Is sexy advertising impairing your judgement?

Via Retrogasm

"Sex sells" — everyone says it, but do they ever wonder how it really works?

The intuitive consumer assumes that it only works on other people, and that those suckers buy products with sexualized advertising because they have been fooled into thinking those products will make them more sexually appealing to people like the people in the ads.

However, I recently read about some research that got me wondering if the sexy sales approach works on some even deeper, more insidious level.

Social scientists Dan Ariely and George Loewenstein were looking for a reason why people continue to pursue so many dangerous and harmful sexual activities, but found that little research had been conducted on the impact of sexual arousal on judgement. So they did their own.

A group of 35 young adult males were given a survey on "attractiveness of sexual activity, how far a participant would go to receive sexual gratification and probability of sexually risky behaviour" in both an aroused and non-aroused state.

Along with increased predicted enjoyment of sex, Ariely and Loewenstein also find that all responses to morally questionable behavior to acquire increased in the aroused state. When aroused, participants were more likely to take a women to a fancy restaurant, say he loves her when he does not, get his date drunk, keep trying after she says no and use a drug in order to procure sex. 

...

As the responses to the questions showed, a state of arousal decreases safety and morals. Interestingly, the third group of participants that completed the questionnaire three times (non-aroused, aroused, non-aroused) didn’t change their responses in the second non-aroused state. It appears people have limited knowledge of their own arousal decisions and are unable to predict how much arousal will impact them.

This finding is scary in itself, when you consider how much work goes into sex education and sexual assault prevention. But, of course, instinct does not excuse taking an action that you know is wrong. But knowing your judgement is decreased by arousal, just as with alcohol, might lead you to put more self-consciousness into your choices.

Let's look at the idea of impaired judgement on other fronts, however. "Stupid things I bought while drunk" is a common online topic. We've probably all done it. But if alcoholically impaired judgement has side-effects that are non-instinctive (unlike the Four Fs, shopping is not an evolved trait) could sexually impaired judgement also work for marketing?

"You fell in love with that girl at the Fotomat, you bought forty dollars worth of fuckin' film, 
and you never even talked to her. You don't even own a camera."

Of course it could. On men, anyway. As Men's Health puts it:

You act like a goof with the Hooters waitress, leaving a tip that doubles the bar bill. But why? Beautiful women cause a man's limbic system (the amygdala and other brain-stem structures, which are in charge of emotion) to fire up at the same time that his PFC checks out, leaving the judgment area vacant. Las Vegas casinos hire beautiful cocktail waitresses, dress them in low-cut tops and miniskirts, and have them pass out free alcohol—all of which encourages men's self-control to take the day trip to Hoover Dam. No wonder the house has the edge.

Which is why Hooters exists in the first place. And "booth babes" at conventions. And American Apparel.

Could there be much more to the use of erotica in ads than the obvious "Sex! Now that we have your attention..."? Arousal inhibits judgement. Which makes everything an easier sell. But the sex appeal of advertising seems to require that the heat be turned up constantly to break through and get noticed.

The result is a world of male consumers drunk on their own hormones, and a world of women made to feel that they have to compete for attention with these imaginary sexual displays. (Interestingly, ads for women rarely feature sexualized men, but ads for gay men do.)

We could do better than this, as an industry, if we just decided that sexual exploitation of people on both sides of the ad was wrong — or just unimaginative. But would any marketer be willing to give up such a powerful tool for mind control?

What does "premium" junk food really mean?

Burger King's "premium".

Last week, I saw an interesting post on Burger Business, a fast food industry blog about how the word "premium" has become a popular adjective for burger chains:

According to data compiled for BurgerBusiness.com by Mintel, its use on menus has doubled since 2007 (and this is even before Burger King’s new items), and not just at quick-service restaurants. In an economy where consumers are looking for top value without necessarily paying more for it, “premium” connotes high quality or high price without committing to being either. “Premium” sounds upscale, special, with a sophistication that “deluxe” lacks.

McDonald's "premium" line (from their online menu)

But what exactly does "premium" mean, in the realm of junk food?

The Oxford American English Dictionary defines the adjective as "relating to or denoting a commodity or product of superior quality and therefore a higher price."

Wendy's

The problem, of course, is that "premium" is not part of the USDA's grading standard. It's an entirely relative term. If the fast food chains are being honest, it could imply that the meat is better than what they were giving you before.

But this is marketing. What they really want to imply is "better than the other guy's."

KFC Canada: "The premium chicken breast is marinated in our hot & spicy seasoning
 for full flavor, then double breaded by hand for extra crunch."

It's total bullshit, of course. The word is absolutely meaningless in any real sense of food quality. But as a marketing term, it works. Hard.

