Lesson 1

What we will be studying in this course

The same neural knowledge that made the cover of Time this week

Addiction is neurological

Addiction

Habitual Purchase/behaviour

Awareness

Considered Purchase/ behaviour

Here is a list of addictions

Addiction

Habitual Purchase/behaviour

Awareness

What you will learn:

• How human memory works• How emotions influence advertising

effectiveness• How emotions influence brand-loyalty (addiction)• That these can be measured• The biggest paradigm shift since it was realised

that the earth is not the centre of the universe:

– Emotions determine rationality

The biggest paradigm shift since it was realised that the earth is

not centre of universe:

Emotions determine rationality

Paradigm:Your view of the world

Paradigm Shift:

When everybody’s view of the world shifts

E.g.:1. The world is round not flat,2. The earth revolves around the sun, not the sun around the world3. Etc.

The paradigm shift about emotions (happening now):

Old Paradigm:Emotions interfere with Rationality

New Paradigm:Emotions cause Rationality

You are rational BECAUSE you are emotional

The Old Paradigm:

• D’escarte (1596-1650): I think therefore I am.

• Freud: Phobias and sub-conscious

• The Hidden Persuaders

• Left Brain – Right Brain theories

• Herbert Krugman (1960’s)

• Probably Robert Heath and Hidden Effect of Advertising

Emotional versus Rational Consumer Decisions:

ImportantInfrequent

UnimportantHabitual

Emotional

Rational

NO!

BankCarHouse

CigarettesCold Drink

Your Perception is Your Reality

• Different people have a different perception of the same reality

• Example: Zidane’s head-butt outrage at the 2006 FIFA Soccer World Cup as seen in different parts of the world:

Perception = Reality

French soccer player Zinedine Zidane head-butts Italy’s Marco

Materazzi during the 2006 World Cup final

• Germany

• America

• Italy• France

• Media

EMOTION = Perception = Reality

Emotions determine ‘How you think about it’,Not the other way around!

Perception = Reality

We will be studying MEMORY

People most concerned with the study of memory are COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY

Objective:How to memorise (learn) better,

How to teach better.

What is the best way to memorise for an exam?

Review the notes:On day of lecture,

1 day later2 days later4 days later8 days later

….

Review means ‘just read through and think’, don’t memorise

04-Sep 06-Sep 11-Sep 13-Sep 18-Sep 20-Sep 25-Sep 27-Sep04-Sep tue rev05-Sep wed rev06-Sep thu rev07-Sep fri rev rev08-Sep sat09-Sep sun10-Sep mon rev rev11-Sep tue rev12-Sep wed rev rev13-Sep thu rev14-Sep fri rev rev15-Sep sat16-Sep sun17-Sep mon rev rev rev rev18-Sep tue rev19-Sep wed rev rev20-Sep thu rev21-Sep fri rev rev22-Sep sat23-Sep sun24-Sep mon rev rev rev rev25-Sep tue rev rev26-Sep wed rev rev rev27-Sep thu rev28-Sep fri rev rev29-Sep sat30-Sep sun

Prof. Bahrick,OhioP99

Benefit

• If you just review you will find some slides that you do not understand.

• E-Mail me.

• I will review those slides in the next class.

Course Program4 sep. tue

1

13 sep thur

4 The human brain: attention, emotion, memory. What is emotion? Freud and others. Moods vs. emotion. How we see without seeing. Emotion in advertising.

1.Introduction, what the course is about, etc. Basically three hours discussing the core of the remaining 7 lectures.

11sep tue

3 1.The human brain – how it remembers (learning), how it interprets, classification (cluster analysis of the brain), what is recognition, Where is the memory of advertising and the brand?,

6 sep thur

2 1.The advertising system (marketer, agency, media agency, media, research company, depts. in each, finances of each, what is brand equity, how each makes money, etc.)

20sep thur

6 NERS – how emotion impacts on brands, measuring brand emotion. (Fleming Hansen)

25 sep tue

7 Advertising Emotion, what is emotion, relationship with brand emotion? Brand equity,

27sep thur

8 Media Planning. Basics, GRP=Reach X Frequency, Venn diagrams for media plans, the response curve, the current debate, my view. Need to be based on impact ability of ad, measurement of ads (LINK) and ATP. Review and Exam questions.

