Rational Solutions for Emotional Needs

The reason-vs-emotion debate has been going on for millennia (literally), and it's generally accepted that both have influence to varying degrees, based on the idiosyncrasies of the people and situations in question.   That outcome seems something of an unenlightened shrug that comes to no firm or useful conclusion regarding how the two come to an agreement on a course of action.    

I'm toying with a notion that seems to have some merit in terms of sorting out reason and emotion in they buying process: consumers tend to be emotional about their needs, but rational in solving them.     Granted, there are instances in which reason seems to be used in identifying needs and emotion does not switch off during the solution process  - so this is likely not perfectly true in all instances, but may be helpful in getting closer to understanding the interplay of the two.

Emotional Needs

The vast majority of needs that consumers seek to serve in the marketplace are entirely emotional - specifically, they are keyed to the emotions of hope and fear in regards to our desires: we hope to gain something pleasurable as a result of purchasing some products, or we fear that we will experience something unpleasant if we fail to purchase others.   It really is that simple.

It may become complex when we attempt to describe or explain our needs.  We tend to rationalize or justify our emotions, to ourselves as well as to others, and the logic becomes highly convoluted - and the complication arises because it is essentially a veneer over a motivation that has nothing at all to do with logic, but emotions that we find difficult to explain and uncomfortable to admit.

To be clear: needs exist well in advance of choosing a product to solve them - when we begin considering what products might serve a need, we have transitioned from recognizing needs to evaluating solutions.   It's somewhat difficult to separate the two because we often speak of the "need for clothing" or the "need for food" when in reality, clothing and food are solutions to needs (cold and hunger), so to suggest a need for a thing is already to have jumped to the next step in problem solving.

The need is identified when we sense something (a sensation of mild discomfort) and have an emotional reaction (a fear that this discomfort will continue or worsen unless something is done about it).   After that, the rational mind kicks in.

Rational Solutions

The first step in solving a problem is investigating the causes.   It is logic, rather than emotion, that guides us in doing so.   To continue the previous example, we recognize a sensation of discomfort and experience fear that it will continue or worsen unless we take action.   As such, there is an immediate application of logic to evaluate the nature of the discomfort, and recognize that "I am hungry" and, further, to consider the customary solution to the problem and translate it into a statement such as "I need food."

This is not particularly brilliant, and many species instinctively understand the connection between consuming food, stopping the sensation of discomfort, and alleviating the fear that the discomfort will worsen.   Every animal does this, and would not have survived if it did not, so the logic is very primitive - but it is logic, rather than emotion, that makes these connections.  And in human beings, who are not factory equipped with a complex array of instincts, the rational process is more easily recognized as such.

Reason becomes more apparent when we consider the way in which solutions are defined.   "I need food" would be satisfied by "food" - anything edible that would mitigate the physical sensation would suffice.   "I want a turkey and Swiss cheese sandwich on whole wheat bread with low-fat mayonnaise on the side" represents quite some cogitation (at least the first time it is ordered, after that we are relying on previous work rather than performing the mental gymnastics again).

There can be a great deal of deliberation about the rational processes that lead us to the identification of a solution, not to mention those we undertake when we seek to effect the solution - but in the context of this short meditation, it should suffice to recognize that our identification of a solution to a need is more rational than emotional.

Cross-Pollination

And so, I'm led to the conclusion that needs are emotional and solutions are rational - but it's a very vague and loose conclusion.    I'm well aware that there is some application of reason to the identification of needs, and some intrusion of emotion into the process of solution - and it's likely that this differs according to the individual, the need, the solution, the context, and various other factors.

But having pondered this notion a while, and having mulled over far more examples than it's feasible to document here, I do have the sense that the general thesis holds: needs are essentially emotional and solutions are essentially rational, and understanding this should help to make better choices in the way in which sellers interact with buyers in the marketplace.