From another Burger Business post:

Speaking at last week’s 2012 Protein Innovation Summit hosted by Meatingplace magazine, Technomic Executive Vice President Darren Tristano presented data on consumer attitudes to beef quality (not just burgers). According to Technomic’s 2011 Center of the Plate Beef & Pork Consumer Trend Report, 28% of diners say the amorphous descriptor “premium” would make them more willing to pay up to 5% more for beef at a restaurant or supermarket. Another 11% say that seeing that word would make them willing to pay more than 5% more. 

Technomic’s findings come as many of the growing “better burger” chains strive to set themselves apart by promoting the high quality of the beef they use. Elevation Burger, for example, touts its use of “100% organic, grass-fed, free-range beef.” The Cheeburger Cheeburger chain adopted all-natural, additive-free Angus beef. Farm Burger in the Atlanta area proudly serves grass-fed beef free of antibiotics and hormones. These terms signal quality, certainly, but consumers like “premium” even better.

There's even a chart:

Source: Technomic Center of the Plate Beef & Pork Consumer Trend Report

Note that the three descriptors below "premium" are specific and falsifiable. But people are much more likely to pay "slightly more" (and almost as likely to pay ("significantly more") for an adjective that costs the fast food chains absolutely nothing.

Here's how those same consumers describe their expectations of what "premium" beef implies:

Note that the top two responses have nothing to do with the way the meat was raised or processed, but only the cut and breed. Specifics about hormones and antibiotics don't even make the chart.

If the chains were to move towards hormone- and antibiotic-free meats, they'd greatly increase their costs. If you were them, after attending this "Protein Innovation Summit," which way would you go? (Burger business recommends "premium, 100% Angus sirloin."

Carl's Junior franchisee site

Which leads me to the conclusion that the problems with the industrial meat system will be with us until consumers are better educated.

Brand Flakes

(With apologies to Brand Flakes for Breakfast)

The Consumerist today reported on a study from the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School for Communication that simply validated every parent's fears: that kids are total suckers for branding.

The study itself is actually four years old, but I'm pretty sure little has changed:

Children who saw a popular media character on the box reported liking the cereal more (mean [SD], 4.70 [0.86]) than those who viewed a box with no character on it (4.16 [1.24]). Those who were told the cereal was named Healthy Bits liked the taste more (mean [SD], 4.65 [0.84]) than children who were told it was named Sugar Bits (4.22 [1.27]). Character presence was particularly influential on taste assessments for participants who were told the cereal was named Sugar Bits.

In other words Tony the Tiger, Toucan Sam, the Trix Rabbit, and all those other imaginary dudes have more influence over your children's dietary preferences than you do, and you were right to try to fool them into eating healthier food.

Parents, schmarents! Let's set sail for tooth decay and obesity, kids!

Of course, it's not only kids who are the brand victims. We all are. That's why only Coke will ever taste like Coke, even if the secret recipe is out. Or why trying to clone your favourite fast foods at home is pointless. (And kind of weird.) Our world is the world as we perceive it, and brands often guide our lazy perceptions by providing a short-cut to memory, emotion and experience.

That's the reason competitors to top brands use the blind taste test. You have to block the branding if you want a more accurate comparison. But you'll still have to battle for mindshare on the supermarket aisle.

If this makes you want to admit defeat as a parent, don't.

I have a six-year-old who consistently tells me that McDonald's burgers are better than my naturally-raised, local, aged patties cooked over charcoal. He prefers Kraft Dinner to homemade Mac and Cheese. And he'd rather eat candy than fruit. But that doesn't mean he gets to eat whatever he wants. Those things are given sparingly, as treats, while we keep putting healthy meals in front of him. He eats real food, and quite often enjoys it, even as he pines for the branded foods he sees on TV. But YMMV.

Branding's Bad Side

.
[After today's post, Change Marketing will take a short March Break. I'll be back next week.]



Just over three years ago, R.J. Reynolds decided it needed to capture a greater share of the young, fashionable and female smoking public. After all, if up-trending rates of lung cancer among American women are anything to go by, it's a growing market.

And thus Camel No.9 was born: A sleek, pink, and pretty cigarette brand that sold itself in fashion magazines. Cool, eh?

However, people noticed something funny about this brand. Why were they marketing their smokes using teeny-bopper giveaways like glitter stickers and cell phone accessories? And what kind of adult is this promotion aimed at?


(via Sociological Images)

Well, a recent study by Moores Cancer Center at the University of California, San Diego has the answer. They conducted five phone interviews about cigarette awareness and use between 2003 and 2008 with 1,036 males and females who were 10 to 13 years old.