18sep tue

5 1.Elements of marketing/advertising strategy (who, what where, when – Fishbein – economic value – cascading objectives – bottom-up-marketing – integrated marketing – points of contact) MB Brandz- for Denmark.

My Way of Teaching:• 2 Books:• Reading:

– Journal of Advertising Research March 2006• Good synopsis of Advertised mind• 19 references to AM – relevance to today’s thinking

– TIME: Addiction• I will be working to my own schedule, not the

sequence of the books• I do not require pre-reading, but suggest post-

reading as per the schedule I showed you• .PPT slides will be on website evening before

class, use these to make notes on• There will be smoke-breaks• Ask questions as we go, I might decline to answer

Assignments and exam

Now: What we will be talking about the next 7 lessons

Everything is integrated,

Understanding only a few pieces of the puzzle is not good enough!

Understanding how it all fits together is the most important outcome of this course

It is all integrated and interdependent

• Brand• Marketing and business• Profits• Advertising• Consumer• The consumers brain• The consumers memories• Media Planning• Account Planning• Creativity• Emotions• Sales• Production, Human Resources, Etc.• Society• Culture• Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Question I had to face:How do I teach you the things I feel I am expert on,

And make you understand how they are interrelated?

And, since a Business School is about practical things, how do I make it practical to you?

My Approach:Tell it like a story, my story.The practical questions I had to face and answer.How I answered them.How I learned

This I do in Lesson 1, and why Lesson 1 is important.At the end of the series of lectures return to this lecture.

The Road I walked:

• Everything in this series of lectures relate to this,• Brief summary:

– Information Manager at SFW,– Brand Manager at SFW,– Media Director BBDO,– Research Director BBDO,– Set up Impact Information – research company– Sold to Millward Brown

• For each of these jobs there are different questions you ask!!!

Never done any media planning,Spirits not advertised on TV

As Media Director BBDO• 1st or 2nd largest media spender in SA,• Media Director ‘sells’ client how he should invest

his millions,• Just like an ‘agent’ – will come back to this,• Analyse a lot of numbers,• Make recommendations,• Say ‘In my Experience …’• What is ‘experience’?

– Well all the clients I recommended this to bought it,– So it must work.

• No feedback!!!

At that time (1970’s)Response Curve

Effect

Frequency of Exposure

Effect

Frequency of Exposure

Effect

Frequency of Exposure

Effect

Frequency of Exposure3+

To ‘sell’ my proposed media schedule I said:

“American Research Says that …”

Which is what all the USA agencies were saying!

What happened?

• Everybody bought what I proposed.• 28 years old, no media experience,• Never any feedback on whether it worked

or not,• But,

– If this is what the Americans say, how can it be wrong?

– It is called ‘EFFECTIVE FREQUENCY’ what a beautiful term to brand an idea with?

What does 3+ frequency say?

• Irrespective of whether a 3 minute or 10 second?

• Irrespective of creativity?

• Irrespective of new brand or old?

• Irrespective of Communication Objectives?

• Etc.

• All advertisements work on 3 plus?

3+ was changed to :“inside shopping cycle”

• Matches?• Cigarettes?• Motor cars?• House?• Job?• Canned food?• Take Away?

• Well, we just looked at the budget and tried to work out how many 3+ exposures we can get you over the year.

So I started my own research company:

Impact Information

We needed a basic product to differentiate us:

ADTRACK

The ADTRACK thinking:

• How do we develop a product every marketer should need?

• How do we minimize cost?• Obvious ‘idea’ was:

– Feedback on media scheduling, all ads– I.e. omnibus: sell results off the shelve.

• ADTRACK:– All TV ads (we had copies week after launch)– Phone two hundred people every week, ask:

• Have you seen an advertisement for …• Describe it …

We had space in questionnaire:

• What else can we ask?• Message?• Liking?

– Clients of agency say: “I allways liked that ad?”– When new ad proposed say: “Our Job is not to

entertain, but to sell”– They ‘bought’ the agency based on what ads they

liked….?

