Archive for General Virtues
Movember: If You Don’t Know, Google It
Posted by: | CommentsEach November, thousands of men around the world proudly sport mustaches in an attempt to raise awareness for men’s health issues such as prostate cancer. The movement, endearingly dubbed ‘Movember’, effectively creates “walking, talking billboards for the 30 days of November” (movember.com). In addition to calling attention to men’s health issues, the movement also raises funds through participating men that seek sponsorships for their mustaches. The money raised is funneled to several organizations such as the Prostate Cancer Foundation and LIVESTRONG. According to the website, in 2010 the movement raised an impressive $7.5mm.
This year, Movember efforts will likely be even more widespread thanks to an uplifting commercial from Google Chrome that depicts everything you can do when you use the Chrome browser to search for information on Movember.
Because the ad speaks to both Google Chrome and Movember it has benefits for both groups. Aside from the obvious benefit of increased exposure, the advertisement also serves both groups by using imagery to influence consumer decisions. With imagery, consumers “attempt to imagine themselves consuming the product or service and can use any emotions they experience as an input” for their decision (Hoyer MacInnis). The advertisement facilitates this by showing a mouse pointer using Google Chrome to navigate to all sorts of Movember-related sites. Viewers can easily relate to this because most people are intimately familiar with the act of navigating the web for information. People can readily see themselves as the person behind the pointer. Further, the images that result from the advertisement’s simulated search depict a wide variety of people engaging in all type of moustache-related activities. The vivid images are not only emotionally-stirring, they also make it easy for all types of consumers to imagine themselves taking part in the fun. The hope is that these pleasant and vivid images “will exert a positive…influence” on the consumer’s decision process (Hoyer MacInnis). This positive influence will result in the consumer feeling good both about using Google and taking part in the Movember movement.
The ad also plays on the consumer’s mood in order to positively influence the decision process. Research shows that consumers who are in a good mood are not only more willing to process information but also have a tendency to rate products more positively (Hoyer MacInnis). The enjoyable music, coupled with the rapid display of fun graphics and pictures in Google’s advertisement are designed to stimulate positive feelings. The consumer can’t help but feel good after watching it. This good mood will in turn influence the consumer to feel more positively towards both the Movember movement and Google Chrome.
The ultimate result of the ad is to stimulate positive feelings towards Google Chrome that will hopefully result in consumers keeping the product at the top of their consideration set when deciding which internet browser to use. The added benefit is that a worthy cause gets a vast amount of positive exposure. The uplifting depiction of the movement will hopefully inspire people and influence them to participate in the Movemeber movement.
Sources:
www.movember.com
Hoyer, Wayne D. and Deborah J. MacInnis (2008), Consumer Behavior, 5th edition, South-western Cengage Learning: Ohio.
Miracle on 34th Street
Posted by: | CommentsWalk into any major department store or any retailer for that matter, a consumer will know that the holiday season is approaching, specifically Christmas. There might be a small section dedicated to those who are still intending on celebrating Thanksgiving, but all in all, Christmas music, trees, lights, ribbons, garlands, and snowmen abound in many stores.
Macy’s is one such retailer that has been specifically tied to the holiday season through its long-standing name in the retail business, movies (namely Miracle on 34th Street), and the classic Macy’s Thanksgiving Parade. To reflect their years of bringing the holiday spirit, two years ago, Macy’s Department store advertised their brand through nostalgic marketing. Footage in the commercial showed clips from the late 1800s, the parade, movies that have used their name, and reality TV shows. The end of the commercial states, “Only one store has been part of your life for 150 years. That’s the Magic of Macy’s. This commercial works so well, because Macy’s has successfully branded their name by allowing people to remember a particular association with the store. It even allows for consumers to reinterpret their own memories of when they first saw or heard the original referenced clips. Even if a consumer was not there to walk into Macy’s in the late 1800s, they may remember a memory of watching the parade or watching a holiday classic such as Miracle on 34th street. This ad does appeal to consumers who have high MAO, because it allows the consumer to create a persona and image of what this brand represents and has done over the past 150 years. It allows the viewer to be part of the experience and to create a prototype of the Macy’s brand.