One interesting finding was that youth who had never smoked before, but who named a favorite cigarette ad at the beginning of the study, were 50% more likely to start smoking later on.

That makes the other major finding all the more distressing:

"The number of boys with a favorite ad was stable across all five surveys. For girls, however, it was stable across the first four surveys, but by the fifth survey, which took place after the start of the Camel No. 9 campaign, the proportion of girls who reported a favorite ad jumped by 10 percentage points, to 44 percent. The Camel brand accounted almost entirely for this increase."

Study lead John P. Pierce, PhD, professor of Family and Preventive Medicine and director of the Cancer Center’s Cancer Prevention and Control Program, commented: “This national study demonstrated that the Camel No. 9 campaign had a huge impact on young adolescent girls across the country, effectively encouraging them to smoke.”

He also points out that the results go against the Tobacco Industry's agreement with U.S. State Attorneys General not to target adolescents with advertising.

What do you think? Can R.J. Reynolds actually plead ignorance on this one, and claim that they weren't targeting teenage girls?



Bling it on, indeed.

Rethinking shame

I just caught up with an article from last week's Advertising Age that is kind of a big deal for social marketers.

It previews a study by Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management on the use of shaming in anti-binge-drinking ads — with specific reference to a prom night campaign initiated by the LCBO:



Copy: “Your prom should be memorable – for all the right reasons. You know you don’t need to drink to have fun. Plan ahead and make smart choices. Don’t let drinking flush your prom night down the drain.”

The study interviewed 1,200 undergraduate students at Northwestern, and concluded that the attempt to shame students straight had ironic psychological consequences:

"Viewers already feeling some level of guilt or shame instinctively resist messages that rely on those emotions, and in some cases are more likely to participate in the behavior they're being warned about."

Seems counterintruitive, doesn't it? But it seems this study dredged up a phenomenon psychologists were already well aware of, something called "defensive processing".

I'm only an armchair shrink, but I get this. It has to do with self-esteem. We don't really want to feel badly about ourselves, so when our self-esteem is under attack by a message meant to induce shame, we get defensive. We block it out, we make fun of it, or we even defy it by engaging in even more of the behaviour.

Medical News Today puts it this way:

"Findings show such messages are too difficult to process among viewers already experiencing these emotions -- for example, those who already have alcohol-related transgressions.

To cope, they adopt a defensive mindset that allows them to underestimate their susceptibility to the consequences highlighted in the ads; that is, that the consequences happen only to 'other people.' The result is they engage in greater amounts of irresponsible drinking, according to respondents."

This is a great reminder to social marketers about the holier-than-thou approach we are often tempted to take — particularly when we and our client are "true believers" on a social issue. I've always said that the problem with being an activist is that you naturally want to preach to the choir. And this is not what social marketing should aim to do.

If you want to change attitudes, you have to get inside the heads of the people you want to change. Sure, you can identify their behaviour as negative, but you have to give them an out, and you have to show the positive outcome.

As one of the study's authors concludes, there are two things we need to keep in mind:

"The first involves media: Ads placed in more-positive surroundings -- such as in a sitcom or a positive magazine article -- have a better chance at resonating than those placed in tense or negative contexts.

Second... anti-alcohol groups would be better served focusing their messages around how to avoid situations that lead to binge drinking than on the consequences of the behavior, because attempting to shame people out of binge drinking doesn't work."

If you want to read more on this issue, there's another academic article about it here. It's long, but both it and the Kellog study should make good professional development reading for anyone in the biz.

Remember our Elder Abuse campaign? You're not alone!

Back in June, the Government of Canada launched our Elder Abuse campaign for HRSDC.

We were really proud of this spot, and everyone who worked on it — at HRSDC, Acart, SOMA, and even the actors — felt that we were obligated to do our best for such an important and emotional issue.

Apparently Canadian viewers felt the same way. We just found out that, in research conducted by TNS Canadian Facts last fall, this campaign achieved an amazing 58% unaided recall among Canadian adults outside Quebec!



As you can see, the benchmark for federal government campaigns is 36% unaided. Our clients told us these are the best results they've ever seen.

Of course, with social marketing, it's not enough to be seen. The actions taken by viewers (including those who recalled the ad with prompting) show that the campaign was successful in getting people to talk about the issue:



As a taxpayer, you'll probably be happy to know that the ROI was good, too: 28¢ per recall, and $3.22 per action.

The reason Québécois were not included in this phone survey is because the campaign did not run there. The Province of Quebec was doing its own campaign on the issue at the same time.

We did, however, produce a French version as well (for the many francophones in the rest of Canada).

Kudos to everyone involved in this, an excellent example of doing Work That Matters.