy. But even then, the brand bias played a part. I remember justifying the decision on the basis of Mountain Hardwear's reputation. Anyone conducting a search using generic category terms will have pre-existing brand associations that could bias their choices once those names appear in the search results.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many companies have doubled down on buying specific search terms related to their brand and category, and no doubt many will be trying to use the cognitive biases described in the Google post to win more sales. However, there is a proven relationship between pre-existing brand salience and share of search. The higher the brand's salience, the more likely it is to be searched for by name and the more likely it is that the brand will be bought.

So, if you want to maximize your chance of winning the search war, the best way to do so is cut the search process short. Build your brand's salience before people even start searching, help them recognize your brand instantly, and make sure that recognition triggers a reservoir of positive feelings toward the brand. Because in many categories the brand bias will overcome all others.

But what do you think? Can the brand bias overcome the ones talked about in the Google posts? Please share your thoughts.