Docstoc

INTERACTION OF AND IMAGE IN ADVERTISING AND CONSUMER RESPONSE

Document Sample
INTERACTION OF AND IMAGE IN ADVERTISING AND CONSUMER RESPONSE Powered By Docstoc
					                  Margot van Mulken, Rob Le Pair




              VISUAL METAPHOR AND
               CONSUMER RESPONSE




ICORIA 2006
   BATH
                                        ICORIA 2006 Bath
                                  Visual Metaphor


Metaphor




Lakoff & Johnson (1980): Understandig one kind of
  thing in terms of another kind of thing
    ICORIA 2006 Bath
Visual Metaphor
                                                         ICORIA 2006 Bath
                                              Visual Metaphor


Rhetoric in advertising
• Rhetorical figures: artful deviation in form that adheres to an
  identifiable template. Number of templates is limited,
  consumers learn to respond to a figure
    – The nature of the link between the two domains determines the
      type of rhetorical figure


• Metaphor (Trope) : Many definitions
    – Understanding one thing in terms of another   (Lakoff & Johnson 1980)
    – Source domain, target domain
                                                   ICORIA 2006 Bath
                                            Visual Metaphor


Advantages of rhetoric in advertising
• Attracts attention; getting noticed
• Complex rhetoric: involves comprehension and cognitive
  processing, generates inferences, involves interpretation

• Provides pleasure, arousal, self-contentment: pleasant
  feelings (Tanaka 1996)
• Provides longer retention (Tom & Eves 1999)

• McQuarrie & Mick (2003) : it works for verbal rhetoric („Put
  a tiger in your tank‟) claim: it also works for visual rhetoric
                                                     ICORIA 2006 Bath
                                             Visual Metaphor


Phillips & McQuarrie 2004
• Visual rhetoric ≠ verbal rhetoric
• Visual processing presupposes another kind of processing.
  Iconical representation vs. Verbal code („double
  articulation‟)
• Therefore: New Framework
   – 1 axe: Richness of meaning
   – 2 axe: Visual structure
• Visual structure
   – Juxtaposition,
   – Fusion and
   – Replacement are an exhaustive list of the possible ways two
     image elements can be combined within a two-dimensional
     representation
                                                                           ICORIA 2006 Bath
                                                                     Visual Metaphor


                      Visual structure                        Consumer response
|




                      •   No metaphor

                      •
C o m p l e x i t y




                          Juxtaposition
                          – Source and target domain are
                            both present, presented
                            separately, side-by-side          •   more complex processing?
                      •   Fusion
                          – Target and source domain are      •   more appreciation?
                            combined together
                      •   Replacement
                          – Source domain replaces target
                            domain, the present image calls
                            to mind the absent image
+
                                                       ICORIA 2006 Bath
                                               Visual Metaphor


Culture differences / Gender differences
• Culture differences
   – Culture may override the universal mapping in metaphors
     (Kövecses 2005)
   – Latin cultures are more apt to derive implicit meaning from visual
     images than anglosaxon cultures (Callow & Schiffman 2002)



• Gender differences in processing strategies
   – „selectivity model‟: females are comprehensive information
     processors (Meyers-Levy & Maheswaran 1991)
   – women are more likely than men to make inferences from
     advertisements (Edens & McCormick 2000)
                                                       ICORIA 2006 Bath
                                               Visual Metaphor


Hypotheses
• Experienced complexity
   – Juxtaposition is perceived as less complex than fusion, which is
     perceived as less complex than replacement
• Appreciation
   – Juxtaposition is less appreciated than fusion, which is less
     appreciated than replacement (no moderation)

• Culture
   – French and Spanish respondents perceive all types of metaphor
     as less complex than Dutch respondents; French and Spanish
     appreciate all types of metaphor better than Dutch respondents
• Gender
   – Female respondents appreciate all types of metaphor better than
     male respondents
                                                       ICORIA 2006 Bath
                                              Visual Metaphor


Method
• Material
   – 16 authentic ads, 4 groups (no rhetorical figure, 3 types of
     metaphor)
   – All verbal information (except brand name) had been removed
   – All ads were identical in all countries
• Participants
   – 60 French participants, 275 Dutch, 88 Spanish (Total 423)
   – 263 Female, 160 Male
• Design
   – Within-participants design for type of metaphor
   – Between-participants for culture and gender
                                                      ICORIA 2006 Bath
                                              Visual Metaphor


Method (2)
• Instrumentation
   – Online experiment (2 versions)
   – Experienced complexity: 7-point Likert scale
      This ad is easy to understand; the meaning is clear to me
   – Appreciation
      This ad is well-chosen; original; pleasing
• Procedure
   – Participants invited by e-mail. Questionnaire lasted 15 minutes
     approx.
• Treatment
   – Analyses for repeated measures, pair wise comparisons (LSD)
     and univariate analysis
                        ICORIA 2006 Bath
              Visual Metaphor