In terms of social responsibility, especially around the holiday seasons, in the past few years, Macy’s created a campaign called “Believe” and paired their name with Make-A-Wish. In every Macy’s department store, there was a mail box for Santa, and for each letter that was mailed, one dollar was given to the Make-A-Wish foundation. Essentially, the company would give up to $,1,000,000 to the foundation. There were a couple of commercials that were produced borrowing from the story, Yes, Virginia There is a Santa Claus.
2009
2010
The campaign was effective, because it reached the $1 million goal of giving to Make-A-Wish. This campaign not only captures a positive aspect of the season through giving, especially if child knows that by mailing their letter to Santa through Macy’s mailbox, they are helping other children, but it also gives a positive message to believing. The store is also promoting the idea that it is okay to believe and to be a kid.
Macy’s department store is placed in a positive light because it looks like a store that believes in the spirit of the season, even if they (the department store) are in the business of making money. The “Believe” campaign is currently underway and can be followed through the Macy’s Believe website.
It will be interesting to see how other companies will compete and roll out good tidings to all in this holiday season.
Exclusion of Groups of Individuals….Socially Responsible?
Posted by: | CommentsThe advertising industry, as a whole, has a hard time gaining and maintaining a reputation of being socially responsible. One way to combat this issue is to make it a priority to go beyond what is asked of you in order to find a more responsible result. Is the inclusion of one group of consumers and the exclusion of another considered socially responsible, or is this issue simply up to the consumer to decide? The new Dr Pepper Ten campaign that recently rolled out serves as an excellent example of how this issue could be viewed from multiple perspectives.
Dr Pepper Ten, a reduced-calorie soda, has recently produced a national ad campaign specifically targeting men. This campaign does so bluntly, proudly, and unapologetically through the use of the tagline “Not for Women.” Dr Pepper Ten was developed after the Dr Pepper Snapple Group found that men desired a low calorie soda that was more manly appearing that that of current diet sodas. It was this finding which prompted them to target their advertising explicitly at the male population. However, the question still exists…is this considered socially responsible?
Not only to the print advertisements read “Not for Women,” but the commercials, as well as the Dr Pepper Ten facebook page unambiguously leave out women as well. The commercials depict muscled men running through the jungle in a combat-like setting, all the while saying, “Hey ladies, enjoying the film? Course not. Because this is out movie, and Dr Pepper Ten is our soda. It’s only ten manly calories, but with all 23 flavors of Dr. Pepper. It’s what guys want…so you can keep the romantic comedies and lady drinks, we’re good.” Their facebook page has a list of the “Ten Man’ments” describing the “definitive guide to social protocol for men.” Some of these include: “Thou shalt not OMG. If it’s not exploding, its not exciting,” and “Thou shalt not pucker up. Kissy faces are never manly.” This campaign will also include a mobile “Man Cave” that will travel across the major markets, as well as “testosterone zones” where men will be able to watch TV and play video games at sporting events and car shows. Did Dr Pepper need to go this far to target the male population? Does simply targeting men actually make it a “manly” drink?
Unfortunately, these are the types of advertisements that bring up the issue of what is actually considered socially responsible in the advertising industry. This ad campaign automatically raised the question of social responsibility in the industry from news outlets all over the place. These instances are the ones, which need to be kept in mind when determining the effectiveness of targeting certain groups of people in advertisements. Many of the advertisements like the one above would reach the same conclusion without excluding significant portions of the population. Consumer behavior and persuasion theories are all about providing the most relevant information to the most relevant groups of people, however this can be done just as easily in a more socially responsible way. It is important to keep in mind the personality characteristics of individuals when creating ad campaigns. Specifically, Dr Pepper must realize how gender and sexual orientation affect consumer behavior. It is increasingly difficult to simply advertise to just men, or just women as many men may exhibit feminine qualities as well as women exhibiting masculine qualities. With this being said, both men and women could ultimately take offense to this advertisement. Men may find it an overt stereotype, while many women may find it extremely sexist. Dave Fleming, Director of Marketing at Dr Pepper says that they are not out to alienate women, but isn’t that exactly what they are doing? With a company as popular as Dr Pepper, don’t you think they should make more of an effort to product more socially responsibly ad campaigns?