• So we asked:– (If verified) “How much do you like the ad in terms of

points out of 10?”

Census (i.e. all TV ads in the country)

• All ads measured at same time in life (about 2-3 weeks after first appearance)

• Current database about 40 000 ads!!• By far the largest in the world

– No biases (e.g. client or subscriber specific)

For every one of these 40 000 ads Since 1986 we knew:

• How many people thought they saw it.• How many could describe it. (RECALL)• The length (sec.s) of the ad.• How much media pressure (TVRs) it had

before we measured it.• How much people liked it (out of 10)• What it looked like (we had a hard-copy)• By demographic

From early days we knew:

• Longer ads are better recalled than shorter ads, but not linear,

• The more media pressure before we measure recall the better the recall, not linear,

• Younger people remember the ads better than older people (contrary to viewing habits)

• The more the ad is liked the better the recall.

Best Predictor of Recall is Ad-liking

Liking

Recall

Liking

NumberOfads

The ‘average’ Adtrack RECALL at that stage was about 20%!!

• This was very unpopular among agencies and even clients that believed it should be closer to 100%,

• Unilever took an ad that had about 4% recall and tested it with a competitive research company (showing the non-branded ad) and came back with 80% RECOGNITION,

• The competitor worked up a paper for a local conference on why ‘Recognition’ is appropriate for TV advertising, not Recall (brain hemispheric theories and Krugman)

The essence of his argument was:

The essence of my argument was:

1. Kruggman: Brain Hemispheric Theories2. TV should be measured by Recognition3. Print should be measured by Recall

1. There is only one memory of an ad,2. Recognition and Recall are just two different measures of the same memory,3. You will always get higher results from Recognition

See JAResearch March 2006 for how this argument is still discussed

This started my interest how the brain (memory) works,

what is known by the disciplines outside of advertising research

etc.

I.e. why I am here talking to you

Lets do a history review of copy testing

The word ‘copy-testing’ is often used from the days when there was only print advertising and the ‘copy’ was tested.

These days the word ‘pre-testing’ is an equivalent – i.e. what does the ad say (do) to you?

Lets be realistic: what questions can you ask about an advertisement?

• Do you remember it?• Do you remember what Brand it is for?• What does it tell you about the brand?

– That you knew – reinforce– That you did not know

• Will this change what you think of the brand?• Will it make you buy the brand (if you did not do

so before)?• Will it make you buy more of the brand? (If you

used to buy it)

How do we test this?

• I show you the ad and ask you the questions while you look at it.

• I show it briefly and then ask you the questions.

• I ask whether you have seen it before, then ask the questions.

What Happened in real life?

• Starch (1932)– Showed people the ad and asked whether

they ‘Recognise’ it,

• Gallup– Asked them simply whether they ‘Recalled’

seeing it.

• The argument about RECALL versus RECOGNITION became the issue!!!

• Has the issue died?: JAR March 2006

P. 166 in ADV Mind

Then came Pre-Testingusing Recall, because one cannot use recognition of something that has not

appeared.

• We show them a ‘show-reel’ of several ads and afterwards ask them to mention the names of the ads they saw.

• The justification being that this simulates an ad-break on TV, and represents reality.

• Since there is a primacy/recency effect we got more sophisticated and started to rotate the ad in the material.

• Based on this we assume we can predict the ‘penetrative power’ of the ad.

Our experience with Palmolive

• In SA Palmolive was positioned as a family soap, with two kids in a bath, etc.

• Lux was positioned as the ‘beauty soap’ using movie stars.• Palmolive decided to out-sex Lux.• Wanted to use a TV ad produced in South America showing

a very sexy lady prancing in the sea foam. (which turns into soap foam and was what made her so sexy).

• We were asked to do a pre-test. Which was supervised by Palmolive management in USA, and local and the advertising agency.

• This test included everything and the kitchen sink.• Based on the show-reel recognition results we (me)

concluded that this ad will have no penetration problems!!

Client also bought the ADTRACK tracking results!