Results

           Mean experienced complexity
                   per advertisement
          (1 = very difficult to understand
              7 = very easy to understand)
              per Nationality (French,
              Dutch and Spanish) as a
              function of type of metaphor
          (1 = no metaphor, 2 =
              juxtaposition, 3 = fusion, 4 =
              replacement)
                     ICORIA 2006 Bath
              Visual Metaphor


Results (2)   Mean appreciation per
                  advertisement
              (1 = very low
                  appreciation 7 =
                  very high
                  appreciation) per
                  Nationality (French,
                  Dutch and Spanish)
                  as a function of type
                  of metaphor
              (1 = no metaphor, 2 =
                  juxtaposition, 3 =
                  fusion, 4 =
                  replacement)
                                                                    ICORIA 2006 Bath
                                                      Visual Metaphor


Results (3)




Mean experienced complexity per advertisement   Mean appreciation per advertisement
(1 = very dif f icult to understand             (1 = very low appreciation
7 = very easy to understand)                    7 = very high appreciation)
                                                               ICORIA 2006 Bath
                                                      Visual Metaphor


Conclusions
•   Experienced complexity hypothesis: confirmed
     – Juxtaposition is perceived as less complex than fusion, which is perceived
        as less complex than replacement
•   Appreciation partially confirmed : inverted U-pattern
     – Juxtaposition is less appreciated than fusion, which, on turn, is more
        appreciated than replacement

•   Culture: partially confirmed
     – French participants respond similarly to the Dutch respondents, although
        they have an average better liking of all types of metaphor (including No
        Metaphor) than the Dutch
     – Spanish participants prefer Replacement ads (conform the hypothesis) to
        Juxtaposition, Fusion and No Metaphor.
•   Gender: not confirmed
     – The appreciation pattern of the female respondents has the shape of an
        inverted U-form.
     – The appreciation pattern of the male respondents shows a linear
        increment
                                                      ICORIA 2006 Bath
                                              Visual Metaphor


Implications
• Visual structure works for metaphor
• Visual complexity is appreciated up to a certain degree
   – More research necessary: measuring actual comprehension in
     stead of self reported comprehension or perceived complexity
• Culture matters
   – Is appreciation * comprehension the reason for the preference for
     Replacement by the Spanish?
• Gender matters, although not in the expected direction
   – Practical implication: the type of visual metaphor should be
     adapted to the product category (targeted towards male/female
     audiences)
                                                 ICORIA 2006 Bath
                                          Visual Metaphor


Limitations
• We did not control for product or brand liking, product
  category
• We did not verify the actual understanding of the
  advertisement
• We did not adapt the choice of the stimuli to gender
  preferences (e.g. cars vs deodorant).




Thank you
m.v.mulken@let.ru.nl
    ICORIA 2006 Bath
Visual Metaphor
                                                                  ICORIA 2006 Bath
                                                          Visual Metaphor


        Claims
       – Fusion involves a more complex processing task than
         juxtapostion (and replacement than fusion) and this difference in
         complexity can be systematically related to differences in
         consumer response
       – “Because complexity, within limits, is pleasurably arousing, it will
         also be associated with greater ad liking. However, too much
         complexity reduces comprehension of the ad, so the outcome of
         ad liking associated with more complex visual figures is
         particularly likely to be subject to moderating factors” (Phillips &
         McQuarrie 2004)
         dus replacement: less ad liking?




geen dia, maar is uitleg bij vorige dia
                                                       ICORIA 2006 Bath
                                               Visual Metaphor


Results Culture
• Experienced complexity
   – Interaction effect of Nationality and Type of metaphor (F (838, 6)
     = 11.36, p < .001, Wilks‟ Lambda = .86, 2 = .08)
   – Strong main effect for Type of metaphor (F (3, 418) = 123.09 , p <
     .001, Wilks‟ Lambda = .53, 2 = .47)
• Appreciation
   – Interaction effect of Nationality and Type of metaphor (F (838, 6)
     = 6.99, p < .001, 2 = .05
   – Strong main effect of Type of metaphor (F (418, 3) = 134.42, p<
     .001, 2 = .49)
                                                      ICORIA 2006 Bath
                                              Visual Metaphor


Results Gender
• Experienced complexity
   – Interaction effect of Gender and Type of metaphor (F (419, 3) =
     4.01, p < .05, Wilks‟ Lambda = .98, 2 = .03)
   – Strong main effect for Type of metaphor (F (419, 3) = 199.17 , p <
     .001, Wilks‟ Lambda = .41, 2 = .59)
• Appreciation
   – Interaction effect of Gender and Type of metaphor (F (419, 3) =
     13.72, p < .001, Wilks‟Lambda = .91, 2 = .09
   – Strong main effect of Type of metaphor (F (419, 3) = 186.16, p<
     .001, 2 = .57) on appreciation.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:2
posted:4/27/2011
language:English
pages:21