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.