• After launch we measured about 2% of people recalling the new palmolive ad,

• We asked them to increase the ad-pressure (GRPs), they did and still only 3% of people recalled the ad,

• We asked them to increase the branding, which they did and now only 4% recalled the ad

• This is when they asked me to explain why I said, based on the pre-test show-reel, there will not be a penetration problem, and now I am the company saying there is a big problem

• They actually asked me for a credit on either the pre-test or the Adtrack.

We were the only company (in the world) that had consistent post-measure of ad-

penetration (ADTRACK) for every ad we ever pre-tested (using show-reels and recall)

• I did an analysis of all the pre-tests we did compared to the Adtrack results,

• In about 50% of the cases we were right,• In about 50% of the cases we were wrong.• Client might as well have flipped a coin!!!• What to do?:

– We are the only one that does post-tracking,– So stop doing pre-testing!!!– We will then always be able to criticise them (at least

50% of the times)

What we also learned from ADTRACK:

• The length of ads had an effect on ‘in-market recall’,

• The amount of media pressure (GRPs) had an effect on ‘in market recall’,

• The variable in our data base that had, by far, the most effect on ‘in market recall’ was the extent that people liked the ad.

Just before this the (American Advertising Research Foundation)

ARF Copy Research Validation Study (CRVS)

results were published!

Serendipity??

I am now stepping outside the Impact (South Africa) story to what

has happened in the USA.

• The Best Reference for this is Alexander Biels paper:

‘Love the ad, buy the Product’ in ADMAP Sept 1990.

Copy Testing in the USA:

• Recall: Starch

• Recognition: Gallup

• Motivation: Scwerin

• Biel: “And since then the debate never stopped”

Every company claimed that their test was ‘best’

• The definition of best being ‘predictive’,

• ‘Predictive’ of what? Success? How measured?

• No feedback to evaluate against.

• Most influential papers were:– Larry Gibson: “Not Recall !!!”

Wrote me that I insulted him in my book – p166

Advertisers asked ARF:Put an end to this confusion!

Reputable company discrediting each other!

What works?

The ARF CRVP.Copy Research Validation Project!

Alan Baldinger• Industry organised. All research companies and clients• 8 advertisers gave two ads each: one that was a demonstrable

success and one that was demonstrable failure• A full copy test using all available ‘test measures’ was done (Recall,

Recognition, attitude to brand, etc..)• According to Baldinger: “at the very end someone suggested we ask

whether people like the ad.”• Outcome:

– All the standard used copy test measures were predictive of success Ii.e. differentiated between bad and good ads)

– But the most predictive of success was whether people ‘liked’ the ad.

• Very unpopular result since no research company was using ‘liking’ as an ad-measure.

• (Except Impact in South Africa over a massive data base – a census of ads, not a sample)

Reaction to CRVP:

• Every reputale research company that had a pre-testing product published papers in JAR saying that there is no evidence in their data base that supports the ARFs industry project.

• Alexander Biel published paper “Love the ad, Buy the Product” in ADMAP.

Lets take another ‘step back’

• In 1960’s and 70’s it was big thing for Psychologists to develop ‘batteries of questions that classify people.

• Advertising Researchers also developed such ‘profiling ‘ questions. This was known as Viewer Response Profiles.

• I.e a battery of questions that can be used to classify what people into what they think of think of an advertisement.

A VRP:

• Basically the research steps were:• Record what people say spontaneously,• Reduce this to a number of metric

questions,• Measure many people rating the subjects

(ads),• Factor analyse the results• Reduce this to a battery of statements on

which people express their opinions

7 of the published was reviewed by Alexander Biel in …

Basic Conclusion was that all came up with very similar

dimensions.

The Viewer Response Profile Developed by Prof. Schlinger

7 Dimensions

P. 149 adv. mind

7 dimensions

• Entertainment

• Empathy

• Relevant News

• Brand Reinforcement

• Familiarity

• Confusion

• Irritation

ENTERTAINMENT1. The commercial was lots of fun to watch and listen to.2. I thought it was clever and quite entertaining.3. The enthusiasm of the commercial is catching - it picks you up.4. The commercial wasn't just selling the product - it was also

entertaining me. I appreciated that.5. The characters (persons) in the commercial capture your attention.6. It's the kind of commercial that keeps running through your mind after you've

seen it.7. I just laughed at it - I thought it was very funny.

