This advert for Cadbury Bournville is ineffective in
persuading viewers to buy the product because it develops a negative attitude
towards the brand. While trying to portray itself as a premium chocolate made
from the finest cocoa beans, the ad fails to demonstrate the main point, by
coming across as heartless, as it shows poor farmers dependent on the verdict
of a higher authority for their livelihood. Also, while showing how beans are
chosen carefully, they show the social rejection of a small bean that cries on
being rejected. This causes empathy and pity on the viewer’s side, and fails to
create a positive emotion towards the product.
A study by Masten, Eisenberger, Pfeifer and Dapretto (2010)
involved participants observing an individual being socially excluded, and then
were asked to write emails to the individual later. The emails were then rated
for prosocial behaviour (e.g. helping, comforting). Observing exclusion activated regions involved in
mentalizing (i.e., dorsomedial prefrontal cortex), particularly among highly
empathic individuals. Additionally, individuals who displayed more activity in
affective, pain-related regions during observed exclusion subsequently wrote
more prosocial emails to excluded victims. Overall findings suggest that when people
witness social exclusion in their daily lives, some may actually ‘feel
the pain’ of the victims and act more prosocially toward them as a result.
Thus, viewing this advert may lead to a positive attitude for the socially
rejected ‘bean’, and a negative attitude towards the ‘oppressor’- which in this
case is the chocolate brand.
Thus,
while the message about using the finest cocoa is positive, the brand should
use a different approach to convey it, such as repeating this fact constantly
during the advert, and not by portraying a small bean crying because it is not
good enough to be a Bournville.
C.L.
Masten., N.I. Eisenberger., J.H. Pfeifer., & M. Dapretto. (2010).
Witnessing peer rejection during early adolescence: Neural correlates of
empathy for experiences of social exclusion. Social Neuroscience, 5, 496-507.
Quite good.
ReplyDelete