How far would you go for love?

How far would you go for love?

This advertisement belongs to the pricey, but ever-so-classic French jewelry brand, Cartier. Depicted in the advert is Cartier’s famous bracelet, the “love band” and a date promoting what Cartier (so cleverly) has christened “Loveday.” Emblazoned across the top of the advert is the challenge, “How far would you go for love?”

The first persuasive technique used in this advert is the technique of similarity. By using “How far would you go for love?” as the headline, the advert is drawing consumers in on the basis of a shared experience of love. Everyone at some point in his or her life has experienced love. An experiment conducted by Aune and Basil (1994) showed that donations made to a charity more than doubled when the person making the request appeared to be similar to the donor. Cartier here is assuming that everyone at some point in his or her life has experienced love. Cartier takes it further by inviting consumers to join them at an event that not only celebrates that love, but challenges the strength of that love.

Association is another persuasive technique utilized in the Cartier advert. If something we find appealing is associated with a specific product, we are more likely to purchase it. The Cartier advert hits the mark on this one by associating the company with the three things most sought after by women: gold, diamonds and love. The gold band and word “love” stand out from the red background, causing consumers to focus on these concepts. By grouping them together, Cartier is implying commitment, satisfying our fanciful notions about love and togetherness. In a study by Smith and Engel (1968), men who viewed a car with a good-looking model beside it were more likely to consider the car as being more appealing, expensive and better designed than other cars. The same concept can be applied to the Cartier “Love band.” Through association, it is assumed that love comes along with the piece of jewelry.

Lastly, the concept of scarcity in this advertisement helps to ‘persuade’ consumers to buy Cartier. More particularly, any item that is seen as being rare or unique is considered to be more valuable because it is less available. In this case, the items in short demand are diamonds and gold. Their rareness is based on cost and limited availability, which gives the “love band” more appeal than jewelry made lesser materials, such as silver. Adding to the exclusivity of the product is the personal invite to Love Day, an interactive experience for those willing to go far enough. This concept of scarcity/exclusivity is explained by Lynn (1989) as social influence in which we manage to take a shortcut. Specifically, Lynn states that we use an item’s availability as an indicator of its quality by assuming that things that are more difficult to get – either because of cost or rarity – must be better.

How far would you go for love? The gauntlet has been thrown. If you don’t go as far as buying a love band, you simply haven’t gone far enough. B

Chloe Jadon

ra

Aunel, R.K., & Basil, M. D. (1994). A Relational Obligations Approach to the Foot-In-The-Mouth Effect. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(6), 546–556.

Lynn, M. (1989). Scarcity Effects on Desirability: Mediated by Assumed Expensiveness?. Journal of Economic Psychology, 10(1), 257-274.

Smith, G.H., & Engel R. (1968). Influence of a Female Model on Perceived Characteristics of an Automobile. Proceedings of the 76th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 681-682.

ce

Babies and their Vulnerability to Locusts!

This advert for ‘Just Liquid’ hand wash employs the persuasive techniques of contrast, guilt and shock. It has the tagline “if you aren’t totally clean, you are filthy” and demonstrates this by showing a small baby (inducing associations of vulnerability and purity), with approaching locust-covered hands (associated with filth and disease). The contrast between the baby and the locusts catches the attention of the viewer, and we see the locusts in an even more negative light due to their proximity to an innocent baby who needs protection from such things. Everything is whitewashed in the background, making the bugs stand out. The bugs epitomise disease, babies are most helpless in the face of disease, they rely entirely on their caregivers to protect them from it. This provokes responsibility in the adults reading the advert- it’s their job to protect this vulnerable infant, the use of you in the tagline (‘you are filthy’) pinpoints the reader as the one who needs to take action, they are given the role of ‘Responsibility Agent’ due to the dependency of the baby on the adult, Berkowitz and Daniels (1963) showed that when an individual is placed in a position of responsibility toward a dependent they will take more measures to protect that person.

