(Above taken from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NfuniN0Sdg. I own none of it)
Well did that influence you to buy a lottery ticket? Probably not. Let me explain why.
Media communication theories include the ‘Powerful Effects Theory’ and the ‘Limited Effects Theory’. The former suggests that media is very influential, and that the audience is passive. The latter, however, suggests that the audience is active, and can resist media messages.
Fact of the matter is, these theories are two extremes, with neither happening in reality. Rather, it’s somewhat a combination of these two theories. For the advertisement above, I’m guessing we were more slated towards the Limited Effects Theory, because the main message to buy lottery tickets was not really influential at all. Gosh, even the plot (though funny) had no link whatsoever to convincing the audience to buy tickets.
To be fair to this advertisement, Moderate Effects models claim that media can still influence the audience, and that the selectivity of the audience does not equate to having no effect at all. So perhaps, the next time you take an exam, you might suddenly have a strange subconscious impulse to but lottery.
Now, let’s watch an effective commercial:
(above taken from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pm0RxTqj7ig. I own none of it)
Now wasn’t that great? The reason it’s successful in convincing the audience to buy Pepsi was because it had a prominent figure (Jackie Chan) and it was explicit in showing it’s superiority over the rival brand.
But do you agree with me? Which was the better, more influential commercial? Do you know of some really good commercials and why they work?
The effectiveness of commercials really depends on the product or service that they are promoting. You brought forth 2 different types of commercials- “One leaning closer to High Context or those that are straight to the point with plenty of verbal information”.
If I were to be a consumer who sees an ad about something like food,a commercial with verbal information will definitely be more appealing as things like food,are dynamic(eg. offers different flavours or marked at different prices), therefore provoking my senses to want to know more and even buy the product.
On the other hand, a product which is so widely sold and lacks the dynamism, for example a lotto ticket, will require a smart commercial to grab a consumer’s attention. Why? As a lotto ticket is still a lotto ticket, regardless of where you get it.
In this sense, such products would require the use of novelty to draw consumers’ attention, so that consumers will be taken in. A commercial with plenty of information will not work here.
Hey you’re right! Come to think of it, most food-commercials are very low in context, and much more on verbal
I kind of agree with what Aloysius said about effectiveness of commercials depending on the products itself. The lotto ticket advertisement doesn’t seem to make sense to me. Well, maybe it will make sense to people who love to try their luck with lottery. But seriously, if you’re not interested in such stuff, then you wouldn’t even bother about it. Unless, you just want to try your luck out of boredom. On the other hand, the diet coke commercial goes out to a much wider audience. It is a beverage that many people drink, and even if you don’t really drink it, there’s no harm in trying it. Anyway, it’s just a drink right? Also, they made use of a famous public figure to sell this commercial, which I think has helped a lot with publicity because it grabbed more attention from the audience.
Good! Another good comment.
I think you’re right in pointing out that the effectiveness varies according to what product is being sold.
It certainly helps if these advertisements make use of well-known or prominent figures to promote their products. Years ago, sales of Lux soap shot up, the result of the company’s clever strategy to use popular TV actresses on their TV and print adverts. So successful was this effort that these actressess were also popularly as the Lux Girls, but more importantly to the company, the profit margin increased. Consumers buy the idea – if someone famous and beautiful uses the product, it must be good. That’s the effect of persuasion which is the tactic used in media advertising.
hey thanks party tart!
A good observation you made on prominent figures. I agree. However, I’ve not heard of the Lux Girls! haha.
That’s because you are “too young”
Hmnnn… not that I’m that “old” 
Hi!
Even though the pepsi vs. coke commercial was more relevant than the lottery tickets advertisment, I still prefer the latter. I felt the pepsi vs. coke commercial was a bit too in your face actually.
Nonetheless pepsi’s use of Jackie Chan does help them influence more people because of the star status Jackie Chan carries. I remember in the past Pepsi used Britney Spears as their front person. Pepsi must be making a lot of money to be able to hire such celebrites, who in turn help them generate even more revenue.
hi Rachel. I guess it ultimately depends on the individual. I suppose advertisement effectiveness are subjected to IQ-levels, culture, and taste.
Most advertisements are leaning towards the moderate effects theory as they are usually portrayed in a casual and light manner, They focus more on attracting the audience attention, in this instance focusing on humor to captivate the audience. I think thats where the focus is mostly based on, instead of directing the main message across. Like the advertisements which I uploaded, it doesn’t matter if the actual message is being transmitted across, but more that they have the attention of the audience
Even if the Pepsi add managed to bring its message across, how far do you think it actually makes you want to chose Pepsi, as compared to Coke Cola or other soft drinks? End of the day, I would still rather stick to my judgment after I’ve tasted it.
Oh oh good point! So that means advertisements have only very limited and temporary effects (because choice is ultimately ours), and thus advertisements should try best to get whatever attention they can grab in that short time span. Good point Cheryl! Thanks
Hello.
I agree with you that the two theories are extremes and in reality; it is the combination of both. This is because audiences are no longer as passive as before and they have some ability to resist messages presented to them. I think that the effectiveness of advertisements is very subjective and it might appeal to some but not all. For example, slimming advertisements might appeal to those who are having weight problems but not to those who are satisfied with their current weight. Thus, I think that in order for advertisements to work, they must be able to gain their consumers’ trust.
And not just trust too! They must be mindful of the taste and preferences of their target audience. A slimming advertisement, for instance, would not fare as well in a video game convention as compared to a fast-food joint.
A lot of advertisements have funny gimmicks, but I feel that they are only effective if they link to the product and successfully promote it. One example is the Heineken ad with the walk in refrigerator; it’s funny, it promotes Heineken and it we can relate to it. I’m pretty sure I’ll be screaming my head off if I had a walk in fridge. That being said, I think the second ad is more effective. I can’t remember what the first one was about already.
Hey could it be that you only recalled the latter commercial because it was slab-stick humor, or was it because Jackie Chan was in it? Well, you made a good point about ‘relating’ to advertisements. Thanks!
Although I think the Pepsi one is more effective, I wouldn’t buy the drink too because I’m not someone who drinks gasy drinks. Hence, I guess the consumers’ preference also plays a great role when they are deciding if they should get the product even though the mass media is a powerful tool to promote something. Although the lottery advertisement is funny, I guess if it is aired in Singapore, it will receive a lot of feedbacks as students would pick up wrong ideas and do the wrong things during examinations. Hence, I guess different countries have their different ways of advertisting.
Haha that was good. You rightly pointed out that individual preferences and culture context are factors that heavily influence the effectiveness of advertisements. Well commented. Thanks Breda
if i dont recall wrongly, there was this car advert which was aired a few years back! I really cant recall it off hand right now…but do you remb how they tried to remake their old car into one that looked like the latest ‘hot’ model? the process in which they went through included guiding and elephant to sit and reshape the car! hahaha! well, if you do, that was one of the most well received and remembered advertisment that was successful in bringing its product to the audience! i know its ironical i forgot, but, its just at this moment
Clearly, it wasn’t as well remembered and successful as you thought it was.
I mean, even you forgot! And no. I have no clue to what it was. No memory of it whatsoever. I’d remember an elephant sitting on a car if I ever saw one, but not this time. 