Advertising-consumer interaction — common mistakes

When analysing an advertisement in an exam, identify specific features and classify them as attempts to capture attention via bottom-up (e.g., 'the use of a vibrant red colour') or top-down (e.g., 'targeting parents by showing a child's safety feature') processing.

For a 'design a study' question, you could propose an experiment testing the effectiveness of an advert using central route cues versus one using peripheral route cues on a specific target audience's attitude towards a product.

While the concept is popular, there is very little scientific evidence to support the effectiveness of truly subliminal advertising (messages presented below the threshold of conscious awareness) in real-world settings. Most research, and the focus of the 9990 syllabus, is on supraliminal (consciously perceivable) persuasion techniques, such as those described in the Elaboration Likelihood Model, which are far more powerful and commonly used.

Not necessarily. While it may create a negative attitude towards the advert itself, the primary goal might simply be to increase brand awareness. According to the mere-exposure effect, repeated exposure to a stimulus (even an annoying one) can increase familiarity and subsequent liking for the brand. The annoyance might be a bottom-up technique to ensure the brand name is remembered, even if the advert itself is disliked.

This is a common misconception. The effectiveness of an advert is highly dependent on the audience. The Elaboration Likelihood Model shows that an advert full of facts and statistics (central route) will be ineffective for a consumer who is not motivated or able to process them. Conversely, a celebrity endorsement (peripheral route) may have little impact on a highly knowledgeable and motivated consumer who is looking for substantive information. Effective advertising is about matching the message and route to the target audience.