Strong versus Weak Advertising Theory - Essay Example

Strong Advertising Theory versus Weak Advertising Theory: A Review of UK Advertisements A Discussion and Analysis Paper of Professor Date of Submission Introduction Over the recent decades, significant development has been made in enhancing people’s theoretical knowledge of advertising’s psychological effects. In the second half of the twentieth century, studies focused on classifying intermediaries of advertising exposure on the creation and change of attitude (Sutherland & Sylvester 2000). Literature on marketing communications has suggested that the number of pro- and anti-arguments created during advertising exposure, attitude toward the advertisement, and awareness about the advertised product or service mediate attitude creation or change (Bradley 2003). A case in point is Andrew Ehrenberg who advanced a controversial treatise in 1974 about how advertising works. He challenged the assumption that advertising has the capacity to change attitudes unaided, and suggested that it normally worked by strengthening beliefs shaped from what are usually high level of consumer experience and awareness (Heath 2006). The argument of Ehrenberg was concentrated on the prevalent theory that advertising was a strong kind of persuasion, and his assumption became widely accepted among advertising agencies (Agres, Edell & Dubitsky 1990). However, it is important to take into consideration the fact that it was a period when the sales impacts of advertising were viewed by many as lasting, difficult to determine even in observation and hard to predict (Agres et al. 1990). Ehrenberg had ascertained that there were 100% loyal customers in most markets, and majority of these buyers purchased more than one brand. He discovered that brand consumers had consistent stronger attitudes than non-consumers, but unable to adequately clarify how these attitudes occurred (Heath 2006). This encouraged him to challenge the central theory within the models of hierarchy of effects: that change in attitude comes first and forces change in behaviour (Shrum 2004). He believed that advertising can build, rekindle or reinforce brand awareness, and can be an aspect that enables trial purchase (Wells 1997). However, he also visualised a protective function for repetitive advertising as “reinforcing already developed repeat buying habits” (Weitz & Wensley 2002: 289). Afterwards, he expanded this to include split-loyal buyers, or those who habitually buy more than one brand, and identified a further function for advertising as ‘nudging’ or pushing split-loyals towards a larger buying percentage of one brand or another (Weitz & Wensley 2002). On the other hand, Jones disputed the influence of ‘reinforcement’ advertising, which he referred to as a ‘weak’ theory of advertising. Jones claim that this advertising theory opposes the established strongly persuasive framework generally accepted in the United States (Tellis & Ambler 2007). Four major dissimilarities surfaced between Ehrenberg’s ‘weak theory’ and Jones’s ‘strong theory’ (Heath 2006: 46-47): (1) Strong theory views advertising as an active force, facilitating increase in sales and category. Reinforcement recognises a crucial defensive function, particularly for repetitive advertising; (2) Strong theory views advertising working on a disinterested and somewhat ignorant buyer; reinforcement views buyers as intelligent and well-informed; (3) Strong theory views advertising operating by altering attitudes, which results in behaviour change. Reinforcement eliminates the notion that change in attitude should always come before purchase: and (4) Reinforcement views persuasion as emerging from advertising that espouses an affective rather than an informative style. The objective of this paper is to discuss both ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ advertising theories comprehensively by providing analysis of actual examples of advertisements from the UK. Afterwards, the author will make a personal argument regarding what is the best model or theory of advertising based on the analyses. Strong Advertising Theory Theorist of strong advertising, or also referred to as persuasion theory, usually have assumed that it is easier to influence the buyers’ cognitive domain which will, consequently influence his choice behaviour because of cognitive stability between an individual’s behaviour and cognition (Varey 2002). The strong advertising theory has four models: (1) AIDA: Attention, Interest, Desire, Action; (2) Hierarchy of Effects by Lavidge and Steiner (1961); (3) DAGMAR: Defining Advertising Goals for Measured Advertising Results; and (4) ELM: Elaboration Likelihood Model (Rogers 2001). All the four steps of the AIDA model, as advocates of the strong advertising theory claim, assist in motivating the action towards the buying of a product or a service (Agres et al. 1990). An excellent example of an AIDA model is Adidas. The latest Adidas advert in the UK shows people having a good time kicking thousands of footballs scattered all over the main square. The advert is catchy because of the visual effect created by the Adidas balls rolling around the grounds and floating in the rivers, as well as the enthusiasm of