“The Sneaky Psychology of Advertising”
Posted by joeThis infographic “The Sneaky Psychology of Advertising” (BuySellAds.com, June 20, 2011) provides some interesting examples of consumer and advertising research — most of which are based on scientific studies of advertising.
What do you think of these tactics? Are any of them unethical?
This entry was posted on Sunday, August 21st, 2011 at 10:04 am and is filed under Advertising, Consumer behavior, Ethics, Promotion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
I thought the article was very interesting, the way name brands can tap into your subconscious and “Make You Want to Pay More” is, I think, especially prevalent in our society. Many consumers (myself included) often times link brand names with their social status, they believe that if they have the hottest designer clothes or the latest and greatest technology, society will think higher of them. I think this is especially true with celebrity endorsed products, like in the case of the pair of Nike socks for $6 versus $5.25 for a double pack of Hanes socks. Due to Nike’s advertising campaigns, many consumers link Nike’s apparel with a greater athletic performance because of the pro athletes that promote the product. I think when pro athletes such as Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods are promoting Nike’s products and competing at such a high and successful level in their sporting area, people are more willing to pay a higher price for the same product Jordan and Woods are using even for the slightest possibility that it will improve their athletic performance or others will hold them in a higher regard. Another area of products that we see this celebrity endorsement in is perfumes or colognes, it seems like every major celebrity has their own brand of perfume. People are willing to pay more money for a perfume that Paris Hilton, Beyonce, Jennifer Lopez, David Beckham, or Tim McGraw (and the list goes on and on) endorses for even the slightest possibility that people will find them more attractive because of the scent they are wearing. I think the “Make You Want to Pay More” tactic can be thought of as unethical because it does prey on the more self-conscious members of society, giving them false hope that if they have all the hottest designer names all their problems will go away, people will finally value them and they will bec as happy as the celebrities endorsing the product.
August 29th, 2011 at 4:59 pmI really enjoyed reading the strategies companies and marketing departments used to tap into a persons subconscious for advertising. Though most of these tactics seemed to be fair game, there were a few that I found very unethical. The first one was when advertisements display “limited time offer.” For many people, this will influence some people to buy the item right away, because they think it won’t be available next time. It seems to rush people into their buying decisions when they don’t necessarily know if it will still be there or not. The other advertising strategy I found unethical was the “Be like me” statement. If Michael Jordan was endorsing a product in which he claimed was perfect for him but in reality he never actually uses it, I think that is an indirect lie to the customer. I also think it brings false hope to those who think if they use that product, they’ll be just like that celebrity. Just because a super model endorses a certain shampoo product, it does not mean you will have perfect hair like them. The final strategy that I found unethical was stores incorporating music into stores to influence consumer spending. I do not find it okay for someone to influence my buying decision based on the music that is playing there. If I were a customer, I would rather listen to enjoyable music, not something that would influence my buying decision. Though many people are unaware of these advertising strategies when they’re shopping, I still find it unethical to influence someones buying decision, even if they are unaware of it. I find these unethical practices to display the fine line between marketing and deception.
September 22nd, 2011 at 2:27 pmI really enjoyed reading the strategies companies and marketing departments used to tap into a persons subconscious for advertising. Though most of these tactics seemed to be fair game, there were a few that I found very unethical. The first one was when advertisements display “limited time offer.” For many people, this will influence some people to buy the item right away, because they think it won’t be available next time. It seems to rush people into their buying decisions when they don’t necessarily know if it will still be there or not. The other advertising strategy I found unethical was the “Be like me” statement. If Michael Jordan was endorsing a product in which he claimed was perfect for him but in reality he never actually uses it, I think that is an indirect lie to the customer. I also think it brings false hope to those who think if they use that product, they’ll be just like that celebrity. Just because a super model endorses a certain shampoo product, it does not mean you will have perfect hair like them. The final strategy that I found unethical was stores incorporating music into stores to influence consumer spending. I do not find it okay for someone to influence my buying decision based on the music that is playing there. If I were a customer, I would rather listen to enjoyable music, not something that would influence my buying decision. Though many people are unaware of these advertising strategies when they’re shopping, I still find it unethical to influence someones buying decision, even if they are unaware of it. I find these unethical practices to display the fine line between marketing and deception.
September 22nd, 2011 at 2:27 pm“The Sneaky Psychology of Advertising” presented some very interesting ideas concerning marketing, and was presented in a very easy to read/fun style. Many specific ideas stuck out from this piece that deserve more attention.
The idea that John B. Watson presented in 1920 that advertising appeals to three emotions (love, fear, and rage) is a very interesting one. I personally believe this is a little strict when it comes to constraints of how advertising appeals to people, but the core idea he presents is true. If you love something in society and some good promises to help you obtain that, you are likely to be attracted to this good. I believe the fear element comes more from the idea that advertising can target the inevitable human fear of REGRET. Humans naturally hate to regret decisions they make, therefore if a product presents enough selling points to make someone contemplate future regret, a huge battle has been won by the advertising team. Rage is the element that I have trouble seeing as I read the article. In my personal opinion I think that another element, the element of “why” should be added to this list. Consumers don’t buy what a company sells, but rather WHY they sell that product. If the ideals of the company align witht that of a customer’s, there is a very high probability that the customer would pick that product.
