VISUAL METAPHOR AND CONSUMER RESPONSE - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation
Title:

VISUAL METAPHOR AND CONSUMER RESPONSE

Description:

Title: INTERACTION OF WORD AND IMAGE IN ADVERTISING AND CONSUMER RESPONSE Author: COG Letteren Last modified by: COG Letteren Created Date: 5/25/2005 2:14:59 PM – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:62
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 22
Provided by: COGL
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: VISUAL METAPHOR AND CONSUMER RESPONSE


1
VISUAL METAPHOR AND CONSUMER RESPONSE
  • Margot van Mulken, Rob Le Pair

ICORIA 2006 BATH
2
Metaphor
  • Lakoff Johnson (1980) Understandig one kind of
    thing in terms of another kind of thing

3
(No Transcript)
4
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

5
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

6
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

7
Visual structure
Consumer response
  • No metaphor
  • Juxtaposition
  • Source and target domain are both present,
    presented separately, side-by-side
  • Fusion
  • Target and source domain are combined together
  • Replacement
  • Source domain replaces target domain, the present
    image calls to mind the absent image
  • more complex processing?
  • more appreciation?

C o m p l e x i t y
8
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)

9
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

10
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

11
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

12
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)

13
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)

14
Results (3)
Mean experienced complexity per advertisement (1
very difficult to understand 7 very easy to
understand)
Mean appreciation per advertisement (1 very
low appreciation 7 very high appreciation)
15
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

16
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)

17
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_at_let.ru.nl

18
(No Transcript)
19
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
20
Results Culture
  • Experienced complexity
  • Interaction effect of Nationality and Type of
    metaphor (F (838, 6) 11.36, p lt .001, Wilks
    Lambda .86, ?2 .08)
  • Strong main effect for Type of metaphor (F (3,
    418) 123.09 , p lt .001, Wilks Lambda .53,
    ?2 .47)
  • Appreciation
  • Interaction effect of Nationality and Type of
    metaphor (F (838, 6) 6.99, p lt .001, ?2 .05
  • Strong main effect of Type of metaphor (F (418,
    3) 134.42, plt .001, ?2 .49)

21
Results Gender
  • Experienced complexity
  • Interaction effect of Gender and Type of metaphor
    (F (419, 3) 4.01, p lt .05, Wilks Lambda .98,
    ?2 .03)
  • Strong main effect for Type of metaphor (F (419,
    3) 199.17 , p lt .001, Wilks Lambda .41, ?2
    .59)
  • Appreciation
  • Interaction effect of Gender and Type of metaphor
    (F (419, 3) 13.72, p lt .001, WilksLambda
    .91, ?2 .09
  • Strong main effect of Type of metaphor (F (419,
    3) 186.16, plt .001, ?2 .57) on appreciation.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com