The Relative Merits of Weak and Strong Advertising Theories - Case Study Example

The Relative Merits of Weak and Strong Advertising Theories As the use of advertising has become more and more integral to the success of businesses, approaches to advertising have become increasingly sophisticated. Despite decades of research, though, the debate continues to rage regarding the relative merits of strong or weak advertising. According to the strong theory of advertising, advertising works through a process of conversion whereas the weak theory suggests that it works through a process of reinforcement. A basic understanding of these theories can be deepened through application of associated advertising models such as the ELM model or the ATR model respectively. The ELM model is a model of persuasion demonstrates how consumer’s attitudes are formed and changed through the messages contained in advertisements. The ATR model takes a broader view of the purchase process including early psychological effects on the buyer’s decision-making process. Practical application of these ideas to current advertisements finally brings these ideas into sharp focus illustrating how weak theory is more appropriate to today’s advertising environment in terms of attitudes, goals and buyer behavior. According to the strong theory of advertising, sales are affected through the process of conversion, changing the consumer’s mind regarding whether they need the product or want the brand, for example. “The strong theory assumes that ads directly engage with individuals to change their attitudes or behaviors” (Hackley, 2005). This is frequently referred to as the hard sell in which the advertisements forcefully encourage the consumer to make specific purchases. In other words, the consumer is presented with information that compels them to feel a need for the product and entices them to believe that brand is the only one that can satisfy this need. The following advertisement is an example of strong advertising: “Joe Chemo Anti-Smoking Ad” () The advertisement utilizes a popular fictional character in a shocking and unusual role to attempt to force the consumer to see things in a new way. The only option available in this advertisement is to quit smoking. Although it isn’t advertising a specific brand per se, the delivery of the message operates on the same principle. One of the persuasion models falling under this theory is the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM). This model attempts to illustrate the two-system process that consumers go through when exposed to advertisements. “The ELM stipulates that there are two distinct ways people process communications. These are called routes, suggesting that two different highways criss-cross the mind, transporting thoughts and reactions to messages” (Perloff 128). These two routes are labeled the central route and the peripheral route. “The model says people are neither suckers nor deep thinkers. Complex creatures that we are, we are both peripheral and central, heuristic and systematic, processors … The nifty thing about the ELM is that it answers these questions, laying out conditions under which central or peripheral processing is most likely, and the effects of such processing on attitude change” (Perloff 129). As the following chart illustrates, the central route involves direct communication with the consumer’s cognitive processes while the peripheral route engages the consumer’s other senses for another attempt at persuasion through the central route. Elaboration Likelihood Model () The central route begins with the persuasive communication, or the ad such as the Joe Chemo ad illustrated above, which must motivate the consumer to engage with the message. This motivation to process is the second step in the central route. For the child born after Joe Camel was removed from cigarette advertisements, there will be low involvement with the ad. For the smoker, regardless of age, who is familiar with the character and the warning labels contained on every package of cigarettes they buy, however, this image promotes high involvement in which the consumer is motivated to think about the message. With motivation to process, as in the case of the smoking consumer who instantly recognizes the Joe Camel character, the next factor is whether or not the consumer has the ability to process. If the consumer is a single mother with three kids in the back seat and the message appears on a billboard along the side of a road she rarely travels, chances are high that this consumer will not have sufficient ability to process the message despite her motivation. However, this same mother, sitting in a doctor’s office and thumbing through magazines while awaiting an appointment during school hours may have ample ability to process. At this point, she is able to process the message being sent through this advertisement, that smoking leads to cancer and serious illness that deprives the smoker of life and freedom at a younger age than necessary. Existing and commonly known scientific evidence make it difficult to refute the claims being made within the advertisement even if she doesn’t appreciate the message. The peripheral route comes into play at those points where the consumer is unable to fully process the message through one of the central steps – the nonsmoker unfamiliar with the character, the busy mom passing the billboard and even those who were not persuaded upon first-time viewing of the advertisement. The peripheral route operates by engaging with the consumer through an alternate means. The six types of peripheral cues identified by Robert Cialdini are reciprocation (where the consumer ‘owes’ agreement through previous experience), consistency (where the consumer reinforces beliefs of the past), social proof (which works in much the same way as peer pressure without the close connections), liking (meaning the message is simply likeable and so sticks in the mind of the consumer), authority (in which the message giver is perceived to have some kind of authority or greater knowledge over the viewer) and scarcity (the idea that the consumer must take advantage of the offer now before it is discontinued) (Cialdini & Rhoades, 2001). In the above advertisement, Joe Camel is used as a celebrity spokesperson as an authority peripheral cue and demands reciprocation from those individuals who have enjoyed Camels the same way he has. The message is consistent with known scientific evidence and through the social proof of thousands of stories ending up where Joe is sitting here. The prevalence of the color blue improves the ads’ likeability as an appealing color to most Western consumers and the warning message at the bottom adds an element of scarcity to the message, urging people to stop smoking while they can