When you see this advert (especially as it is too tiny to
see the small-print at the bottom) and the name of the brand as my title, what
do you think it’s for? A new game release? Well it’s actually for a shop that
buys, rents, trades and repairs games and gaming consoles. I don’t think this
advert works, firstly, because it confuses the audience. It’s not clear about
what it’s advertising, and this might be argued as being something that makes
you more likely to look at it simply because you want to know what it’s for. I do
not think this would happen in this case, because when you look closer you see
vomit.
Dahl, Frankenberger and Manchanda (2003) found shocking
content in an advertisement significantly increased attention and benefited
memory among a group of university students. In this way, it could be argued
that Microplay were hoping to gain more attention through their controversial
advert. It certainly does stand out. However, offensive advertisements have
been shown to be harmful to the product shown and even the brand, and this
advert could definitely be labelled as offensive. Burke and Edell (1989) found
consumers’ feelings about an advertisement would transfer to their feelings
about the brand. Feeling negative towards both lead to low-purchase intention. People
in Hong Kong were even likely to boycott a company using offensive advertising
(Prendergast et al., 2002).
Shocking adverts can take many forms, for example using
sexual tones, explicit language, utilising the feeling of disgust etc. In the
Microplay advert they are playing on the feeling of disgust. Attitudes between
advertisements, brands and brand recall were explored for disgust and
non-disgusting tour operator (Dens, Pelsmacker, & Janssens, 2008) . The two adverts used for this study will be
linked to below. The idea of the advert used was that you would be ‘reborn’
after returning from a holiday you went on with this tour operator. For the
non-disgusting condition a man is shown curled up on a beach, and for the
disgusting condition you see a man in a foetal like position with bodily fluids
and an umbilical cord in the picture. For this study both adverts were paired
with either a new or existing brand to see if that made a difference and meant
there were 4 conditions, with each participant randomly assigned to one of
these. They were asked to look at the advert they were given and to answer some
questions, including ones that measured their attitude towards the advert and
the brand and brand recall questions. As might be expected, the disgusting
advertisement had a more negative attitude towards it by participants, and also
didn’t lead to better brand recall. The results also showed that the
advertisement was the reason for the negative attitude towards the brand for people
afterwards. These attitudes and recall results were found for both new and
existing brands.
Putting this study into context with the advert for Microplay,
all they could be doing is creating a negative attitude towards their brand
through the advert. In terms of improving their advertisement, I’m not sure it
could be improved. I would argue it should never have been made in the first
place. It doesn’t seem to link at all to what they are advertising and although
it may catch attention, it does so for all the wrong reasons.
(The link to the adverts shown in the Dens et al (2008)
study http://www.tandfonline.com/na101/home/literatum/publisher/tandf/journals/content/rjmc20/2008/rjmc20.v014.i04/13527260802141231/production/images/large/rjmc_a_314289_o_f0001g.jpeg
)
Burke, M. C., & Edell, J. A. (1989). The impact of feelings
on ad-based affect and cognition. Journal
of Marketing Research, 26, 69-83.
Dahl, D. W., Frankenberger, K. D., & Manchanda, R. V.
(2003). Does it pay to shock? Reactions to shocking and nonshocking advertising
content among university students. Journal
of Advertising Research, 43(3), 268-280.
Dens, N., De Pelsmacker, P., & Janssens, W. (2008). Exploring consumer reactions to incongruent mild disgust appeals. Journal of Marketing Communications, 14(4), 249-269.
Prendergast , G., Ho, B., & Phau, I. (2002). A Hong Kong
view of offensive advertising. Journal of
Marketing Communications, 8(3), 165-177.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.