The message the advert is promoting is that you are spreading germs to people you care about (who are dependent on you) unless you’ve properly sanitized; ‘if I buy this product, I will be totally clean and baby will not be at risk’. We value hygiene and cleanliness, and we have a social responsibility towards those who are dependent on us. If we don’t meet this social responsibility, we feel guilt. This is another key persuasive method employed by this advert, it depicts not only you being ‘filthy’ but infecting someone else who is under your care. Individuals experiencing guilt are more likely to then comply with a request (Carlsmith and Gross, 1969) as they try to resolve these feelings by doing the right thing (Pratkanis, 2007) i.e. buying the product. Hayes, Thornton and Jones (2004) found that people were more likely to agree to support a charity’s cause when they were given a leaflet filled with guilt provoking images, as opposed to a leaflet filled with positive images.

The advert uses the ‘inverted consequence template’ (Goldenberg, Mazurksy and Solomon, 1999) by warning the viewer of the implications of not using the product (not using the soap means you are contaminated, and also contaminating others!) and also the ‘extreme attribute’ template (where the situation is exaggerated to unrealistic proportions) by emphasising the bacteria using the locusts, which are affiliated with diseases and plagues. This causes a shock response, in a study by Dahl et al. (2003) participants were shown three adverts, one informative, one fear-invoking and one shocking advert and asked which drew their attention the most, 84% of respondents chose the shocking advertisement ,which shows the effectiveness of this persuasion device.

Overall, ‘Just Liquid’ have created a persuasive argument for the use of their hand-wash through the use of guilt inducement and shock tactics; we must protect babies from those pesky locusts!

References

• Berkowitz, L., & Daniels, L. R. (1963). Responsibility and Dependency. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 429-436.
• 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, 268-280.
• Carlsmith, A. M. & Gross A. E. (1969). Some effects of Guilt on Compliance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 11, 232-239.
• Pratkanis, A. R. (2007). Social influence analysis: An index of tactics. The science of social influence: Advances and future progress, 17-82.
• Haynes, M., Thornton, J., & Jones, S. C. (2004). An exploratory study on the effect of positive (warmth appeal) and negative (guilt appeal) print imagery on donation behaviour in animal welfare. Wiley and Sons: New Zealand.
• Goldenberg, J., Mazursky, D., & Solomon, S. (1999). The fundamental templates of quality ads. Marketing Science, 18, 333-351.

 Jasmine Smith- Blog 2.

 

All Hail the King

Its not exactly timeless but its still a debate; Burger King vs. McDonalds. While I personally favor the King (gotta love that double bacon XL) there’s fierce competition between these two giants of the fast-food industry. Unfortunately Burger King (BK) always falls short of McDonalds powerhouse sales, in 2013 the difference was a whopping $26.93 billion! In an attempt to get an edge, BK launched a series of competition adverts such as the one above.

Off the bat you can clearly see the use of Goldenberg et al. (1999) competition template, in particular ‘worth in competition’. This works on the assumptions that a) there will be an expected superiority over the competing product and b) the advert will challenge the worth/quality of the competing product. Going by the sales history this seems to be bit of a risky move; nevertheless it drives the point home, why wouldn’t you want to eat like a king?

The worth of McDonald’s burgers is challenged by essentially reducing their entire range of products to ‘clown food’. Therefore the contrast principle (Cialdini, 1984) also comes into play, by comparing the lifestyle of a King to a clown, BK’s products come across as more appealing.

To top it off, BK leaves you with a giant picture of a whopper to get your taste buds watering. This isn’t just a chance to show off their cosmetically altered super-burger (we all know what it looks like in real life), it’s another attempt to try and persuade you. First off, this type of ad heavily relies on the repetition effect (Pratkanis, 2007). Being plastered over numerous bus stops across the country increases the liking of a product via the mere exposure effect; the more you see it, the more you like it. Secondly, the picture holds key characteristics, which are crucial for increasing appeal to potential customers. Using semi-structured interviews for a range of food advertisements, Norrena (2012) found the most successful ads used a large close-up of the product, which was clear and unhindered by lots of descriptive text and made a clear link back to its brand to ensure quality. Take a look at the ad above and tell me how it compares to these findings.

In the end it seems that BK's fighting a losing the battle against McDonalds, whether it’s down to advertising, the number of stores or just product inferiority. Regardless, the ads certainly work on me; I’ll stay true to the one and only King.

