Advertising
A model on how to effectively convince someone to believe in something. The source, the message, the channel, the receiver, and the effect.
Source
Being physically attractive, popular, or having an image that customers admire will make the person more trustworthy.
Celebrity endorsement (sometimes it is not effective, it might overshadow the product)
Credible sources (scientific newspaper) are more trusted
The message
Moderate fear in the message is effective (say your kitchen will be dirty without our product), but too much fear cause avoidance
A message that has both sides of the argument is more persuasive than a one-sided argument (for smart audience)
Edge bias, first + last message is remembered the best (hence put slogan in the end of ad)
The audience
Young people are the easiest to persuade
Moderate intelligent people easiest to persuade
Intelligent people can analyze the message and see through seller’s intention. While stupid audience can’t understand the message
Women easier to persuade than men
Cultural differences: Wang et al found Americans prefer products that offered ‘separateness’ whereas Chinese prefer products that offered ‘togetherness’.
The channel of communication
Different mediums are trustworthy for different audiences.
Effect
Audience needs to pay attention to the message or else they will not be convinced
Yielding = message will only affect customer’s attitude/behaviour if they accept the message and their motivation to change.
Holistic approach - consider a lot of factors. E.g: the message will be understood differently to different people.
Applicable to daily life.
For business: collaborate with social media influencers that fit with the demographic of target customers.
Doesn’t explain how persuasion happens – concentrates on the steps in the persuasion process, and doesn’t explain how persuasion occurs.
Assume that understanding a message leads to persuasion. For example, the Elaboration Likelihood model shows that persuasion can still occur even when a message is not fully understood.
Gender bias
Most studies showed that women are easier to persuade, however,…
most of the content used in experiments was more familiar to men. Men have background knowledge about the topic presented, hence more likely to come up with counterarguments.
Another study found that it’s easier to persuade men with feminine products and the same for women.
So if women are presented with information that they are more familiar with, they will be less likely to be persuaded.
So women might not be easier to persuade
EEG in film trailer research
Measure ppt brainwave to know ppt emotion when watching trailer
Ciceri et al
Banner blindness (ignore ads on horizontal or vertical on side of the screen)
72 Italian in 3 groups, read mock newspaper on laptop (website), tablet (pdf) or paper (eye tracking and EEG)
Surprise recall test after to see if they remember 25 ads in newspaper
Ads on website recall least, pdf+paper recall better
Standardised procedure: Lighting in room same for tablet or computer (reliability)
Uncontrolled variables: Tablet/laptop screen size not the same, ppt time spent interacting with screens are different
Only Italian: US ads use more text, Asia ads use more image
Lauterborn’s 4C marketing mix model
Customer needs
Cost (include cost of travelling to store, post-purchase dissonance)
Convenience
Communication (2-way communication, customer encouraged to give feedback and seller turn feedback into real actions)
Realistic: Regconize each customer evaluates product differently, seller should understand individual and culture
Outdated: Ignore buyer-buyer communication (influencer on social media), online shopping (convenience)
Self-monitoring: personality trait, willingness to change behavior to adapt to social situations
High self-monitor: Adapt behavior to fit in socially, value look over quality
Low self-monitor: don’t change behavior to fit in, want to express their true self, value quality over look
Self monitor scale, developed by Snyder himself, 25 questions, true false answer to statements to measure how willing ppt is to change their behavior to impact their image in other’s eyes
Aim: Investigate how customer self-monitoring level affect effectiveness of ads either image or quality oriented
About ppt
40 psychology student, Uni of Minnesota. Opportunity, received course credit
About phone call
The telephone call was scripted/standardised; controlled for tone of voice, gender of caller. » Random allocation reduced participant variables, such as interest in hair care products.
Double blind design
Call twice, first the ad, second the self monitor scale
Telephoned twice by researcher at different times:
To do Self-monitoring scale, made by Snyder himself. True/false statement to 25 situations.