This advertisement is just one example of an issue that faces the advertising industry on an everyday basis. There are too many different types of individuals in our consumer culture today to simply exclude a group of consumers who have just as much buying power as those who are targeted. If this trend continues, the advertisements may start getting much more offensive than what we are seeing today. Is excluding a specific group of individuals socially responsible. It doesn’t seem so.
http://adage.com/article/news/dr-pepper-10-avoid-marketing-missteps-pepsi-coke/148983/
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2011/10/dr-pepper-ten-its-not-for-women-macho-marketing-campaign-says/
Then & Now
Posted by: | CommentsThe Advertisement is about different types of chevrolet cars used in the olden days and the lifestyle back then and the way some of the old chevrolet cars have been modernized to our millennium lifestyle.The ad is a patriotic ad and the song is also a patriotic song that brings memories and feelings to an American Citizen,so the brand also wants that kind of feelings and memories for their brand cause chevrolet is also an American Car.The Ad is an interesting Ad,because of the way cars have really improved from the past to our modern days and also the song of the Ad made me remember my kid days,most of my baby pictures was taken by my parents cars,anytime we are about to go out and i look good my Dad always takes pictures of me.
Music is frequently used as a communications tool by companies including General motors,sometimes the music Ads become popular and drive album sales.Music as a marketing device should not be surprising given that music has been shown to stimulate variety of positive effects.Music in Ads can stimulate emotional memories of experiences or situations,Music can also put the consumer in a positive mood and lead to the development of positive attitudes,it can be an effective conditioned stimulus for a classical conditioning strategy.Several Studies have also found that music can have a positive effect on purchase intentions.
Cause Advertising: Supporting the Cause, or Supporting the Profits?
Posted by: | CommentsWe’ve all heard of cause advertising, right? You know, like when you see a big name brand that has partnered with a non-profit organization. Well, this trend is nothing new, we’ve all seen it, believed it, been skeptical about it, or probably had every other thought possible about it.
Over the course of the cause advertising trend, consumers have begun to become cautious of these programs. For example, AdAge writer Scott Pansky discusses how KFC raised over four million dollars last year through its “Buckets for the Cure” campaign. However, both KFC and the nonprofit organization suffered from a lowered brand image, simply due to the fact that many consumers questioned the partnership. On one hand you’ve got greasy, fried, unhealthy chicken and when consumers purchase that KFC will donate to support breast cancer research, a fabulous cause that is finding a cure to support a healthy lifestyle… That seems a bit odd if you ask me. In this specific case, it led many consumers to question why KFC was doing this. Was it simply to use breast cancer research as a way to generate sales?
Since there have many questionable partnerships ultimately resulting in skepticism, it has caused many to say that cause-related marketing (cause advertising) is dead. But, is it really?
In a Cone Inc. study (2010), cited by the Nonprofit Brand Institute, it was found that 59% of Americans are more likely to buy a brand that is affiliated with a nonprofit organization. 50% are more willing to donate, 49% are more likely to participate in an event for that nonprofit and 41% are more likely to volunteer for that nonprofit. So, this obviously proves that cause-related marketing is not dead. In fact, it greatly benefits the brand as well as the nonprofit. So, what needs to be done to reach the consumers in an effective way so that they don’t question the partnership or become skeptical of it?
The big question is ‘”Can we build deeper relationships with our customers (retailers and end users) through a cause relationship and still increase sales?”’ The answer, yes—this trend can be extremely beneficial for advertisers, but only if the campaign is done correctly.
There are two things that advertisers need to focus on. First, the cause must be a good match for the company, brand, and target audience. It needs to be relevant. Second, there must be an alignment within the business. Leadership roles and other employees must all be on the same page and understand that the goal is not only to drive up sales numbers, but also to make a lasting impact with a meaningful organization.
Pansky sums it up pretty well, “The bottom-line message to the C suite is that creating effective, meaningful cause relationships is a long-term process that will help them create a brand legacy, not merely a quick sale. It’s about employee recruiting and retention, and creating the next generation of leadership that not only embraces the corporate culture but also helps to create a better tomorrow for consumers. Marketers need to embrace the idea that this is not a quick-fix marketing solution but a long-term commitment to a cause that is relevant to a long-term relationship with your customers. It’s not a date, it’s a marriage.”
Cause advertising campaigns are a great way to be socially responsible. It is wonderful that companies and brands want to help nonprofit organizations that benefit great causes. I think it is pretty obvious that if a company is partnering with a cause, they are on the right track towards being socially responsible. Companies aren’t just in it for themselves anymore—they are trying to make a difference in things that really matter.
So, we know that cause-related marketing is good, but why does it actually make an impact with consumers? What makes these campaigns so different from standard run-of-the-mill advertising campaigns?
