The second use for this page is to reflect on the Advertising lectures that I have every Thursday. This week we looked at the effect that advertising has on the consumer buying decision process, through the use of the Hierarchy of Effects model.
In preparation for the lecture we were set a few tasks, slides, reading, research and and a short analysis piece. Specifically the last task, the analysis was really helpful. We were asked to read two reports from a list and analyse the arguments that each put forward. At first I was slightly overwhelmed by the task (as i hadn’t written academically for a year) but once I got reading and writing it was great practice. It turns out that the pieces are being formatively marked and will really help us with our first assignment…so happy I took the time to write it. I’ll share my results on the next post (only if it’s good ha!) Although all of this did take me all day, it was worth it, it’s helped me to have a better understanding of the models…i think.
The pre slides and the lecture discussed the Lavidge and Steiner (1962)’s model, which is a developed version of the AIDA HEO model. The Lavidge and Steiner Model suggests 6 levels in which a consumer must systematically move through from initial awareness to final purchase. The segmentations break down into:
- Awareness, Knowledge = Information and Ideas = aka think (cognition)
- Liking, Preference = Attitudes and Feelings = aka feel (affect)
- Conviction, Purchase = Action = aka do (conate)
We moved onto discussing that there can be different orders, in which this process happens. Think, Feel, Do (the original) which would be a high price, expensive product e.g house. Secondly Do, Feel, Think, an example could be passing by a free test drive for a car, going for a test drive and then buying.
The model above suggests that all advertising starts off the decision making process, however we discussed the argument that Barnard and Ehrenberg (1997) put forward, that advertising can act as a subtle “nudge”rather than a profound response.
We also covered the involvement FCB grid and the Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. Both move the theory of consumer decision making on, highlighting that the amount of consumer involvement prior to the advert can have an effect on the order of behaviour.
The FCB grid in particular “helps us to understand where a product stands in the mind of the consumer – estimating if or not the purchase requirers an increased involved emotional decision or increased involved intellectual. The model helps us to ask the questions, what is the customers motivation? and what is the level of involvement before we even start?
The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) attempts to explain how attitudes are shaped, formed and reinforced by persuasive arguments. Aiming to explain the different ways of processing stimuli, where they are used, and the outcomes on attitude change. Through the a dual process the model identifies if a consumer takes the Central Route or the Peripheral Route.
The Central Route: is the more logical way of processing, the consumer is persuaded by the numbers, stats and figures. The consumer has a higher involvement with the product, and can sometimes put more effort into searching for information to help with the decision.
The Peripheral Route: is based on “cues” such a humour, fear and desire. A good example is the Cadbury – drum playing Gorilla add. The humour helps the consumer link to the brand.
Overall the the models will help with the presentation that we must do for the first assignment. We have got into groups and are now in the process of deciding which brand we want to use and analyse. The plan is for my next post to be about the process that went into deciding this brand.