Greg Vail - Blog 2

References:

Cialdini, R. B. (1984). Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. Harper Collins Publishers Ltd, London.

Goldenberg, J., Mazursky, D., Solomon, S. (1999). The fundamental templates of quality ads. Marketing Science, 18, 333-351.

Norrena, V. (2012). What influences the reader in food advertising 2012. Finnish periodical publishers association, 3, 1-5.

Pratkanis, A. (2007). The science of social influence: Advances and future progress. Psychology Press, New York, NY.

You're Not The Only One Who Pays

The primary persuasion technique here is to use guilt. The feeling of responsibility for a transgression (leaving the light on) induces the desire to make restitution in order to mend the self-image that we are not unfeeling human beings. It has been well researched that this emotional “tactic” of guilt sells is particularly effective and even induces positive attitudes, especially if the advertisement are not overtly manipulative (Cotte, Coulter, & Moore, 2005). In this case, WWF has made sure not to use too explicit images which can lead to scepticism and over arousal which has a counterintuitive effect.

Simultaneously, the successful execution of this guilt tactic is the vivid image that sits in the backdrop of this advertisement. The subtlety of polar bears and ice bergs steals the limelight from the centrepiece of the lamp. This is a form of vivid appeal which is emotionally interesting; concrete and image provoking; and immediate (Nisbett & Ross, 1980). Along with the caption of “you’re not the only one who pays”, this advertisement induces, provides and encourages the audience to generate their arguments and subsequent course of action (Pratkanis, 2007). What is important here is that the situation has to be subtle and omnipresent such that audience ends up believing and internalising the generated attitude (Miller & Woznlak, 2001). This is known as self-generated persuasion which is one of the most effective means of influence (Pratkanis, 2007). The audience cannot help but be overwhelmed with guilt, and the urge to engage in restorative processes, whereby the most immediate and practical solution which is very doable would be to: switch off the light.

As such, this advertisement can also be considered to us the creativity template of extreme consequences (Goldenberg, Mazursky, & Solomon, 1999). The simple act of not switching the lights off (a situation set) is seen to directly lead to a paramount consequence of global warming and the earth (animals and nature) suffering. When put into perspectives, the amount of electricity or natural resources used to fuel that light (the actual consequence set) is probably infinitesimal to cause such damage. However, the familiarity of the consequence makes it not unreasonable. Coupled with guilt, and the self-generated persuasion process of vivid images to complement, this extreme consequences template usage is effective and persuasive.

Cotte, J., Coulter, R. A., & Moore, M. (2005). Enhancing or disrupting guilt: The role of ad credibility and perceived manipulative intent. Journal of Business Research, 58(3), 361-368. 

Goldenberg, J., Mazursky, D., & Solomon, S. (1999). The fundamental templates of quality ads. Marketing Science, 18 (3), 333 – 351.

Miller, R. L., & Woznlak, W. (2001). Counter-attitudinal advocacy: Effort vs. self-generation of arguments. Current Research in Social Psychology, 6 (4), 46 – 57.

Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human Inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Pratkanis, A. R. (2007). The science of social influence: Advances and future progress. New York: Psychology Press.

Li Ying Fong

Viagra, the Quicker Pecker Upper

The above is a printed advert for Viagra, a drug which helps to alleviate erectile dysfunction. The adverts depict an older man and an overweight man on a card cutout, which are believed to be two groups of men which tend to suffer from erectile dysfunction (Moreira et al., 2003).

The advert uses both an interactive and pictorial analogy template (Goldenberg, Mazursky & Solomon, 1999) to demonstrate that Viagra helps men achieve an erection. The interaction element is used by having the recipient put their thumb through the provided hole in the printed advert. The pictorial analogy takes form in the replacement version, where the thumb is put through the hole where, if there were not an erect penis may take its place. So your thumb is replacing a man’s penis, which may not be too appropriate.

The advert also uses humour and similarity to increase likability to the product. It has been shown that humorous people are more likeable than those who aren’t (Morkes, Kernal & Nass, 1999). This is because we experience a pleasurable with the humorous individual as they made us laugh, and so we want to be able to be around them more, and as a result enjoy their company (Graham, Papa & Brooks, 1992). Viagra in general often uses humorous adverts, and by doing so we associate them with positive feelings. This can make a potentially embarrassing situation (asking about Viagra) feel less negative.