Well, to start with, consumer’s values play a huge role. For example, let’s say that a consumer values the environment and wants to help preserve it; in this case, a cause advertising campaign for a certain brand of paper products benefiting The Nature Conservancy may hit home with this consumer and make them feel very strongly about that brand. This also ties into personal relevance. Going back to the KFC example, maybe a consumer knows someone that is fighting breast cancer, so they may be more likely to purchase a KFC meal rather than Popeye’s.
While the campaign needs to reach the consumer in a meaningful way, a brand that partners with a great cause is also improving their brand image. If a consumer already has positive feelings about the cause, those positive feelings may be transferred to positive feelings about the brand. This can also be demonstrated with attitudes. If a consumer has positive feelings towards a cause, when they view the advertisement that relates to that cause, they will probably have positive feelings towards the ad. When a consumer has positive feelings towards the ad, it impacts the attitude towards the brand.
If the campaign is successful, consumers will develop a positive attitude toward the brand, categorize the brand with other favorable products, and ultimately develop brand loyalty. While all of this is being done, the companies as well as the consumers are helping to make an impact by supporting great causes. It can definitely be argued that cause-related marketing is not only beneficial, but also socially responsible.
With that, I will leave you with the new Coca-Cola holiday campaign developed by Leo Burnett.
(You must have known that it would be cause advertising, right!)
Working with the WWF and the new “To The Arctic 3D” IMAX, Coke will be “whiting out” it’s billboards and soda cans to benefit this great cause.
Articles Used:
http://adage.com/article/goodworks/marketers-core-consumers-demand/230061/
http://npbrandit.com/articles/nonprofit-marketing/study-shows-nonprofits-benefit-from-corporate-partnerships/
http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/coca-cola-real-polar-bears-wwf-promo/230632/
Car Companies Addressing Socially Responsible Driving-Related Issues
Posted by: | CommentsDriving is a privilege and a responsibility. While driving is convenient in getting us from point A to B, society also entrusts the driver with the faith that they won’t harm themselves or others with their activity. I found it interesting that two different car companies, Ford and Kia, ran print ad campaigns this fall to address issues concerning responsible driving. Kia partnered with MADD in an campaign to discourage drinking and driving while Ford’s campaign focuses on the epidemic of social networking and phone use while driving.
In the Kia ad, created by Innocean Worldwide in Canada, attention is gained by the surprise element. We all know the typical, don’t drink and drive message, but it is presented in a novel and unexpected way by displaying them as tattoos on the person’s body. Furthermore, they use tattoos to drive home the fact that the consequences of drinking and driving are permanent. I also found it interesting that they used both genders in the ad campaign as well as different ages. Since drunk driving is something that happens with both genders and across different ages, I believe it was important to represent that. Also, I believe this ad gains attention by being easy to process. Once you read the inscription on the tattoos, it is easy to “get” the message that the ad is trying to tell us. Using the dark background, the objects you are supposed to focus on are clear and the understanding you are supposed to gain from it are concrete. While this message is one you typically expect from MADD, it is not a message you would expect from Kia. I believe by cosigning to this ad, they hope to transfer positive feelings about MADD and their cause towards Kia through brand partnership. For those who believe in purchasing from “socially responsible” businesses, this type of advertising activity might sway them to further consider Kia in the consumer decision process.
The Ford campaign, created by Agency MJ in Brazil, is not as serious but still addresses a serious topic. By using the images one associates with social networking, they show how phone usage can distract one from being entirely cognizant of the environment they are driving in. They chose to make the ad stimulating by using novelty to illustrate their message. They also heightened the possibility of safety risk to drive their point across to the audience. I think this kind of ad message would cause positive feelings with parents and older consumers that are highly concerned with the driving habits of the younger, social networking drivers. In these ads, it seems like Ford is simply saying “we care what you care about” and again, might appeal to consumers that are passionate about this cause or social responsible businesses.
In both ad campaigns, it is reassuring to see car companies recognizing problems involved with the consumption of their product. By highlighting these issues, Ford and Kia are positioning themselves as “socially responsible” companies that deserve your consideration in your next car. After all, if they care about society as a whole, of course they would care for their consumers right? Ads like these, even if they are still driven by economic motives, will continue to increase public regard for advertising as an institution.
