Persuasive Advertising

Overview

Since ancient times, people all over the world have tried to persuade potential customers to buy their wares. Nevertheless, they were limited to announcing their products at shops or market stalls. As communication technologies advanced, people began to use posters and billboards, newspapers, and mailed catalogs and flyers. In the contemporary market, the ways to sell products and services are very diverse, and the most prevalent form to communicate the sale of something is by way of publicity, that is, announcing it through some time of mass media—print media, radio, television, and the Internet. The most ubiquitous or pervasive of these is the televised spot; it remains the dominant form of mass media, despite the rapid growth of e-commerce. In fact, the latest convergence technology allows modern consumers an interactive television-Internet experience, in which audiences may watch network and cable TV while also navigating the Internet.

Consuming and advertising behaviors are anchored in social factors, that is, shaped by a society's culture, values, economy, and so on. These elements configurate and morph through time, constantly changing people's consuming modes. Values are an important factor in this configuration, because they guide the needs and interests of individuals. Therefore, marketers must take those into consideration when they endeavor to get people to purchase their goods and services or else, to adopt their beliefs and ideas. Marketers and other agents of public persuasion, such as state institutions, organizations, and political propagandists often promote their goods or ideas by way of audiovisual publicity, that is, through televised ads. Ads and propaganda do not act solely to communicate the benefits of a product or idea, but seek, as well, to stimulate a series of actions or of attitudes. As most modern advertising scholars agree, mass publicity disseminates a way of understanding the world. It usually intends to reinforce or else, cause axiologic changes—that is, those that relate to how people value things. What people value and prefer are not fortuitous matters; they are shaped by different social forces, from family to institutions to mass media. Marketers know well that the audience is sensitive to what advertisers communicate; it inevitably impacts how they package the information that gets transmitted through mass media channels.

In the field of mass communication, persuasion is not necessarily evil by itself. It is simply a way to produce a change in the audience, such as leading individuals to change or modify their opinion. This can also be used for good, such as persuading people to be better neighbors. In her book Persuasion (1981), an important work in the field of communications, leadership expert Kathleen K. Reardon explained that it is not possible to be successful at persuasion, without first understanding the values and beliefs of the individuals one wants to convince. In this sense, then, a presented proposal succeeds only when the message sender persuades the receiver to accept the message. Persuasion will only occur, however, if the sender and the receiver share dialectic and cognitive components—that is, if both are on the same "wavelength," culturally and in thought. Moreover—and this is important—the message receiver, or audience, must be open to be persuaded. As ancient rhetoricians taught, persuasion takes place when the audience is moved by the emotions in the discourse.

Persuasion is a fundamental process of communication, because most communication actions have some sort of persuasion as their final goal. It may be persuading one individual or a full auditorium, it all boils down to the fact that, to do it successfully, it is necessary to know the public to be persuaded.

Philosophers Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrecths-Tyteca, authors of the seminal work The Framework of Rhetorical Argumentation (1958), posited that conviction is different from persuasion. When arguing with oneself, conviction is a judgement grounded in objectivity and reason. If a person's judgement is grounded in emotions, it is persuasion. They suggested that values have a double sense: Propaganda—biased information meant to promote a specific view—is spread through persuasion; it invites a person to adopt the values and views propagated by campaigns. The weight of values is strongest when shared by large numbers of people, according to many scholars. However, media messages contain a variety of meanings, because individuals value and interpret things differently. The experiences of every individual play a role in the process, as well as his or her class, age, gender, interests and so on.

Accordingly, if an individual accepts the messages contained in televised spots, he or she accepts the content of the messages, which may confirm his or her values; the person then shares the message with others. This sharing process strengthens the message by spreading it. If, however, the person rejects the content of the spot, these are not disseminated. Therefore, marketers and advertisers are impelled to construct messages taking into consideration the values of the audience.

Some media scholars explain that the audience may accept the values proposed in the message and construct new ones and/or interpret them subjectively, that is, interpreting them in their own way. This process is called "value judgement." Value judgements are subjective feelings on the rightness or wrongness of something, transformed into a value or idea. Technically speaking, a value judgement is made upon a verifiable fact; however, it also tends to reach an expedient, non-objective conclusion that lacks the deep deliberation and evidence-based thought required for a well-grounded conviction. Groups that want to persuade audiences tend to favor strategies that will incite value judgements, because they will have a persuasive effect without encouraging serious thought and analysis.

