Andrex Toilet roll has been associated
with Labrador retriever puppies since 1994. Throughout the years many slogans
have been created to enforce a perception of similarity between the softness of
the puppies and the toilet roll for; "tuggable, huggable, softness". Now there is a common association between puppies and toilet roll; many use the term "Andrex puppy". By consistently having
seen this combination in the media a “mere exposure” effect occurs, where "liking" for the toilet roll/puppy association is increased. (Zajonc, 2001).
People that buy Andrex toilet roll may have
done so originally because of the cuteness of the puppies. By repeat purchase the consumer
has convinced themselves, or further confirmed a self-belief that they are a
"dog lover". This is an example of self-generated persuasion, whereby
people are more easily persuaded when they have come up with justifications to
do something themselves rather than explicitly being told the benefits of such
action (Miller and Wozniak, 2001).
Lets paws for a moment.....
Targeting those that have undergone
self-generated persuasion, this particular advert uses a
technique of message fit. The advert confirms the greatness of puppies by
showing them being playful, and humorous. But is actually conveying a more
serious message of giving to a guide dog charity. The advert does not
explicitly state the benefits guide dogs have to those that are blind, but
focuses on the well-being of the dogs, this is a message-fitting mechanism, whereby it focuses on what consumers enjoy about Andrex adverts; a more
"fun" aspect of the charity, training puppies. As the consumer has
convinced themselves that they are a dog lover for the 9 years they have been
buying Andrex toilet roll; they will feel inclined to buy the speciality pack
next time they are shopping which donates to the guide dog charity, playing on
the beliefs and knowledge of the public (Cesario, 1982). This is further enforced by
the closing message: "It’s the little things". This is a
legitimizing paltry technique that will make consumers feel bad if they do not
donate; it implies “little” effort needs to be made, to donate a “little”
amount, to the “little” puppies. (Cialdini and Schroeder, 1976).
Cesario, J., Grant, H., & Higgins, E. T. (2004).
Regulatory fit and persuasion: Transfer from" feeling right.". Journal
of personality and social psychology,86(3), 388
Cialdini, R. B., & Schroeder, D. A. (1976). Increasing
compliance by legitimizing paltry contributions: When even a penny helps. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(4), 599.
Miller, R. L., & Wozniak, W. (2001). Counter-attitudinal advocacy:
Effort vs. self-generation of arguments. Current Research in Social
Psychology, 6(4), 46-57.
|
|
Zajonc, R. B. (2001). Mere exposure: A gateway to the
subliminal. Current directions in psychological science, 10(6), 224-228.
Katie Mullord
Lets paws for a moment! I laughed out loud when i read that. Nice analysis, but i feel it could have written more clearly in places and i wanted to the see the word 'commitment/consistency' to describe the compliance tactic of changing self image the advert used.
ReplyDelete