Controversy Over Proposed Food Marketing Guidelines
Posted by: | Comments
Ad Week recently reported that in response to pressure the Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children is considering making changes to their proposed voluntary guidelines for food marketers targeting children. The controversy over the regulation is indicative of our increasing concern as a society over both childhood obesity and the effect advertising might have on that problem. In a nutshell, the plan proposed that marketers either change the formulation of certain products aimed at children to make the foods more healthy or cease marketing those products to children. While the proposal has a number of Senate Democrat supporters, it has generated strong criticism for being too heavy-handed (despite being completely voluntary) from both the advertising industry and GOP congressmen. While the goal of reducing childhood obesity is laudable, those in favor of increased regulation of advertising need to realize that, in this case, regulation of advertising may not achieve the desired effect.
At first glance it may seem like regulation is the way to go. While children aren’t making most of the final purchase decisions, they do play a strong role in influencing their parents’ decisions which is part of the rationale for marketing to children. Yet because children aren’t fully developed mentally, they may be more prone to impulsive behavior and less capable of making rational decisions, making them more likely to be misled by advertising. As childhood obesity is now widely recognized as a major social problem it therefore might seem like a no-brainer to push the kind of regulation the Interagency Working Group is proposing.
However in this case regulating marketing efforts may not be the best way to go about achieving the ultimate goal of promoting healthy eating during childhood. Faced with the prospect of the stick rather than the carrot, advertisers may simply find ways around the regulation while technically remaining in compliance. In fact this might already be happening to some extent. An earlier piece by Ad Week mentions a report by the Rudd Center noting that while advertisements for junk-food aimed at children are down, children’s exposure to junk-food product placement is up.
For their part, advertisers need to realize that concern over childhood obesity and worries that marketing efforts are exacerbating the problem aren’t going away. Rather than continually taking defensive action against this kind of regulation they need to consider the benefits of developing and advertising healthy products that kids actually like. Easier said than done, but considering the influence children have on family purchases how much easier would it be to increase sales if the foods they wanted didn’t cause parents concern?
Ad Week: Feds May Soften Controversial Food Marketing Guidelines
Ad Week: Study: Industry’s Found Sneaky Way to Keep Advertising Junk Food to Kids
Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children’s Guidelines
If You Let Me Play
Posted by: | CommentsThis ad from Nike is fairly old (1995) but still an excellent example of how to sell a product while keeping in mind a socially responsible agenda. Although its arguable that you’re more likely today to see ads for sports products that show women in a positive light, many ads still follow the same tired format of associating sports superstars with products or showing gym addicts striving in their quest for the (impossibly) perfect body. The ad below however, presents a strong argument against the stereotype that ‘sports are for boys’.
This TV spot by Wieden+Kennedy however, simply presents factual real-world benefits associated with young girls playing sports, such as reduced risk of breast cancer or increased likelihood of leaving an abusive partner. The strong, simple message is proof that you can effectively sell products for women without resorting to gender stereotyping or exploiting body image fears.
By talking to parents about the benefits of girls’ participation in sports, the company is pushing a positive social agenda and effectively selling their product at the same time. From a practical standpoint, presenting sports as a way of empowering girls is a great way to achieve that all important relevance between the company and the cause, since research has indicated that with cause related advertising the better the fit between the company and the cause, the more effective it is likely to be with the consumer. Rather than simply tack on an unrelated social concern in a transparent attempt to boost sales, Nike has addressed a social issue directly related to their core business in a positive way while also effectively advertising their company. By attacking the stereotype that girls shouldn’t play sports, Nike is helping girls and themselves. After all more girls playing sports means better health and self esteem for those girls and an increased market for Nike.
Although there have of course been problems over the years with Nike’s treatment of labor, with all the exploitative advertising out there, it’s still nice to see something like this as a reminder that selling a product and promoting a positive social change aren’t mutually exclusive.