the people to kick these balls around. Likewise, the advert heightens the interest and desire of the people to the already highly popular football sports in the UK by not merely advertising a specific product but the entire brand. Similarly, Lavidge and Steiner’s (1961) Hierarchy of Effects maintains that decision making is driven by emotions and feelings, but the affective domain worked only as an outcome of thinking or cognition. An excellent example is the Budweiser advert showing a Native American looking for a beer in the city proper. The people in the bars he went in all looked to him as if he is a dangerous stranger. Until he arrived to his hometown where people welcomed him warmly and where he finally got a Budweiser. This kind of adverts is in fact appeal to emotion; the blatant prejudice shown against the Native American in the city is certainly intended to rouse the audiences’ understanding of racism; a perfect exploitation of the cognitive domain to stir up consumers’ sympathy. Equally, in relation to DAGMAR, an advert should carry prospective buyers through four levels: awareness, comprehension, conviction, and action. This model is usually used in new product or service in which customers are unfamiliar with (Heath 2006). For example, Boddingtons, a sun block, created awareness and understanding by depicting the practicability of using a sun protection during hot seasons, especially when in the beach. The advert exploited customers’ knowledge of health and beauty benefits of a sun block to create the feeling among the customers that they really need the product to protect them from the damaging heat of the sun. The Elaboration Likelihood Model, in a similar way, categorises buyers into those who are ‘involved’ and those who are ‘uninvolved’. Involved buyers have a tendency to interpret advertising applying a higher level of thinking, which they refer to as ‘central processing’ (Heath 2006: 47). On the other hand, uninvolved buyers make use of a lower level thinking, or ‘peripheral processing’. The major dissimilarity between the two is “the extent to which the attitude change that results is due to active thinking” (Tellis & Ambler 2007: 94). Changes of attitude stemming from central processing are long-term; hence it is a strongly persuasive direction (Clark, Brock & Stewart 1994). An example is the advert of Frontera 4x4. This is an illustration of central processing. Primarily, buying of automobile involves quite major decisions in the customers’ lives. Individuals are encouraged to gather information regarding their different alternatives. This advert gives them a chance to understand information about the Frontera 4x4. The advert includes details regarding advantages of the Frontera 4x4 and also refers customers to their website for additional information. It has a fairly peripheral processing component to it with the large image of Frontera 4x4 traversing raging waters, but largely this necessitates central processing. The cognitive persuasion adopts the well-known direction of research on the relationship between attitude and behaviour in experimental mass communication and social psychology (Mitchell 1993). The only relevant remark to make here is that there are multitudes of circumstantial factors which mediate between non-cognitive or cognitive persuasion and decision behaviour in order that the influence of advertising communication is more non-deterministic than deterministic (Soares 1991). However, recently, Damasio (2000) has demonstrated that cognition is innate through the affective domain, and that emotions are thus able to drive decisions regardless of adverse thinking. This has been confirmed by Shiv and Fedhorikhin (1999): by limiting the time for decision making they discovered that research participants prefer chocolate cake instead of fruit salad, disregarding the rational direction of their cognition, and yielding to their emotions, precisely how preoccupied parents behave when buying groceries with their children. This indicates that actual decisions are extremely susceptible to advertising that works affectively. Weak Advertising Theory Ehrenberg views persuasion differently from that of the strong theory. The common definition of the Oxford Compact English Dictionary (OCED) of the term ‘persuade’ is “to cause someone to believe, convince” (Heath 2006: 46). This obviously classifies persuasion as dynamic, rational thinking endeavour, which entails the manipulation of ways of thinking to create and change attitudes. However, there is another definition of persuasion. The OCED denotes persuasion as “to induce, lure, attract, or entice” (Heath 2006: 46). This definition does not automatically indicate that a rational or verbal mechanism is required for persuasion to occur, as the terms applied, induce, lure, attract, entice, are connected to emotions and feelings more than cognition. Ehrenberg’s definition of persuasion emerging from advertising that makes use of an emotional quality indicates it is this description of persuasion he visualises (Heath 2006). In contemporary practice, the term persuasion is applied to include both definitions, and is commonly applied to explain any attempt that alters the behaviour or attitudes of the receiver (O’Shaughnessy & O’Shaughnessy 2004). Yet, Ehrenberg views reinforcement advertising as manipulating behaviour without automatically having to alter attitudes. This reinforcement model actually matches up very strongly to the less powerful persuasive peripheral mechanism (Kitchen & De Pelsmacker 2004). This may appear to validate the argument of Jones that it is a ‘weak’ theory, though current findings reveal otherwise (Weitz & Wensley 2002). The real significant of emotional persuasion arises from Paul Watzlawick and colleagues’ (1967) findings. He classifies two different communication stages: a content stage and a relationship stage. Rational persuasion occurs in the former stage of communication, is effortlessly interpreted and categorised, but is the quickest to vanish in memory (Watzlawick, Bavelas & Jackson 1967). On the contrary, the relationship stage is normally restrained and concealed, but is it this aspect that survives and decisively is most successful at altering attitudes. It is this relationship-developing communication stage that is affectively persuasive (Watzlawick et al. 1967). Brands can directly profit applying the content of their marketing, by showing added value, enhancing performance, reducing price, and others. However, brands construct lasting relationships and produce loyal buyers simply by the relationship-developing communication level in their advertising (Von Der Fehr & Stevin 1998). For example, Crest whitening toothpaste in the UK did not become a well-known brand merely by whitening teeth like every other brand of toothpaste. It became a popular brand due to the fact that through several years of marketing, it has developed a relationship with customers, so that they presently prefer and trust it as a brand. This is precisely how other product brands in the UK such as Marks and Spencers, Triumph, Berlei, Silhoutte, and many others have become exceptionally well-built and popular. Ehrenberg’s ATRN (awareness, trial, reinforcement, and nudging) model or ‘weak’ theory’s ‘hierarchy of effects’ follows the same logic (Tellis & Ambler 2007). According to this theory, new brands create some interest, and uncertain trial of advertised products will follow. Subsequently, reinforcement implies that if customers liked the product after their trial purchase, their continuous use of it and reassurance may result in a stable tendency to purchase it, and then to highly preferring it (Tellis & Ambler 2007). And lastly, the process of nudging suggests that existing inclinations to purchase a particular product may be sometimes improved (Agres et al. 1990). A classic example of the ATRN model is the Budweiser beer brand in the UK. Anheuser-Busch has employed different ingenious strategies to endorse their product, for example adverts that stressed the brewing procedure and emphasised the natural feature of the beer. More current ads have moved the positioning slightly to expand the appeal (Proctor 2000). One promotion positioned the beer as a trivial set prop in a storyline form that seemed to be more like a video clip than a television commercial. The characters are in different circumstances popular in TV local dramas or comedies: bringing bags of groceries home, working at a computer, conversing with a colleague on the phone, watching TV (Soh, Reid & King 2007). The brand was embedded in the narrative as the preference of professionals of any racial affinity but with an accuracy stemming from their use of colloquial words, street getups, and fondness of TV sport. The commercials suggested that the brand itself had the parallel genuineness as the personas. A website was created to take advantage of the reputation of the promotion and to let people download screensavers and adverts. Whilst beer commercials usually target 18-50-year-old male audiences, the ingenious attractiveness of these particular adverts obviously involved but aimed outside beer drinkers (Tellis & Ambler 2007). They promoted an awareness or interest that a brand is a social creation which implies that it has an inherent cultural relevance that is not restricted to its aimed audience, but is updated by the associations and insights implanted to the brand by non-buying social groups (Tellis & Ambler 2007). Analysis and Conclusion Weak theories of advertising are more plausible than strong advertising theories. Advertisements may usually wield influence or exercise manipulation over extended periods of time, they may be intended to influence or manipulate groups aside from the consumers or prospective consumers, such as employees or shareholders, and they may be designed merely to remind buyers that the brand is existent and remains important. A brand, in most consumer markets, can only compete through rivalling contenders’ advertising costs (Kassaye & Vaccaro 1991). If they fail to do so, the buyer might think that their product is somehow inferior or less important than the more extensively promoted brands. In other words, advertisements sustain the brand by building and preserving a positive consumer inclination towards it over extended periods and not just merely creating brand awareness and inducing consumer action, as what the strong advertising theory promotes. Therefore, there is seldom a