This leads me to the section of the article titled, “Make You Want to Pay More.” Although it may be true that repeated exposure to luxury brands can induce larger spending, I think it has to do more with the psychology of the consumer aligning with that of the luxury brand. Take New Belgium Brewing as a perfect example of this point, and the one I made above. New Belgium has created a culture through their product. People are willing to pay more for the quality of New Belgium (much more than domestic beers) because of the ideals the company is based on. “Follow Your Folly” and the entire New Belgium cultural marketing blend has aligned so well with the consumers of Fort Collins, that the price they charge is a very small factor.
One unethical process that I saw from this article is the “overstimulating” of consumers to make them act on impulsive buying opportunities. I can see playing slow music in a restaurant to provide a better mood for “lingering” and spending more time in the restaurant. When overstimulation crosses into a realm that it may detract from a buyers personal enjoyment, but indeed creates impulse purchase revenues, I think it has gone too far.
Overall I really enjoyed this article and would urge others to read it. It doesn’t hurt to know what advertisers are trying to do with these behind the scenes, often “sneaky”, tactics.
September 30th, 2011 at 10:55 am“The Sneaky Psychology of Advertising” was interesting and perceptive. As I thought through each of them, I was surprised by the number of psychological tactics that have been used on me! I had no idea the concept of celebrity endorsements began in the 1920s. I wonder who the first celebrity was and what he/she endorsed. Also, would they be paid? I would assume so.
The words used to encourage buying made sense to me. Just from my college experience, you can tell the word “free” has an awfully large impact on people! Those slogans are used so often, it is hard to determine if they are “unethical.” I believe using fine print or having other sources you have to go to for information might be unethical- those little asterisks are very tricky and deceiving and I feel like they are used too frequently.
The part I found most interesting was the subconscious section. I really liked the music one and I can say for myself that when I have been listening to happy music in my car or in a restaurant, I will definitely tip more!
While I don’t believe any of these methods are unethical, per say, I do think using the human brain to create false memories is quite odd. That idea is somewhat disturbing to me. The reason I don’t think it’s unethical is because I don’t know of any companies that use the memory altering to their advantage. IF they were to somehow harness this power, then that could be unethical. They do show commercials with that content, but their intentions aren’t bad, they are just trying to show people having fun.
While the brain/memory one was strange, I question the logo idea. While it may be true that certain logos are able to have us tap into our brains, I don’t know if companies are able to specifically design their logos to achieve this. I would be skeptical if companies could do this.
Overall, it’s intriguing to see how far marketing and advertising has come and how we are being manipulated today.
October 14th, 2011 at 2:32 pmThis report about the sneaky ways advertising uses psychology to make consumers react to their products is interesting. As I read it, the results to the experiments made sense; when there is a stimulant of some sort, the control group will react to it. However, it is a little disturbing to think that these things are happening to us all the time and we are unaware of it. These tactics are great for marketers because they have found ways that can actually control the consumers. I think this leads the possibility for unethical behavior of companies. I think an important example is that of fast food chains and the rising childhood obesity in the U.S. Although consumers have freedom to choose what to eat, I believe there is a correlation between advertising of fast food chains, like McDonalds, and childhood obesity. Do you really think that as many kids would want to eat out at these places if there wasn’t a toy in every happy meal? Probably not. It is creating an ethical dilemma for many managers and consumers that needs to be addressed. I don’t think that advertising is always unethical although it is usually pretty sneaky. I hope that consumers can become more aware of why they make the decisions they do about certain products.
October 19th, 2011 at 7:04 pmThe article ‘The Sneaky Psychology of Adverising’ opened my eyes to some of the other advertising tactics we are not taught in class. It is not that all of them are unethical, but that they use other motives, besides just appealing to what the customer wants, to lure customers to thier product. If a company is a truly great company and is successful, they are these things because they have a quality product and a quality company. It is rare that a company is great because of the sly tactics they use to associate thier ads with something else for a consumer. Although it may cause customers to pay more attention or make a reference to a particular brand, I do not think that these tactics could have a significant effect on sales. The studies shown for each subconscious technique are just sample sizes and they could be representative of the public, but it is doubtful. There are a few techniques I thought were unethical. Firstly, oversimulating customers in order to encourage a buy and pressure them out of the store. I know I have felt this as I walk into A&F but I never knew why. I think it is very unsettling to know that I felt stressed in the store because I was stressed due to the noise level of the music. This is unethical, altering the mood of your customers. Secondly, I think celebrity endorsements are unethical because people are getting paid to say they use a product, regardless if they do or not. This is misleading and mistrusting of a company to lie about the users of its products. Overall, these tactics to lure customers in may seem to work, but I believe they are unuseful and lead to the mistrust of a customer.
May 1st, 2012 at 3:22 pm