Subaru Sponsors NBC’s Green Week
Posted by: | CommentsFor most all consumers, the process of choosing among the numerous car brands and models and ultimately purchasing a car is a long one, which entails lots of information search, due to the high financial risk inherent in spending thousands on a car. Thus, although single car commercials are regarded as relatively weak in changing consumers’ attitudes, the collective force of all the commercials created for each brand is moderately powerful in helping to shape the brand image in consumers’ minds. The average consumer usually uses both cognitive and affective decision making when purchasing a car, with cognitive ultimately playing a more dominant role. Therefore, the attributes that advertisers highlight in commercials for cars can influence how consumers categorize different brands in their memories, which can then play a role in their decision-making process when the time comes for them to purchase a car. Acknowledging that car commercials do affect consumers’ consumption, be it in the near or distant future, the sponsorship of NBC’s Green Week by car manufacturer Subaru has major implications for viewers of NBC prime time, as well as NBCU-owned cable networks CNBC, MSNBC, NBC News, NBC Sports, SciFi Channel, Sundance Channel, Bravo, USA, Syfy. Part of its “Green is Universal program”, NBC’s Green Week is a two-week initiative which airs twice a year, during which green topics are integrated into the network’s shows. Though critics may call it a grand marketing scheme, Green Week does in fact do a lot of good. The integration of “green” storylines and topics into most all of the network’s programs – which represent a substantial group when all of the cable networks NBC owns are taken into account – at the very least raise awareness among TV viewers of “green” issues. As consumer behavior tells us, the first step to changing attitudes is to have the information be perceived, paid attention to, to then have consumers be motivated, able to, and have the opportunity to change their attitudes.
The sponsorship of Green Week by Subaru (as outlined in an article on Adweek.com), costing the car manufacturer a rumored $10 million, raises concern for future sponsorships of Green Week, or similar social issue initiatives, due to the effectiveness of the commercials as seen by the direct increase of likelihood of exposure. NBCU created the commercials for Subaru, which feature environmentally conscious Subaru owners, and seamlessly integrate the commercials into the beginning or end of the commercial breaks by somehow connecting the copy or dialogue used by the Subaru owners to the given NBC-owned network on which the commercial aired. Consumer behavior tells us that such a tactic can increase consumer’s exposure to a commercial for consumers will be more likely to watch a commercial at the beginning or end of the commercial break, as well as thinking the commercial is part of the show if the network’s logo is incorporated into the visuals. Subaru also benefits by being one of the few car manufacturers sponsoring Green Week, not allowing consumers to compare similarly environmentally-friendly car models manufactured by competing brands. In these Green Week commercials, Subaru frames its brand of cars as “environmentally-friendly,” specifically around the goal-derived category held by a growing number of consumers of decreasing their ecological footprint. By priming the “green” attributes of its cars in these commercials, which are so ingeniously integrated into a number of NBC’s extensive line-up of shows, Subaru frames its brand as being superior in that frame of mind (environmentally-friendly). Though the Toyota Prius has developed such a strong brand image as an environmentally friendly car, as well as the Smart Car, Subaru clearly foresees a stronger brand image and ultimately increases in sales – legitimate ends to justify the means of spending millions on this sponsorship. Subaru’s sponsorship of Green Week is an incredibly genius move by all those involved in its brand development and media planning. As media planners are constantly being forced to craft new ways of reaching consumers through ever-evolving mediums, this sponsorship is genius in both the increase in likelihood of exposure of consumers to Subaru’s Green Week commercials, as well as creation of a strong brand image in alignment with this green initiative. Consumers are lazy and do not pay attention to details, so merely seeing the Subaru logo as they fast-forward through the commercials of a program during Green Week can create the association between Subaru and their goal-derived category of “environmentally-friendly”.
The subtle yet important issue of responsibility herein is the agenda setting employed by Subaru of aligning itself with a green initiative to be associated with consumers’ goal-derived category of “environmentally-friendly” or similar associations in consumers’ minds. The sponsorship of Green Week has, according to an NBC analysis of Nielsen IAG data, brought Subaru increased recall of commercials by consumers, speaking to the effectiveness of the advertisements run during Green Week. Subaru therefore has a great responsibility to deliver on the brand image they are building so effectively through their Green Week sponsorship. Though one would hope that NBC conducts rigorous research in its selection of sponsors for Green Week to select those who are in fact “green,” it is possible for sponsors to be chosen due to greater financial offers to the network rather than on truly being “green.” This year’s Green Week sponsors all seem to practice what they preach in terms of employing “green” practices to be worthy of “green” images. But there lies a possibility for deception of consumers in similar initiatives by other networks or perhaps other companies outside the media world through sponsorship thereof by sponsors who do not truly deserve the “ruboff” the initiative’s image will have on their own brand image. This has major implications for consumers, who very well may make consumption decisions based on the associations they form about sponsors of initiatives like Green Week and “green.”
