It depends on what is being done. Changing a product’s
structure/look in an ad, or representing the product with a different enhanced version
in an ad is unethical.
Frenzy Advertisement
Sunday, 1 December 2013
Saturday, 30 November 2013
Tuesday, 19 November 2013
Attention Span of a Goldfish!
Ten years ago the average attention span was apparently 12
minutes. Now, it has apparently gone down to 5 according in the article in the
Telegraph. According to Brian Vander Zanden from the University of Texas, he
claims adults have the attention span of 20 minutes. However on the internet,
our attention span is back down to five minutes. And now thanks to the
addictive nature of web browsing, that same attention span shrinks down to a
mere 9 seconds, which is the same attention span of a goldfish!
Keeping that in mind we are bombarded with advertising. Most
of which have short messages, but just how much is enough? According to a study
done by Yankelvich
Research, it claims we can be bombarded from anywhere between 3,000 and 20,000
messages a day. We only actialy acknowledge or process ads somewhere I the low
hundreds.
There is the question is there too much advertising? Is all
this advertising the cause of our attention span being too short? Or is the
advertising causing our attention span to shorten due to the onslaught of
information being thrown at us?
By 2016, the projected amount of money spent on advertising
on a global scale is slanted to hit 660 Billion dollars!
Advertising comes in many forms, some of which costs money,
and some others that are free. These forms include: Television, Radio, Online,
Mobile and landline telephony, magazine and newspaper, direct mail. Billboard,
busboard, display, in taxis, in buses, in store, in malls, in planes, in
bathrooms, in product placements, word of mouth, stick a message ads, and user
generated ads.
So back to my previous two questions on whether we have too
much advertising, my answer is no. There is not too much advertising, but there
is too much bad advertising and not enough creative advertising. There is a
bunch of bad, and useless advertising out there, but on the plus side to that
it makes the few good advertisements stand out. I feel we don’t have enough
creative and concept driven creative advertising that can almost be considered
artwork in order to promote a brand and get your attention. I also believe that
our attention spans are short because of the nature of convenience and how
everything is presented orally, visually and is summarized. Before we used to
have to read and get into what is being talked about to retain common
information, so based on the trend of technology and how information was
presented faster and quicker, we got accustomed to that and our attention span
decreased. It may also be decreased due to that fact that we are purposely
reducing the amount of sensorial noise we take in on a daily basis, we can’t
afford to pay attention to everything, there is just too much to take in. I
believe if we continue to tune out the noise and volume around us, only the
bright, creative, and attention grabbing information out there will raise our
attention. This might resolve in more ads trying to grab our attention, but
only the good and creative ads will be successful. I believe that most ads are
ineffective. If brands reduced advertising costs by 10 percent, would their
profits drop correspondingly? Maybe, but probably not. I believe the only
drastic change would be if they eliminated ads that people seek out such as eliminating
their company information in the yellow pages, that would make a much higher
impact on their company then eliminating ads that seek other people such as inside
buses which most people don’t pay attention to and even if they did they won’t
have the time to write down or remember the contact information. Where as in
the yellow pages the person is seeking out advertisements, is willing to write
down the contact information and familiarize themselves with the brand.
Tuesday, 12 November 2013
Shock Advertisment
On the average day we are
constantly bombarded with advertisements. The average student, in the middle of
their week, will have experienced up to 10, 000 forms of advertising
impressions. So many are passed over, ignored, and not even gazed upon for a
few seconds of time. So many of those will have long been forgotten in two
weeks time. That being said, in an effort for ads to become more memorable in
our lives they have used: humor, fear, simplicity, bent imagery or headlines,
creative concepts, direct appeals, showing benefits, and using informational
ads.
One big attention grabber
that some ads resort to is using Shock to their advantage.
An example of this is below.
Typical advertisements I’ve noticed that use shock to their
advantage are ones that deal with prevention. Such as preventing
smoking, preventing the use of drugs like heroin and meth, avoiding drinking
and driving, avoiding texting while driving, and preventing very dangerous
actions in general. Also ads that deal with societal issues such as: preventing
anorexia, killing fetuses in the womb or an unborn child, preventing violence
against women and sexual assault etc.
On these type of ads I would
argue that showing something shocking to drive interest to the viewer is
effective. It is more effective than simply pouring a lot of information about
the topic on the ad. Having an affective concept that delivers some shock value
with some added information and a message is an effective way of drawing the
reader in, making the ad something they will remember for a while, and then
altering their behavior on the subject.
