2.5 Advertising
- Syllabus
- 9990–2028–2029
- Topic
- 2.5
- Level
- A2
Learning objectives
2.5.1Advertising types and techniques• 2.5.1 Types of advertising and advertising techniques- the Yale model of communication including five features.- advertising media including types of advertising media: printed, television, internet and smartphone; use of eye-tracking and EEG, including a study, e.g. Ciceri et al. (2020).- Lauterborn's 4 Cs marketing mix model.- Relevant issues and debates and methodology for this topic include: application to everyday life, cultural differences, objective and subjective data, generalisations, validity.2.5.2Advertising-consumer interaction• 2.5.2 Advertising-consumer interaction- advertising and consumer personality including self-monitoring (exemplified by the following Key Study).- Key study on consumer personality and advertising: Snyder and DeBono (1985), focus on study 3, specifics of methodology for study 1 and study 2 will not be needed.- how product placement in films affects choice including examples and explanations for choice, such as mere exposure and reminders, including a study, e.g. Auty and Lewis (2004).- Relevant issues and debates and methodology for this topic include: use of children in research, determinism versus free-will, self-reports, quantitative and qualitative data, validity.2.5.3Brand awareness and recognition• 2.5.3 Brand awareness and recognition- brand recognition in children including how children acquire an understanding of advertising via logo recognition, including a study, e.g. Fischer et al. (1991).- brand awareness, brand image and effective slogans including types and function of slogans; guidelines for creating effective slogans, e.g. Kohli et al. (2007).- Relevant issues and debates and methodology for this topic include: application to everyday life, use of children in research, determinism versus free-will, experiments, interviews.
Advertising works when source, message, medium and audience form one chain
| Yale feature | Persuasion question | Application | Boundary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Source | Is communicator expert/trustworthy/likeable? | Relevant clinician for health claim | Celebrity visibility is not topic expertise |
| Message content | Is aim clear; one/two-sided; evidence/statistics appropriate? | Two-sided claim can build trust with informed audience | Complexity may overload or expose weak evidence |
| Channel | Which mode carries the message—print, TV, internet, smartphone? | Demonstration suits video; searchable detail suits web | Medium effectiveness depends on task/audience |
| Audience | What age, education, culture, involvement and prior attitude? | Tailor language and evidence to processing ability | Group tendency is not individual destiny |
| Effect | Did attention/comprehension change belief, attitude, intention or behaviour? | Measure purchase as well as liking | Attitude change is not automatically behaviour change |
| Medium | Strength | Common constraint |
|---|---|---|
| Stable, self-paced detail and accepted ad context | Static, limited targeting/interaction | |
| Television | Audio-visual emotion/demonstration and mass reach | Cost, fleeting exposure and avoidance |
| Internet | Search, targeting, links and rich measurement | Clutter, irritation, privacy and banner blindness |
| Smartphone | Always-near, personalised/location-linked and direct action | Small screen, interruption and notification fatigue |
| Ciceri et al. (2020) | Exact evidence |
|---|---|
| Design/sample | Laboratory comparison, 72 participants, same mock newspaper containing 25 static adverts |
| Media | Website on laptop, printed paper, or PDF on tablet; read at own pace |
| Measures | Eye-tracking fixation; EEG index interpreted as frustration; after one-hour distractor, recognise 25 seen adverts among 50 |
| Results | Ad fixation and recognition highest for tablet, lowest for website; website produced greater EEG-indexed frustration; tablet and paper were not significantly different overall |
| Inference | Familiar newspaper-like presentation may make adverts less intrusive; medium changes attention/memory, not just content |
| Lauterborn 4C | Consumer-centred question | Reframes 4P |
|---|---|---|
| Consumer needs/wants | What problem/value does the buyer actually seek? | Product |
| Cost to satisfy | What money, time, effort and risk does acquisition/use impose? | Price |
| Convenience to buy | How easy are information, access, transaction and delivery? | Place |
| Communication | How can brand and consumer exchange useful, responsive information? | Promotion |
| Evidence lens | Strength and limit |
|---|---|
| Objective measures | Fixation, recognition and EEG are numerical/repeatable; EEG does not uniquely identify subjective frustration |
| Subjective data | Reasons/irritation ratings would improve construct validity but introduce response bias |
| Ecological validity | Realistic newspaper materials; apparatus and mock reading reduce natural browsing |
| Generalisation/culture | Medium norms, age and digital literacy change acceptance; one Western sample does not fix global media strategy |
Do not equate attention with persuasion or EEG with a direct report of frustration. Ciceri held content constant and found a medium effect, but Yale and 4Cs show that source, audience, value, cost and convenience still determine whether attention becomes action.
Advertising is stronger when its appeal fits the person or reactivates prior brand memory
| Self-monitoring | Main orientation | Better-matched appeal | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| High | Adjusts self-presentation to situation/social image; attitudes often serve social-adjustive function | Image/soft sell: appearance, lifestyle, aspiration | Fashionable coat in aspirational social scene |
| Low | Behaviour/self-presentation more consistent with internal values; attitudes often value-expressive | Quality/hard sell: function, durability, performance | Coat materials, warmth and years of wear |
High does not mean ‘better self-awareness’; low does not mean absence of self-control. The construct predicts message fit probabilistically.