still make a difference. While this approach has been demonstrated to generally have positive effects on consumers when the message contains a strong argument or true information, it can be disastrous when the argument is weak or the message is false. This is called the boomerang effect and results in the consumer forming negative thoughts and images about the message, the messenger and sometimes even the entire organization behind the message. Opposed to the strong theory, the weak theory suggests that the link between consumers and advertising is not as immediate and direct as the strong theories propose but is instead a relationship with the consumer that is built up upon a history of shared messages. In many ways, the weak theory of advertising can be likened to the process of publicity or branding, in which the company strives to create a long-term aggregate impression upon the consumer. “Under weak theory, the role of advertising is not only to create long-term memory in consumers’ minds, but also to recall the memory in consumers’ minds” (Andrew et al, 2002). An example of this type of advertising can be found in recent Ford ads such as the one to follow: Ford ad () As can be seen in the above ad, the message being distributed is intended to both cause consumers to consider the brand and the product as well as cause the consumer to remember positive things they have known about the brand or the product from the past, such as its friendliness or its ‘good neighbor’ properties. A persuasion model that fits this theory is the Awareness-Trial-Reinforcement (ATR) model. According to the ATR model, advertising helps consumers learn about new products and develop an interest in them before they can build up a desire to try it. This model, as the name suggests, proposes that consumers proceed through three steps as a part of the purchase decision. ATR Framework () As the model suggests, the role of advertising is to increase the consumer’s awareness of the product or brand. If the advertisement is successful, it provides the consumer with sufficient information to encourage further investigation. “If the customer perceives that the brand’s attributes and benefits match her requirements and deliver a competitively superior value, then the customer may be motivated to try the product” (ATR Framework, 2008). This leads into a trial period, which may or may not materialize depending upon the type of product and the perceptions or expectations of the consumer. In some cases, such as in the purchase of something as high value as a vehicle, the trial may also include informal surveys of the brand from former or current owners. If the trial leads to purchase, the customer will then evaluate the wisdom of their purchase decision, leading into the third phase of the ATR process. “When a customer purchases the product, she is able to validate the product’s performance in use and determine whether her perceptions were correct and the product delivers the expected value. If so, the customer may be inclined to buy the product again (i.e. repurchase). If the product misses the customer’s expectations, she is unlikely to repurchase it unless the product is still needed and competitive brands are even further off the mark” (ATR Framework, 2008). Once the customer has been enticed into purchasing based on the brand, it becomes more likely that they will purchase again based on the brand, increasing the company’s overall market share and developing a historical relationship with the consumer base that generates long-term sales. All of these elements can be found in the above Ford ad as it first attempts to provide the customer with information about the brand, making them aware of the fuel efficient vehicles the company is producing and the friendliness of their staffs. It also promises to meet the second stage of the framework by offering trial ownerships, giving customers a chance to evaluate the vehicle at no personal risk. The advertisement also works to build on previous relationships they might have had with the customer by reminding them of the ‘neighborly’ aspect of the company and its ‘American’ qualities that have previously made it the preferred brand. Other customers that have purchased vehicles as a result of this process have testimonials included on the page, reinforcing the belief that purchasers will complete the process satisfactorily, by determining that they will wish to repurchase in the future. Although there are many more examples of the strong advertising theory in today’s marketing campaigns than any based on the weak theory, weak advertising may be more effective in the long-term because of its ability to build upon previous relationships. While strong theories are perceived to directly change buyer’s behavior in a single message, weak theory has proven to be more effective in slowly building consumer loyalty leading to greater long-term sales. While strong theories depend to a great deal on punchy ads that immediately sell the product to the consumer, these advertisements are often not sufficient to develop a meaningful relationship with the consumer and are thus not easily differentiated from other products on the market. Advertisements taking the weak approach, however, are able to develop these types of relationships with the customer, conveying a deep understanding of the brand and the product through an aggregate messaging campaign occurring over time. Although strong advertising may produce impressive instant sales increases, weak advertising campaigns build upon a more stable foundation, enabling for predictable and steady growth (Hackley, 2005). By remaining focused on the end goal of enticing consumers to repurchase, advertisers following the weak theory prove themselves more consistent and trustworthy than their strong theory counterparts. Works Cited “ATR Framework.” Georgetown University, (September 5, 2008). January 7, 2009 Cialdini, Robert B. & Kelton V.L. Rhoads. “Perspectives on Buyer Psychology.” Marketing Research. Fall 2001. Ehrenberg, Andrew; Neil Barnard; Rachel Kennedy; Helen Bloom. “Brand Advertising as Create Publicity.” Journal of Advertising Research. Vol. 42, N. 4: 2002. 7-18. “Elaboration Likelihood Model.” Available through Moore, Charlie. “Elaboration Likelihood Model.” CI Advertising: Fall 2001. January 7, 2009 Ford. “Cars – Ford – Advertisement, Drive One.” Flickr. (2008). January 7, 2009 Hackley, Chris. “Advertising and Promotion: Communication Brands.” London: Sage Publications, 2005. 33-37. “Joe Chemo.” Available through Archer, Danny. “Ways to Quit Smoking Tips, Advertisements, Help and Aids.” Gecko and Fly. January 7, 2009 Perloff, Richard M. The Dynamics of Persuasion: Communication and Attitudes in the 21st Century. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2003. Read More