There was a case study to
find out of which 3 different advertising appeals (shock fear and
informational) would be more effective for
the effects on advertising attention, recall, and recognition in an HIV/AIDS
prevention context. The case study stated “We found that as expected, the shock
appeal outperformed the fear and information appeals on attention, recall and
recognition. Importantly, our results showed that subjects felt the shock ad
violated social norms and this interpretation was identified as the cause of
heightened awareness for the shock appeal. The evidence to this point supports
our contention that shocking ad content is superior to non-shocking content in
its ability to attract attention and facilitate memory.” Rajesh V. Manchanda,
Darren W. Dahl, and Kristina D. Frankenberger (2002) ,"Shocking Ads! Do
They Work?", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 29, eds. Susan
M. Broniarczyk and Kent Nakamoto, Valdosta, GA : Association for Consumer
Research, Pages: 230-231.
From this study shocking ads have a
very good effect to grab our attention and make us remember the content of
information, and understand it.
Although some shocking ads push the
envelope and are not greeted warmly by their viewers. While some are remembered
they don’t necessarily force us to change our behavior. A common example is the
shocking informational ads on cigarette boxes. Some smokers see them and get
very tired of looking at them, scratch them out, and don’t change their habits.
Of course that is a form of addiction. Most shocking ads I just find a nuisance.
Seeing them once is fine, but if you have to see them same ad on the bus again
and again for a longer period of time the ad may have a reversing effect and
you may just want to boycott the product or message because you are so fed up
with it. I hope that we won’t end up with more shocking ads to grab our
attention, most of them are gruesome and unpleasant. Only some are well
executed and good to see.
Based on the execution of the ad the
advertisement can give off a good message like this one.
Or a disturbing message like this one.
The message received in some shocking
ads are either “OMG that’s wrong, I’ll just look away now” or “wow that’s so
true” or just something puzzled and surprised such as “well I didn’t expect
that!” in either case shocking do well to get the attention of the viewer but
in my opinion do less good in persuading the reader to change, stop, or create
a habit. Brands should use shocking ads sparingly in my opinion, I don’t want
Ottawa to be littered with them! If the shocking ad will provoke negative
publicity and buzz and news they are not worth the effort to put up.
What is the core feature of shock ads
is the delivery of the message. Shock adverts should embrace the delivery of
the message. However if that message confronts people’s sensitivities it should
be careful and not go against what the majority of people are sensitive to. It
is okay to be daring but at the same time it is not the responsibility of
product ads to confront social views and political issues. Societal ads can
touch on society’s way of thinking but should do it in a light way because if
they don’t they would receive a lot of backslash, hate, and would hurt their
brand. The envelope needs to be pushed a little bit at a time, not be torn
apart by one crazy ad.
Tuesday, 5 November 2013
Cheating on your Partner and Your Brand
Adultery. Infidelity. A fling. A
Hanky-panky. Is in the end known as cheating. Most of us agree that it is
wrong, some might say that it is immoral. In fact in 1985, it was illegal under
Canadian
Law:
172.
(1) Every one who, in the home of a child, participates in adultery or sexual
immorality or indulges in habitual drunkenness or
any
other form of vice, and thereby endangers the morals of the child
or
renders the home an unfit place for the child to be in, is guilty of an
indictable
offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
two
years.
Pretty
crazy I know but that is one way to stop all the shinanigans. However, I do
enjoy the odd movie that captures all the cheating into a twisted story.
Moonstruck comes to mind, it was a twisted romantic comedy.
When
it comes to cheating, you see most of us feel guilt and know we shouldn’t do
it. However there are many degrees of cheating and in some cases some instances
shouldn’t even be considered cheating. There is the case of the over protective
inquisitive and curious partner which I hear over and over again which can be
unbelievably annoying. In many cases I would say that when you have an over
controlling partner that doesn’t allow you to even spend any time with other
people you are curious to get to know that would make you feel entrapped and
controlled. Spending time with other people besides your partner is fine, as
long as it doesn’t go to far into something flirty on a consistant basis.
Adultery
on the other hand is a bit more serious and I would argue that it is wrong.
According to a recent Gallup Poll done in the U.S. 91% of the people in the
survey responded that adultery was bad. That seems pretty obvious right but in
another survey 74% of men would have an affair if they knew they wouldn’t get
caught. Women polled were not far behind at 68%. So what does this tell us? It
means we know what we are doing is wrong but if we can get away with it we are
more likely to do it.
