Cognitive Fluency as Discussed in "Easy = True"

After reading the Boston Globe’s piece titled “Easy = True” by Drake Bennett, I was surprised at how frequently the argument that logos, slogans, and designs which are easy to decipher and comprehend tend to do better is demonstrated to be true. Companies employing those devices seem to generally be the ones that are most successful and most prolific (although there are a few notable exceptions). The idea of the success of things with “cognitive fluency” is very much straightforward and intuitive because we can all relate to the processes involved. It is also a very useful concept because it can be accurately tested and refined by looking at real-world cases and even by conducting limited experiments.

Perhaps one of the best examples of a successful company with an emblem that fits into the category of being cognitively fluent is Nike. The name, the logo, and the associated phrase (Nike, the swoosh symbol and “just do it,” respectively) are simple, easy to understand, and even easy to duplicate (indeed, there are few other companies with simpler associated trademarks). Employing tens of thousands of people worldwide and taking in billions of dollars in revenue yearly, Nike is certainly a world business leader. Because of this, it is a model for how simple and memorable associations make sense in the marketplace. But Nike is not alone. If one tried to recall phrases and logos that are attached to different businesses, he or she would find that most, if not all of the things that come to mind are short, to the point, and easy to understand. In other words, most would be quite cognitively fluent. This fact seems very much to be proof of concept for cognitive fluency.

This is probably does not strike many people as surprising. We have grown up immersed in the advertising culture and so we naturally associate these types of logos and emblems with successful companies. But we needn’t have had these experiences for the idea to be trivial to us. It is an inherently logical concept because of the mechanisms by which it operates. If we simply cannot understand something, it is almost impossible for us to remember it, much less associate it with a particular company or product. Likewise, if it long and intricate, we may lose interest before comprehending the full meaning, preventing the association from forming in the first place. In another way, we may form the association, but if we cannot remember it, it comes to nothing. This is another hindrance for complex trademarks. And finally, something that the article touched on specifically was our natural affinity for things that are easy and familiar. It quoted a very relevant saying put forth by the psychologist Robert Zajonc to help explain why this is the case evolutionarily, “‘If it is familiar, it has not eaten you yet.’ ”

Not only does the concept of cognitive fluency seem reasonable and widespread, but it is also a concept that can easily be tested. Through simple experiments involving groups of people and looking at trends and market behavior in the past, concrete evidence can be assembled to either support or refute the influence it has in determining the success of a company. That it is a testable hypothesis means that it, given sufficient support (which, as was discussed above, seems quite likely), could become an important theory in psychology, sociology, and economics and give us insight into the nuances of cognitive thinking and our innate preferences. On the other hand, if it fails to accurately predict the data, it could be definitively relegated to the status of an interesting but impractical idea. In either case, we can serve to know more about the ways we operate and how we perceive the world in which we live.