The best ads usually look inefficient…
Earlier this year, I wrote about the difference between emotional and rational creative.
As a refresher, or if you missed it:
- Emotional creative = long-term effectiveness
- Rational creative = short-term performance
What I didn’t really touch on at the time was what happens when a brand leans too heavily into one side.
Most businesses naturally drift toward rational creative over time. Not because it’s better, but because it’s easier to measure.
You launch a campaign, track conversions, optimise performance, then repeat the process next month. The feedback loop is immediate, which makes rational creative feel productive and emotionally creative feel risky.
The problem here is that rational creative tends to convert existing demand. It doesn’t create much new demand on its own.
So over time, performance starts getting harder. CPAs rise, audiences fatigue faster, growth slows down.
At this point, many brands think they need better performance marketing. Really, they just need more people thinking about them before the buying moment arrives.
That’s the role emotional creative plays.
The brands that grow sustainably understand that emotional creative isn’t there to replace performance marketing. Its job is to make future performance marketing more effective.
One creates demand. The other converts it.
Luke unpacked this idea further in today’s new blog: “Emotional vs rational creative: Why most brands get this backwards.” Take a read and let me know your thoughts.
Want this in your inbox?
This is taken from the weekly email written by one of our directors, Roberto Boi. Every Thursday he shares observations, ideas and perspectives from the work we’re doing day to day at Dilate. If you’d like to get it delivered straight to your inbox, you can sign up here.