I
believe that a bit of freedom of seeing other people besides your partner is
fine even spending time alone with someone else is okay. You shouldn’t feel
guilty about that in any way. You should be able to control yourself and
realize that if you are seeing somebody that you should respect your
relationship and not have a fling that went somewhere serious with someone
else. It’s just a matter of control. In a weird way I think you become more
attracted by other people when you are actually already in a relationship,
funny how sly some of us are.
I
found it very amusing that some advertising even focuses on the merit of
cheating in relationships and use that in their adverts. I find it simply funny
that ads resort to say that you should cheat on your brand and try something
new. Or cheat on something else and stay true to your brand. A brand is a
product and products don’t have feelings, their not people or animals, if you
want to go with another product that is completely your decision. It’s amusing
that some ads focus more seriously as if there was a long lasting relationship
with the consumer and one particular brand. Is it fair that adverts promote
cheating in their ads? As long is it’s done in a light humorous way I don’t have
a problem with it, such as going with newer, fresher product. But if it’s more
direct and say to cheat on your girlfriend or cheat on you girlfriend rather
than the product or other action then no that’s not giving a right message.
There
is also the issue of subliminal advertising if people will constantly be
bombarded with messages such as leaving an older product for a younger one that
could be loosely translated as leaving your older girlfriend for a younger one.
There is an ethical issue here that some folks may have a problem with.
Personally I am not found of this type of advertising.
I
don’t believe that cheating is simply human behavior and we have to fight
against it. I just feel that if you’re with the right person you won’t have the
urge to cheat on them. When I see brands that focus on cheating with the brand
you have so far it’s just a simply way to promote another product, but if the
benefits of moving to another product are there then it’s just a change. It’s not
cheating because you wouldn’t want to go back to your original product. That
being said advertisements promoting trying a new product are not promoting
trying it once then going back, they are asking you to make a switch, so
cheating is not the right way to look at it.
Saturday, 19 October 2013
Subliminal Advertising
Back in 1957 James Vicary conducted an experiment on movie goers as they watched the movie Picnic on the silver screen. During the movie he had 3 second advertisements that flashed throughout the presentation and the message instructed people to “eat popcorn” and “drink Coca-Cola”. The messages were text based subliminal messages and were displayed much faster than the human eye can see – they flashed on the screen for 3/1000s of 1 second – and they were displayed once every 5 seconds. According to Vicary, the movie watchers did increase their consumption of popcorn and coke. Popcorn sales sales during the movie went up by 57% and Coke sales went up by 18.1%. At the times the findings caused somewhat of a hysteria, further research started to be done into the influence of subliminal messages, and they were soon banned from being used within advertisements. However, a few years later, Vicary claimed his study was a gimmick and that the amount of data was “too small to be meaningful”. This was also realized to be a lie and that in truth, the experiment never actually took place, the whole thing was bogus, a gimmick, and simple scientific fraud.
So does this mean
that subliminal messages don’t work?
There is Dutch research from 2006 that suggests it does work
with some extra elements needed. Other research showed that subliminal
messaging could work if the person involved is tired and there is a relation
with habits.
I personally believe all of this is rubbish. In the example
of the Picnic film where James Vicary made up his experiment, if you could only
see a message on screen for 3/1000s of a second, it would not be enough time to
even remotely register into your brain, conscious, or subconscious mind, no
matter how often they repeated that split second. To me it just doesn’t make
sense, most ads need at least a few second to express their message and then
need some more time for the user to take that message in. So I don’t believe
quick subliminal messages are effective or work.
There is another subform of subliminal advertising called: priming. This method of communicating I believe works. This is where subtle cues in the environment (pictures, text, sounds, etc.) can be used to influence us subconsciously (or without awareness) how we feel, think, and act towards a particular brand. An example of priming is when a person reads a list of words including the word table, and is later asked to complete a word starting with tab. The probability of them answering table is greater than if not so primed. Another example would be if someone was shown a sketch develop until they recognize the picture and then later shown that same sketch at an earlier stage. That would be an example of being primed. They would be able to identify the sketch at an earlier stage a lot sooner having seen the sketch in it’s entirety before versus someone who is seeing the beginning sketch for the first time.