Of course, messages targeted to smaller numbers of people could be more detailed and efficient but, usually, campaigns—commercial or political—must convince massive numbers of people. Therefore, they must rely on a sense of shared values, even though audiences are made of a vast array of subjectivities, that is, many different mindsets. One of the most efficient ways of doing this is to appeal to emotions rather than the intellect. As some have facetiously stated, there is a reason why images of babies and kittens are so popular in mass campaigns; humans are inherently geared toward letting their guard down and empathizing with such images. Consensus is achieved faster with emotions than with arguments, and advertisers strive to find those values and images that will better transmit their message and have the desired persuasive effect. Ethical problems arise, however, when the final goal of such messages is harmful, as in promoting an "us against them" reaction among the citizenry. That is why in most nations, government and citizen organizations exist to monitor how mass media targets and promotes their advertising spots.

Further Insights

When it comes to mass media messages, advertising firms have engaged in much research and learned that ambiguous or unclear messages prove less persuasive than messages that are clear and well-organized. When it comes to advertising and propaganda, people prefer messages that are easier to process. Television and other mass media are not systems that, in general, encourage much deliberation. One of the main objectives of advertising is to create messages that generate, in a very short span of time, the most approval among the audience for its brand, product, service, political party, or issue.

The ability to persuade depends on how the receiver interprets and processes the information received. Much research has been done to figure out the best ways to achieve this, especially in the late twentieth century, and many different theoretical models have resulted from it. One of the most important addresses the changing nature of audiences. In 1985, marketing experts Marian Friestad and Peter Wright created the Persuasion Knowledge model, in which they posit that one of consumers' main tasks is to interpret and deal with advertising. This generates a certain amount of friction so that, over time, consumers develop personal knowledge about the persuasion tactics used by marketers, a knowledge that they continue to develop throughout their lifespan; the knowledge gained then influences their response to advertising. It is also contingent on time and culture, that is, it changes with time, from one generation to another, and across cultures. People learn through their family and social circles and from personal experiences. As a consequence of this phenomenon, advertising becomes less effective in persuading people and must constantly adapt to the new audience dynamics.

The Elaboration Likelihood model, developed by Richard E. Petty and John Cacioppo in 1979, explains that when it comes to mass-mediated persuasion, people are most influenced by peripheral cues in the message; peripheral cues are any information or variable that may affect persuasion by leading to simple decisions, without any scrutiny of the details or merits of the topic. Messages that take central routes must pass through thought filters that lead to careful deliberation and thought, something that most advertising will try to avoid. Information that passes a peripheral route or shortcut, leads a person to make a simple positive or negative interpretation about a product or idea. Moreover, the likelihood of deliberate thought—or elaboration—is contingent on a person's ability and interest in evaluating the message.

Moreover, Petty and Cacioppo also discovered that when a person is forewarned of the content of the message and its intent to persuade them, they will resist and counterargue with greater intensity than when they are unaware of the intent to persuade. In other words, when individuals are aware that they are trying to be persuaded or convinced of something, they tend to resist. People, in general, fear the loss of autonomy and consequently do not want to be an object of manipulation.

In 1994, Friestad and Wright expanded upon their original model and the Persuasion Knowledge model, finding that consumers cope with advertising's persuasive attempts by responding adaptively. They argued that consumers use persuasion knowledge, in combination with other forms of knowledge—topic knowledge and knowledge about the company or entity attempting to persuade, to protect themselves from coming under undue influence by advertisers. A paradox faced by entities striving to be open about a persuasive effort is that, according to some studies, when message receivers perceive that the sender intends to persuade them, they tend to see the sender as less credible; this is especially the case when the message is an advertising spot. Some ways of counteracting this effect include framing the message so that it is not perceived as an advertising spot. Based on some studies, it seems that when the message comes from a credible source and is high on ambiguity—that is, it leaves much open to thought and consideration to the audience—the resistance to the message is defused.

An important issue in the field of persuasion in advertising is credibility. Consensus exists among researchers that credibility—the ability to appear authentic and trustworthy—plays a fundamental role in the effectiveness of the persuasive effort. The huge social and monetary value of credibility is the reason why a brand's image is of such importance to firms, that they go to great lengths to link them with sets of desired values in the mind of the public. Prominent examples of international brands closely associated with particular values are Coca-Cola and Apple. According to audience studies, then, the difficulties of acting openly without losing credibility among the audience might be solved by presenting a message high in ambiguity—offering information rather than offering "the answer" or else framing it as a learning opportunity—and being open about the intent to persuade.