A link to one of the Subaru Green Week commercials posted on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=146365342077961
A PSA airing during Green Week:
Who Framed the Hickenlooper Ad?
Posted by: | CommentsIn the wake of a hot mid-term election, pundits and advertising professionals are in the midst of evaluating the myriad of political advertisements generated for this year’s campaign season. Though attack ads dominated the airwaves yet again, governor-elect, John Hickenlooper, took a different approach with his campaign messages.
Bucking the attack ad trend employed by candidates across the nation, Hickenlooper vowed to run a “clean campaign” that touted job creation and economic development. According to Hickenlooper, “With all the challenges we face, Colorado needs a governor who brings people together to create jobs and cut government spending. Pitting one group against another or one part of Colorado against another doesn’t help anyone”. Hickenlooper’s refreshing campaign tactic provides advertisers with a cogent example of how decision framing can influence the decision-making process in high-effort situations.
When preparing for Election Day, voters are highly motivated to learn more about the candidates to ensure that their selection meets their goals, attitudes, and values for the next four years. Furthermore, the voter’s ability and opportunity to process information is also high. As a result of a voter’s increased motivation, ability, and opportunity (known as MAO) to process information, voters put a lot of effort into deciding the ideal candidate for political office.
Though candidates utilize a variety of messaging tactics, political advertisements influence a voter’s decision to include a candidate in his or her consideration set. Six gubernatorial candidates sought election as the governor of Colorado. Because Coloradans faced a variety of political options, a candidate’s main objective was to be included in a voter’s consideration set. A consideration set is a subset of top-of-mind items that are evaluated when making a choice. Consideration sets allow items to be easily recalled, compared, and evaluated when making a decision. If an item receives a lot of attention, people are more likely to select it. In the Colorado gubernatorial race, voters were more likely to include Hickenlooper in their consideration set because of the amount of attention his campaign received.
But the question remains – how does a voter determine the selection criteria that will help develop his or her consideration set? The relevance and importance of decision criteria depend a variety of factors that includes a voter’s goals, the decision timeframe, and how the decision is framed or represented.
Decision framing is a tactic used by political advertisers that help shape a voter’s decision. Decision framing is the initial reference point, or anchor, in the decision process. In his campaign, Hickenlooper’s anchor was integrity. Through his “clean campaign” vow, Hickenlooper cast a positive light on his campaign and assured voters that his messages were going to be about the campaign and nothing else.
Although framing can be utilized in a variety of ways, most political advertisements rely heavily on high elaboration and framing in the context of gains or losses. For example, a political message that highlights a gain could be phrased, “Vote for Jane Doe because she will increase jobs by 5% in the next four years”. A political message that highlights a loss could be phrased, “Vote for John Doe to avoid the harmful effects of Jane Doe’s tax polices”.
The use of positive or negative message frames depends heavily on a candidate’s competition and the voter’s attitude toward the candidate or the candidate’s campaign. However, based on consumer research, individuals are less likely to choose a candidate that employs negative message frames with high elaboration because they conclude that the tactics utilized in the message are unfair. In light of this research, attack advertisements that employ negative message frames and high elaboration remain controversial because the message’s efficacy is suspect.
Consumer behavior research also indicates that messages framed in terms of gains are more persuasive when people are in a bad mood. The inherent nature of attack ads incites frustration and negative attitudes amount voters. Therefore, candidates who want to take the high road should consider positive message framing when the political advertising landscape becomes mired in attack ads.
When his competition started to use attack ads, Hickenlooper’s campaign capitalized on positive message framing. Because most attack ads make voters uneasy and frustrated, Hickenlooper emphasized gains in his messages and elaborated upon ways he would create jobs, cut government spending, and bring people together. As a result, Hickenlooper’s advertisements garnered substantial media attention and ultimately won Hickenlooper the election.
In his opening comments at a “get out the vote” house party, Hickenlooper acknowledged the power his “clean campaign” advertising frame had over on the voter’s choice. Hickenlooper explained that, “When you attack a product or a candidate, you dismiss the people that support the candidate. You can’t always win them back”. Because consumers face a number of decisions in high-effort situations such as political campaigns, decision framing helps voters easily identify information that is important to their choice of a political candidate. Perhaps Hickerlooper’s victory will substantiate the viability of positive message frames in political advertising.