I believe that Priming works and can be very effective. The effects of priming can be very long lasting. Unconscious priming can be even more effective. An example of this in advertising would be having commercials placed in happy programs. Some argue the good mood of the program would make the commercial more persuasive and receive more positive evaluations by its consumers. Another example would be the perception of advertised brands and products in prestigious magazines. The prestige of the magazine could “rub off” on the brands and products.
There is another subform of subliminal advertising called: priming. This method of communicating I believe works. This is where subtle cues in the environment (pictures, text, sounds, etc.) can be used to influence us subconsciously (or without awareness) how we feel, think, and act towards a particular brand. An example of priming is when a person reads a list of words including the word table, and is later asked to complete a word starting with tab. The probability of them answering table is greater than if not so primed. Another example would be if someone was shown a sketch develop until they recognize the picture and then later shown that same sketch at an earlier stage. That would be an example of being primed. They would be able to identify the sketch at an earlier stage a lot sooner having seen the sketch in it’s entirety before versus someone who is seeing the beginning sketch for the first time.
I believe that Priming works and can be very effective. The effects of priming can be very long lasting. Unconscious priming can be even more effective. An example of this in advertising would be having commercials placed in happy programs. Some argue the good mood of the program would make the commercial more persuasive and receive more positive evaluations by its consumers. Another example would be the perception of advertised brands and products in prestigious magazines. The prestige of the magazine could “rub off” on the brands and products.
What I personally believe in the case of the perception of
commercials placed in happy programs is that the effect of the priming is
minimal. I think that as soon as the commercials go on, the whole mood of the
program is actually destroyed because the commercials engage on a different
viewer’s mood altogether. By the time you see the forth commercial your mood from
the program is greatly diminished.
Those are my two cents on subliminal messages and
priming.
Sunday, 6 October 2013
Humor in Advertising
Humor.
We love it. We use it. Humor is universal. There are roughly between
6000 and
7000 dialects spoken in the world but you don’t need to be a linguist to
recognize
when someone is laughing.
Humor
gets our attention – although in some ways better than others. There are many
of us that have different tastes in humor so you must be careful when you use
it to hit the right audience with it. Advertising uses humor to get our
attention and I believe humor in advertising is one effective means of doing
so. According to a study 69% percent of the ads having the highest impact, are
ads using humor. Yet another study showed that humor in advertising, while
impactful, does not translate into motivating the consumer into buying. This
makes sense to me. What I believe is the strongest motivator to get people into
buying what the ad promotes is the benefit to the consumer. Not just money
savors as many ads promote but other benefits like good security, health,
communication, and transportation. Also some other good promoting attributes
such as: increased esteem, confidence, excitement, comfort, and care.
It’s
perfectly fine that the advertising industry uses humor in its ads. “Depending on the medium,
anywhere from 10% to 30% of all advertisements use humor.” (Weinberger, Spotts,
Campbell, & Parsons, 1995) This implies that many advertisers believe that
humor improves advertisement effectiveness. Humor makes ads at least fun and more interesting to read,
if not in depth, then at least quickly.
A very effective ad that used humor was
the Telus ad for their Share Plus Plans that included some benefits. It was
recently a full page ad in the Ottawa Sun that showed a giant Hippo sitting on
a telephone pole with three colourful birds sitting on the pole to its right.
The headline explained: Heavyweight plan, Featherweight commitment. Then it
listed three benefits to the Telus Share Plus Plans. It was quite bold but very
effective in my opinion. Much better than a typical car ad that is jammed
packed with content that makes your head spin and you are at the point where
you don’t know where to start reading.
The
Telus ad was good, however humor in advertising is generally tough to produce
effectively and well. In fact a poorly executed ad campaign can insult people,
and even do damage to its brand. An example of this was the advertising
campaign for the Mic Mac Mall. Many people got offended by it’s messages that
were meant to be interpreted lightly and humorously.
Is it
worth taking those risks to make a humorous ad? Well in general its common
knowledge to know the difference between what is offensive and what is humorous.
There are many comedians who push the envelope though. However in advertising I
would say if you stay away from touchy subjects then it’s worth the risk to put
out a humorous ad.
With an
ad that is meant to be funny not everyone will be on board, because you simply
can’t please everyone and make everyone laugh. In general a younger audience
will be laughing more often and an older audience will laugh less. However if
you get a large portion of the target audience to be on board and laugh with
you then you’ll hit a winner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)