| Snyder & DeBono (1985), Study 3 | Exact evidence |
|---|---|
| Sample/design | 40 Minnesota introductory-psychology undergraduates; self-monitoring median split; independent groups and random image/quality message allocation |
| Procedure | Standardised telephone call framed as shampoo market research; caller did not know monitoring status |
| Image message | Average cleaning but above-average appearance |
| Quality message | Average appearance but above-average cleaning |
| Measures | Willingness on 5-point definitely-not→definitely-yes and 0–100% try scale |
| Result | High self-monitors were more willing after image appeal; low self-monitors after quality appeal: persuasion depended on person–message match |
| Product-placement explanation | Mechanism | Prediction |
|---|---|---|
| Mere exposure | Repeated low-awareness contact increases familiarity/positive affect | More placements can make brand feel fluent even without explicit recall |
| Reminder | Recent placement reactivates an existing brand representation/preference | Effect is strongest when brand/film was encountered before |
| Association | Brand inherits affect/identity from character or scene | Positive protagonist/context can colour evaluation |
These routes can coexist; explicit recall is not required for an implicit choice effect.
| Auty & Lewis (2004) | Exact evidence |
|---|---|
| Sample/design | 105 children aged 6–7 and 11–12; classroom exposure to one of two Home Alone clips |
| Manipulation | Pepsi mentioned/shown/spilled at a meal versus similar food-and-milk scene without a branded product |
| Procedure/DV | Individual witness interview; before it, child chose Pepsi or Coke |
| Result | Branded-clip exposure significantly shifted drink choice; interviews suggested previous film exposure plus recent placement reminder, not simple explicit recall alone |
| Age | Age/processing skill did not mediate choice clearly, consistent with implicit memory |
| Lens | Snyder–DeBono | Auty–Lewis |
|---|---|---|
| Validity | Standardised/double-blind message isolates fit; telephone hypothetical willingness is not purchase | Real film/real drink choice improves behavioural validity; classroom/interview demand and brand preference remain |
| Self-report/data | Two quantitative willingness ratings efficient but subjective | Choice objective plus qualitative interview reasons; explicit account may miss implicit process |
| Ethics/children | Deceptive market-research cover, adult students | Parental/school consent, assent, branded drinks and covert commercial influence require protection |
| Determinism | Fit predicts response, not inevitability | Placement biases choice, but prior preference and agency remain |
A matched appeal raises average willingness; it does not classify every consumer. Auty and Lewis show that choice can change without accurate explicit recall, so ‘the child did not mention Pepsi’ is not evidence that placement had no effect.
Brand learning moves from recognition to meaning, while slogans link the two
| Construct | What it means | Suitable measure |
|---|---|---|
| Brand recognition | Identify brand when logo/name is shown among options | Logo–product matching or forced-choice array |
| Brand recall | Retrieve brand without the brand itself being shown | Name brands from a product-category cue |
| Brand awareness | Overall accessibility/familiarity of brand identity and products; includes recognition and recall | Combined aided/unaided tasks |
| Brand image | Network of meanings, qualities, users and feelings associated with brand | Interviews, semantic ratings and association tasks |
Recognition is easier than recall and can emerge before a child understands persuasive intent.
| Fischer et al. (1991) | Exact evidence |
|---|---|
| Aim/sample | Logo recognition in 229 convenience-sampled preschool children aged 3–6 in Augusta/Atlanta, Georgia |
| Task | Match 22 logos—including children’s, adult and Camel/Marlboro cigarette brands—to one of 12 pictured products on a game board |
| Results | High recognition; cigarette logos fell between children/adult categories; Disney Channel and Old Joe highest in their categories; Old Joe→cigarette rose from about 30% at age 3 to 91.3% at age 6 |
| Conclusion | Very young children acquire logo–product associations, including harmful adult brands |
| Boundary | Matching demonstrates recognition/exposure, not understanding, liking, smoking intention or later behaviour |
| Slogan type/function | Example structure | Psychological job |
|---|---|---|
| Imperative | ‘Choose…’ | Prompt action |
| Descriptive/benefit | ‘The easiest phone to use’ | State category/differentiated promise |
| Superlative/leadership | ‘The most…’ | Position superiority—must be defensible |
| Provocative/question | ‘Why settle?’ | Create curiosity/involvement |
| Jingle/rhyme/alliteration | Rhythm/sound pattern | Improve encoding and retrieval |
| Brand-linked tagline | Brand name plus distinctive meaning | Strengthen brand–slogan association and image |
| Kohli, Leuthesser & Suri (2007) guideline | Why |
|---|---|
| Start from positioning and a single differentiated benefit | Slogan must say what brand stands for, not substitute vague praise |
| Include/strongly cue brand and product category where needed | Stand-alone comprehension and brand linkage |
| Keep concise, clear and easy to repeat | Supports recognition/recall across exposure |
| Use creativity, rhythm or emotion only when congruent | Memorability without obscuring meaning |
| Repeat consistently and integrate with campaigns | Builds association over time; frequent change destroys accumulated equity |
| Pre-test comprehension, uniqueness, liking and brand linkage | A liked slogan can still be misattributed or ineffective |
| ‘B is brilliant’ problem | Better decision |
|---|---|
| Vague and could describe anything | State easiest-to-use phone benefit |
| Weak category/award linkage | Include phone/award cue where brand alone is unknown |
| Minimal distinctiveness/memorability | Add concise, ownable rhythm without sacrificing clarity |
| Cannot infer sales causality | Test recall, recognition, linkage and later behaviour against alternatives while controlling campaign exposure |
| Child-research issue | Protection/interpretation |
|---|---|
| Consent/assent | Parent/school informed consent plus age-appropriate child assent and withdrawal |
| Comprehension | Game-like matching must not imply adult understanding; avoid leading cues |
| Harm/commercial exposure | Do not increase attraction to tobacco/unhealthy brands; debrief carers appropriately |
| Usefulness | Children are current/future consumers; evidence can guide safeguards and less child-appealing adult-brand design |
Brand awareness is not brand liking, and recognition is not purchase. A slogan can be memorable yet fail if it is not linked to the correct brand or differentiated meaning; long-run sales cannot be causally assigned to the slogan while product, price and campaign also change.