The similarity aspect is brought in by using the two groups that are more likely to experience erectile dysfunction, older and overweight men (Moreira et al., 2003). As these are the two main groups that are affected by erectile dysfunction, by showing someone that may be similar to the customers, the customers will feel more favourable, and like the product better (Burger et al., 2004).

Overall, this advert shows a great use of humour and interaction to portray the general message of what the drug is used for. Viagra gets two thumbs up from me.

References:

Burger, J. M., Messian, N., Patel, S., del Prado, A., & Anderson, C. (2004). What a coincidence! The effects of incidental similarity on compliance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 30, 35-43.

Goldenberg, J., Mazursky, D., & Solomon, S. (1999). The fundamental templates of quality ads. Marketing Science, 18, 333-351.

Graham, E. E., Papa, M. J., & Brooks, G. P., (1992). Functions of humor in conversation: Conceptualization and measurement. Western Journal of Communication, 56, 161-183.

Moreira, D. D., Lobo, C. F. L., Diament, A., Nicolosi, A., & Glasser, D. B., (2003). Incidence of erectile dysfunction in men 40 to 69 years old: results from a population-based cohort study in Brazil. Adult Urology, 61, 431-436.

Morkes, J., Kernal, H. K., & Nass, C. (1999). Effects of humor in task-oriented human-computer interaction and computer-mediated communication: A direct test SRCT theory. Human-Computer Interaction, 14, 395-435.

Ariadna Rodriguez Barclay

SUPER glue

This is a photo of a 28-meter long Alteco Super Glue model that was built and stuck on a cable bridge in China. This was done to show that this particular glue performs beyond the limits of any other super glue; it exaggerates that it is so powerful it can hold a bridge together. This clever outdoor advertisement is an example of the ‘extreme situation template’. The situation portrayed by the use of the glue is of an unrealistic nature, thus the key attribute of the product is enhanced (Goldenberg, Mazursky & Solomon, 1999).

This campaign was a huge success, and once the product was launched it exceeded the expected sales target by 120%. The brand awareness and recall of ‘Alteco Super Glue’ also rose to 96%. An additional reason why this advert worked so well may have been because it was outside. Donthu, Cherian and Bhargava (1993) conducted a study testing the influence and effectiveness of outdoor advertising and found that for outdoor advertisements in particular viewers had a positive attitude and were more likely to have a higher recall rate of the advert.This advertisement also uses the tactic of ‘setting expectations’ (Pratkanis, 2007). When the individual uses the glue they may be subjected to a self-fulfilling prophecy (Darley & Fazio, 1980) by remembering the glue on the bridge they will come to believe in its superiority and a placebo effect may occur (Sharipo & Sharipo, 1997).

Another tactic that may be in use here is mere exposure. Say a person drives on this bridge everyday on their way to work; a giant bottle of super glue is not something they are likely to ignore. Therefore when they next come to need superglue they will probably buy that particular brand because people like what they are familiar with. This was demonstrated by Hekkert et al (2013) who conducted a study in which participants were presented with either common or uncommon shapes. They found that the familiar shapes (e.g. rectangles) were rated as more attractive than the shapes that are not seen as often. The accumulation of these techniques resulted in a large profit for the company, as well as a huge eyesore for the public. But it goes without saying; this advert sticks.

References

Donthu, N., Cherian, J., & Bhargava, M. (1993). Factors influencing recall of outdoor advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 33(3), 64-72.

Goldenberg, J., Mazursky, D., Solomon, S. (1999). The fundamental templates of quality ads. Marketing Science, 18, 333-351.

Hekkert, P., Thurgood, C., & Whitfield, A. (2013). The mere exposure effect for consumer products as a consequence of existing familiarity and controlled exposure. Acta Psychologica, 144, 411– 417.

Pratkanis, A. R. (2007).The science of social influence: Advances and future progress. New York: Psychology Press.

Sharipo, A. K., & Sharipo, E. (1997). The Powerful Placebo. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.