CONFUSION8. It was distracting - trying to watch and listen at the same time.9. It required a lot of effort to follow the commercial.10. It was too complex. I was not sure what was going on.11. I was so busy watching the screen, I didn't listen to the words.

RELEVANT NEWS12. The commercial gave me a new idea.13. The commercial reminded me that I'm dissatisfied with the

product I'm using now and I'm looking for something better.14. I learned something from the commercial that I didn't know before.15. The commercial told me about the product and I think I'd

like to try it.16. During the commercial I thought how this product might

be useful to me.

BRAND REINFORCEMENT17. The company is a good company and I wouldn't hesitate

recommending it to others.18. I know that the advertised company is dependable and

reliable.

EMPATHY19. The commercial was very realistic - that is true to life.20. I felt that the commercial was acting out what I feel at times.21. I felt as though I was right there in the commercial experiencing the same thing.22. That's my idea - the kind of life that the commercial showed.23. I liked the commercial because it was personal and intimate.

FAMILIARITY24. This kind of commercial has been done many times before - it's

the same old thing.25. I've seen this commercial so many times - I'm tired of it.26. I think that this is an unusual commercial - I'm not sure I've seen

another one like it.

ALIENATION27. What they showed didn't demonstrate the claims they were trying to make

about the product.28. The commercial didn't have anything to do with me or my needs.29. The commercial did not show me anything that would make me want to use the product.30. The commercial made exaggerated claims. The product would not live up

to what they said or implied.31. It was an unrealistic commercial - very far-fetched.32. The commercial irritated me - it was annoying.

The COMunication MAPModel

Familiarity

Confusion

AlienationEntertainment

Empathy

Relevant News

Brand Reinforcement

LOW LIKING/Low Attention

HIGH LIKING/High Attention

Commap:

• Applicable to any form of communication

• Predicts how much people will like it

• If they like or dislike it they will give attention – memory

• If they dislike it they might distort the message (Emotion->Perception=reality)

• Quantitative measure (I.e. norms)

•Emotion in Advertising II (JAR March 2006)•What Do Consumers Do Emotionally with Advertising?•Subaru: The Emotional Myths Behind the Brand’s Growth•How to Capture the Heart? Reviewing 20 Years of Emotion Measurement

in Advertising•Measuring Emotion – Lovemarks, The future Beyond Brands•Reconsidering Recall and Emotion in Advertising•Memory Change: An Intimate Measure of Persuasion•Effects of Advertising Likeability: A 10-Year Perspective•Persuasive Talk: Is it What You Say or How You Say It?•Using Viewer Attitudes to Evaluate TV Program Effectiveness•The Demographic and Psychographic Antecedents of Attitude toward Advertising•Celebrity Endorsements in Japan and the United States: Is Negative Information All That Harmful?•The Role of Account Planning in U.S. Agencies•Review of The Advertised Mind: Ground-Breaking Insights into How Our Brains Respond to Advertising•Review of Blink: The Power of Thinking without Thinking and Strangers to Ourselves: Discovering the Adaptive Unconscious

19 references to du Plessis

If there is time left:

• Divide into groups of 10,• Group assignment (10 minutes):

– Devise 3 questions I can ask in the exam that will cover most of what this lecture is about.

– Should need an answer of about 3 written pages.– At the end of 10 minutes one person writes the

questions on the board, and delete the ones that are similar.

– I will select three as potential for exam.

• Objective: Making you work with the material of the lecture.

Homework Reading:• I know I said there will not be pre-reading but…• Read Fleming Hansen's book Chapter X “Measuring

Advertising’s Effectiveness” – P.303 to 344.

• Everybody in the class to give me a piece of paper on Thursday on which one question is asked that proves they have read and understood his pages and my lecture notes and my book.

• Max length of question=1/2 page.• Will be graded:

– 4/10 = Just another boring question,– 7/10 = Good question (but the answer is in the notes and the book)– 10/10 = Excellent, you read and understood the conflicting and

interrelated nature of the approaches.