Despite the opening question (“Will you
drop eggs this Easter?”), this advert isn't actually intended to discourage
consumption of eggs entirely. Instead, it uses the door-in-the-face technique
to persuade people to reduce their consumption of eggs from caged hens, by
replacing them with eggs from free range hens.
The door-in-the-face technique works by
making a large request that most people will instantly refuse. When then asked
to complete a much easier task, people are more likely to comply with the easy
request than if they were given the easy request first. When asked to volunteer
for two hours one afternoon, people were three times more likely to comply if
they were first asked to volunteer for two hours per week for two years
(Cialdini et al., 1975). In this advert, people are first asked to consider giving
up eggs completely over the Easter period: for most people, an unreasonable
request. The person viewing the poster is then asked to consider switching to
buying only free range eggs. This is a much smaller request, and much more
easily completed, meaning people are much more likely to comply.
The that’s-not-all technique is also used.
By first asking the viewer to consider switching to free range eggs due to the
welfare issues, they begin the weigh up the costs and benefits of doing so.
Then, when adding the additional reason of better nutrition of free range eggs,
people may decide that it must be worth it, as they were already considering
the switch before the “deal” was improved. This has been shown to work when
considering buying a product, when either adding another product for free or
lowering the price (Burger, 1986).
The advertisement also uses affect to
persuade to viewer. Firstly, there is a black tint used in the top left, over
the caged hen picture and a green tint used in the bottom right, over the free
range hen picture and farm. Colour has been shown to affect people’s
perceptions of advertisements. Specifically, the colour green (or in this
advert, the concept of free range eggs) is associated with good taste, joy and
healthy food, while the colour black (in this advert, caged eggs) is associated
with grief and fear (Aslam, 2006).
Pictures are also used to influence affect:
in the top left, a picture of a sad looking caged hen, and in the bottom right
a picture of a much healthier looking free range hen. The caged hen picture is
relatively graphic, which can strongly increase negative attitudes towards a
product: graphic image warnings can reduce cigarette consumption significantly
more than text warnings (Hammond et al., 2007). Although it isn't claimed that
these pictures are representative of every caged or free ranged hen
respectively, it has been shown that people assume a direct connection between
photographs and the real world that they appear to represent (Messaris, 1997).
This means that the viewer is likely to assume that the pictures used
accurately represent all caged or free range hens, which is not necessarily the
case.
Affect is an important technique in this
advertisement, as it can significantly influence decision making, especially
when the time available to make a decision is short – known as the affect
heuristic. Under time pressure conditions, participants relied much more on
affect to make risk-benefit judgements (Finucane et al., 2000). As people are
unlikely to spend a long time looking at a dietary choice poster, this could
mean they will rely strongly on the affect heuristic in order to weigh up the
costs and benefits of switching to free range eggs.
References
Aslam, M. M. (2006). Are you selling the
right colour? A cross-cultural review of colour as a marketing cue. Journal
of Marketing Communications, 12(1), 15-30.
Burger, J. M. (1986). Increasing compliance
by improving the deal: The that's-not-all technique. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(2), 277-283.
Cialdini, R. B., Vincent, J. E., Lewis, S.
K., Catalan, J., Wheeler, D., & Darby, B. L. (1975). Reciprocal concessions
procedure for inducing compliance: The door-in-the-face technique. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(2), 206-215.
Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P.,
& Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and
benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(1), 1-17.
Hammond, D., Fong, G. T., Borland, R.,
Cummings, K. M., McNeill, A., & Driezen, P. (2007). Text and graphic
warnings on cigarette packages: Findings from the international tobacco control
four country study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32(3),
202-209.
Messaris, P. (1997). Visual
persuasion: The role of images in advertising. Sage Publications, Inc, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.