Lied by researcher, saying that they are doing market research for new shampoo
Image-oriented group: shampoo make hair looks good, clean normal
Quality-oriented group: shampoo cleans hair well, look normal
Ask PPT their willingness to try shampoo
5 point scale, definitely not, definitely yes
From scale 0-100%
High self-monitor more willing to try image-oriented shampoo, vice versa for low self-monitors
Double blind study: Researcher did not know what self-monitor level ppt in. Reduce researcher bias (speak more positive to hope ppt try shampoo)
Researcher asked for self-monitoring level in a different call from the shampoo test. PPT thought shampoo was a real marketing company. Less demand characteristic. More valid
Applicable: Use different ads to different customer groups
Ethic: Deception, no informed consent, no right to withdraw
Limited sample: Only 50, psy uni students.
Too nomothetic: Doesn’t explain how self-monitoring affect choice (need qualitative data), and what about other products or types of ads (TV,newspaper,…)
Mere exposure: the more we see something, we more we like it unconsciously
Especially if a character in movie that we consider as role model uses that product
Cultural differences: US show more mere exposure effect than Asian
Reminder effect: Mere exposure work best if customer familiar with the film
We know the film plot, processing fluency (process film easier). Creates pleasant feeling that is associated with liking to product
Auty + Lewis
Product placement in film on children
105 children watch Home Alone
Eat pizza drink Pepsi
Eat macaroni drink milk
Children offered Coke and Pepsi, see which one they choose
Children asked to recall the clip (see if they mentioned Pepsi)
More children chose Pepsi in experimental group
Children unfamiliar with the film in the experimental group did not chose Pepsi (show reminder effect is true)
Useful: Kids TV should ban alcohol product placement
Ethical: Parent informed consent
Ppt variable: Don’t know if children like Pepsi or Coke before the study
In children, the more developed theory of mind is, the better the brand recognition. Because they can think symbolically.
Fast food brand recognition leads to child obesity
Fischer et al
Children match logo with product image cause they can’t speak yet
Children recognize cigarettes logo. May cause them to try cigarette in future
Valid: Matching games, performance not affected by reading or speaking ability
Researcher bias: Researchers are Doctor, they might give children hint to prove that cigarette affect the children as well
The aim is to make it easy to remember
Keep it short, catchy, make into a melody
Should not be outdated
Aim to inspire
Recency bias: We remember the last thing on an ad, so slogan at the end is good
A model on how to effectively convince someone to believe in something. The source, the message, the channel, the receiver, and the effect.
Source
Being physically attractive, popular, or having an image that customers admire will make the person more trustworthy.
Celebrity endorsement (sometimes it is not effective, it might overshadow the product)
Credible sources (scientific newspaper) are more trusted
The message
Moderate fear in the message is effective (say your kitchen will be dirty without our product), but too much fear cause avoidance
A message that has both sides of the argument is more persuasive than a one-sided argument (for smart audience)
Edge bias, first + last message is remembered the best (hence put slogan in the end of ad)
The audience
Young people are the easiest to persuade
Moderate intelligent people easiest to persuade
Intelligent people can analyze the message and see through seller’s intention. While stupid audience can’t understand the message
Women easier to persuade than men
Cultural differences: Wang et al found Americans prefer products that offered ‘separateness’ whereas Chinese prefer products that offered ‘togetherness’.
The channel of communication
Different mediums are trustworthy for different audiences.
Effect
Audience needs to pay attention to the message or else they will not be convinced
Yielding = message will only affect customer’s attitude/behaviour if they accept the message and their motivation to change.
Holistic approach - consider a lot of factors. E.g: the message will be understood differently to different people.
Applicable to daily life.
For business: collaborate with social media influencers that fit with the demographic of target customers.
Doesn’t explain how persuasion happens – concentrates on the steps in the persuasion process, and doesn’t explain how persuasion occurs.
Assume that understanding a message leads to persuasion. For example, the Elaboration Likelihood model shows that persuasion can still occur even when a message is not fully understood.
Gender bias
Most studies showed that women are easier to persuade, however,…
most of the content used in experiments was more familiar to men. Men have background knowledge about the topic presented, hence more likely to come up with counterarguments.
Another study found that it’s easier to persuade men with feminine products and the same for women.
So if women are presented with information that they are more familiar with, they will be less likely to be persuaded.