Issues

While marketers strive to make their messages more persuasive, consumer affairs researchers are concerned with ethics in the media industries and protecting consumers' interests. In consequence, consumer affairs organizations believe that audience skepticism is good, since it incentivizes marketers to ensure that the information they disseminate is not deceptive. The work of watchdog organizations has led to legislation by which firms must provide consumer warnings and other accurate information on their ads and labels.

One of the most contentious issues for debate in ethics and advertising has been subliminal messaging, that is, messages laden with signals purposefully designed to pass below the normal fields of perception. These messages will be cognitively yet unconsciously captured by the brain, leading to an influence unmediated by conscious thought. Among these are advertising spots that play messages at decibels not perceived consciously or signs flashed across a screen for less than a second. Such messages may be captured or read, yet not consciously processed.

Subliminal advertising is based on the idea of subliminal perception, an element in unconscious cognition processes. Subliminal perception has a practical function; it allows individuals to concentrate and focus on a few tasks by shutting out hundreds of distracting stimuli. As such, one can be in a crowded and noisy street or workplace, blocking out all unnecessary sounds and signals in order to concentrate on a few necessary tasks. Much research has been done on how much of such "under the radar" signals can be perceived by unconscious cognition, and part of the research pertains to subliminal persuasion in advertising. The topic has generated much debate; some scholars argue that many studies show that subliminal messages are capable of guiding actions among recipients without their being aware of perceiving them. Others have argued the opposite, that studies have not been able to prove anything conclusively.

The issue was famously addressed by the books The Hidden Persuaders (1957) by Vance Packard and The Subliminal Seduction (1973) by Wilson Bryan Key. Packard would later admit to using fabricated case studies in his book. These works generated great public trepidation, to the extent that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) declared subliminal advertising adverse to public interest given that it involves intentional deception. In most of its forms, subliminal advertising is illegal to date.

The jury is still out on its real effects; some scientists argue that only the simpler elements of subliminal signals are perceived and, as is the case in most persuasive effects, they cannot prompt individuals to act if they are not originally disposed toward the message. In short, research up to now does not support that subliminal messages are inordinately powerful.

Some single cases have been brought, such as during the 2000 U.S. presidential election in which Democrats accused the GOP of using a television ad campaign that briefly flashed the word "Rats" immediately after "Democrats." The FCC intervened although the case was never clarified. It was notorious enough that it probably discouraged further attempts. In the United States, the FCC is the organization charged with regulating and inspecting possible violations by the advertising industry, including the timing of ad spots, ethics violations, and deceptive practices.

Bibliography

Armstrong, J. (2014). Persuasive advertising: Evidence-based principles. New York: Palgrave.

Beard, F. (2017). Comparative advertising: History, theory and practice. Lanham, MD: Lexington.

Cramphorn, S. (2014). The quest for persuasive advertising. International Journal of Market Research, 56(5), 571–590. doi:10.2501/IJMR-2014–040

Harbor, C. (2017). "At the desire of several persons of quality and lovers of Musick": Pervasive and persuasive advertising for public commercial concerts in London 1672–1749. Journal of Marketing Management, 33(13/14), 1170–1203. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2017.1380687

Jiang, B., & Srinivasan, K. (2016). Pricing and persuasive advertising in a differentiated market. Marketing Letters, 27(3), 579–588. doi:10.1007/s11002–015–9370–1

Larson, C. U. (2012). Persuasion: Reception and responsibility. Boston: Cengage.

Michalik, U., & Michalska-Suchanek, M. (2016). The persuasive function of rhetoric in advertising. Journal of Accounting & Management, 6(1), 45–58.

Mohr, S. & Kuhl, R. (2021). Exploring persuasive knowledge in food advertising: An empirical analysis. SN Business & Economics, 107, doi:10.1007/s43546-021-00108-y

Sá, N. (2015). Market concentration and persuasive advertising: A theoretical approach. Journal of Economics, 114(2), 127–151. doi:10.1007/s00712–013–0387–8

Stiff, J. M., & Mongeau, P. A. (2016). Persuasive communication. New York: Guilford Press.