particular point at which a specific ad determines a sale. The limitations and influence of advertisements have to be interpreted with regard to the inherent restriction of mediated communication to strongly persuade. Buyers rarely leave their houses quickly after seeing a commercial to purchase the product. Advertising merely positions a brand in the awareness of the consumer in relation to specific arranged features and values. Advertising could depict brands in influential and credible ways but their major mission is not actually persuasive: it is to offer reassurance. Self-apparently, there should be several instances when an advertisement persuades and informs a specific buyer to buy the brand. However, such instances are somewhat seldom and most buying preferences are created by default. To simply put it, majority of consumer purchases are persuaded by brand awareness that are created and maintained over extended periods. Marketing is only one of numerous potential sources of brand awareness, though it is a critical source due to its high public reputation, credible influence, and massive reach in highly industrialised economies. Finally, non-verbal communication can be viewed as inherently a weak form of communication (Varey 2002). This implies that the meaning of communication can by no means be accurately determined; there will constantly be room for other interpretations. Numerous claims of strong advertising theories relate the concept of the message of advertising with the effect of advertising without completely examining why these connections can be visualised. The argument of this paper is that an absolute concept of advertising message visualised in a social vacuum, understood by a particular recipient and interpreted separately from both the sender and recipient point of view, cannot sufficiently capture the intricacy of the communication relationship between consumer and advertisement. References Agres, S.J., Edell, J.A. & Dubitsky, T.M. (eds) (1990) Emotion in Advertising: Theoretical and Practical Explorations, Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Alwitt, L.F. & Mitchell, A.A. (1985) Psychological Processes and Advertising Effects: Theory, Research, and Applications, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bradley, F. (2003) Strategic Marketing: In the Customer Driven Organisation, Chichester, England: Wiley. Clark, E.M., Brock, T.C. & Stewart, D.W. (eds) (1994) Attention, Attitude and Affect in Response to Advertising, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Crane, E. (1965) Marketing Communications: A Behavioural Approach to Men, Messages, and Media, New York: John Wiley & Sons. Damasio, A. (2000) The Feeling of What Happens, London: Heinemann. Heath, R. (2006) Emotional Persuasion, Advertising Research , 46-48. Kassaye, W.W. & Vaccaro, J.P. (1991) Increasing Advertising Effectiveness through Better Selection of Media, Review of Business , 40+. Kitchen, P.J. & De Pelsmacker, P. (2004) Integrated Marekting Communications: A Primer, London: Routledge. Koslow, S. (2000) Can the Truth Hurt? How Honest and Persuasive Advertising Can Unintentionally Lead to Increased Consumer Skepticism, Journal of Consumer Affairs , 245. Lavidge, R.J. & Steiner, G.A. (1961) A model for predictive measurements of advertising effectiveness, Journal of Marketing . Mitchell, A. A. (Ed.) (1993) Advertising Exposure, Memory and Choice, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. OShanghnessy, J. & OShaughnessy, N.J. (2004) Persuasion in Advertising, London: Routledge. Proctor, T. (2000) Strategic Marketing: An Introduction, London: Routledge. Rago, R. (1989) Cognitive Aspects of Mood and Emotion in Advertising, Review of Business , 9+. Rogers, S. (2001) Marketing Strategies, Tactics, and Techniques: A Handbook for Practitioners, Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Shiv, B. & Fedorikhan, A. (1999) Hear and mind in conflict: the interplay affect and cognition in consumer decision making, Journal of Consumer Research . Shrum, L. (Ed.). (2004) The Psychology of Entertainment Media: Blurring the Lines between Entertainment and Persuasion, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates . Soares, E. (1991) Promotional Feats: The Role of Planned Events in the Marketing Communications Mix, New York: Quorum Books. Soh, H., Reid, L.N. & King, K.W. (2007) Trust in Different Advertising Media, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly , 455+. Sutherland, M. & Sylvester, A.K. (2000) Advertising and the Mind of the Consumer: What Works, What Doesnt, and Why, St. Leonards, N.S.W.: Allen & Unwin. Tellis, G.J. & Ambler, T. (2007) The SAGE Handbook of Advertising, London: Sage Publications Ltd. Varey, R. (2002) Marketing Communication: Principles and Practice, London: Routledge. Von Der Fehr, N.M. & Stevin, K. (1998) Persuasive Advertising and Product Differentiation, Southern Economic Journal , 113+. Watzlawick, P., Bavelas, J.B. & Jackson, D.D. (1967) Pragmatics of Human Communication, New York: Norton & Co. Weitz, B. & Wensley, R. (eds) (2002) Handbook of Marketing, London: Sage Publications Ltd. Wells, W. D. (Ed.). (1997) Measuring Advertising Effectiveness, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Read More