So women might not be easier to persuade
EEG in film trailer research
Measure ppt brainwave to know ppt emotion when watching trailer
Ciceri et al
Banner blindness (ignore ads on horizontal or vertical on side of the screen)
72 Italian in 3 groups, read mock newspaper on laptop (website), tablet (pdf) or paper (eye tracking and EEG)
Surprise recall test after to see if they remember 25 ads in newspaper
Ads on website recall least, pdf+paper recall better
Standardised procedure: Lighting in room same for tablet or computer (reliability)
Uncontrolled variables: Tablet/laptop screen size not the same, ppt time spent interacting with screens are different
Only Italian: US ads use more text, Asia ads use more image
Lauterborn’s 4C marketing mix model
Customer needs
Cost (include cost of travelling to store, post-purchase dissonance)
Convenience
Communication (2-way communication, customer encouraged to give feedback and seller turn feedback into real actions)
Realistic: Regconize each customer evaluates product differently, seller should understand individual and culture
Outdated: Ignore buyer-buyer communication (influencer on social media), online shopping (convenience)
Self-monitoring: personality trait, willingness to change behavior to adapt to social situations
High self-monitor: Adapt behavior to fit in socially, value look over quality
Low self-monitor: don’t change behavior to fit in, want to express their true self, value quality over look
Self monitor scale, developed by Snyder himself, 25 questions, true false answer to statements to measure how willing ppt is to change their behavior to impact their image in other’s eyes
Aim: Investigate how customer self-monitoring level affect effectiveness of ads either image or quality oriented
About ppt
40 psychology student, Uni of Minnesota. Opportunity, received course credit
About phone call
The telephone call was scripted/standardised; controlled for tone of voice, gender of caller. » Random allocation reduced participant variables, such as interest in hair care products.
Double blind design
Call twice, first the ad, second the self monitor scale
Telephoned twice by researcher at different times:
To do Self-monitoring scale, made by Snyder himself. True/false statement to 25 situations.
Lied by researcher, saying that they are doing market research for new shampoo
Image-oriented group: shampoo make hair looks good, clean normal
Quality-oriented group: shampoo cleans hair well, look normal
Ask PPT their willingness to try shampoo
5 point scale, definitely not, definitely yes
From scale 0-100%
High self-monitor more willing to try image-oriented shampoo, vice versa for low self-monitors
Double blind study: Researcher did not know what self-monitor level ppt in. Reduce researcher bias (speak more positive to hope ppt try shampoo)
Researcher asked for self-monitoring level in a different call from the shampoo test. PPT thought shampoo was a real marketing company. Less demand characteristic. More valid
Applicable: Use different ads to different customer groups
Ethic: Deception, no informed consent, no right to withdraw
Limited sample: Only 50, psy uni students.
Too nomothetic: Doesn’t explain how self-monitoring affect choice (need qualitative data), and what about other products or types of ads (TV,newspaper,…)
Mere exposure: the more we see something, we more we like it unconsciously
Especially if a character in movie that we consider as role model uses that product
Cultural differences: US show more mere exposure effect than Asian
Reminder effect: Mere exposure work best if customer familiar with the film
We know the film plot, processing fluency (process film easier). Creates pleasant feeling that is associated with liking to product
Auty + Lewis
Product placement in film on children
105 children watch Home Alone
Eat pizza drink Pepsi
Eat macaroni drink milk
Children offered Coke and Pepsi, see which one they choose
Children asked to recall the clip (see if they mentioned Pepsi)
More children chose Pepsi in experimental group
Children unfamiliar with the film in the experimental group did not chose Pepsi (show reminder effect is true)
Useful: Kids TV should ban alcohol product placement
Ethical: Parent informed consent
Ppt variable: Don’t know if children like Pepsi or Coke before the study
In children, the more developed theory of mind is, the better the brand recognition. Because they can think symbolically.
Fast food brand recognition leads to child obesity
Fischer et al
Children match logo with product image cause they can’t speak yet
Children recognize cigarettes logo. May cause them to try cigarette in future
Valid: Matching games, performance not affected by reading or speaking ability
Researcher bias: Researchers are Doctor, they might give children hint to prove that cigarette affect the children as well
The aim is to make it easy to remember
Keep it short, catchy, make into a melody
Should not be outdated
Aim to inspire
Recency bias: We remember the last thing on an ad, so slogan at the end is good
