A look at mass outdoor advertising according with three theories of selective attention. Part 2

Neon lights advertisements are seen everywhere in Hong Kong. How they distract car drivers?

Part 2:

Treisman, feature integration

Treisman agreed with Broadbent that indeed there is a bottleneck in our attention process, but disagreed with its location.

According to Treisman, attention binds different features of an object (e.g. colour and shape) into consciously experienced wholes, and the same filter mentioned could be more accurate and effective if in a different level than what Broadbent had located.

This filter is suggested far over and is mentioned as it will reduce or attenuate the analysis of unattended information, being the “absorbing barrier” more flexible to understand and differentiate various stimuli. Plus, this theory supports that stimulus are processed through a hierarchy, describing a process where each stimuli follows and moves to further detailed information at the same time the unattended information becomes gradually more attenuated throughout the process.

Considering the neon lights when driving in Hong Kong, the same thinking principles mentioned in the Broadbent case can similarly apply, since the driver still might not have ability enough to process instantly such powerful advertising details within a large amount of each billboard information at the first instance. Still, according with this theory, the driver will indeed process all the information presented but through a more flexible and gradually attenuating process, having the chance to understand advertising messages which spark its interest and rapidly choose naturally which will follow the hierarchy to a deeper level of understanding. This allows to better control in some way its various external stimulus when still based on a focus of the main activity of driving – the attended message, and gradually filtering unattended messages, understanding they could or not be of interest at a first instance.

: : :

A look at mass outdoor advertising according with three theories of selective attention. Part 1

Neon lights advertisements are seen everywhere in Hong Kong. How they distract car drivers?

Part 1:

Broadbent, filter model, selective attention

Broadbent theory supports that a filter is located in between the incoming sensory register (eyes, nerve impulses), and the short-term memory storage in our brain, with attention that not all information make it to the third stage (long term memory) or other stages as the filter works together with a buffer. The stimuli presented at the same time are held in the short-term sensory buffer, and its information can be retained there for a short period before being processed. After that it disappears from the processing system, which means that the same filter makes an analysis regarding semantic content (meaning within conscious awareness) and selects one of the inputs on the basis of its physical characteristics, passing it through a limited capacity channel for further processing. Any stimuli not selected by the filter doesn’t receive this semantic analysis and never reaches conscious awareness, although occasionally could be stored in the unconscious.

Neon lights from outdoor advertising in Hong Kong could be well managed if the driver can balance correctly the outcome of colours and signs present in the ads, at the same time he focus on sensory aspects that come with the act of driving and traffic conditions at the moment.

Taking in account Broadbent’s filter theory, a filter do exists and functions like a sort of protecting barrier, absorbing conditions, processes, handling both stimulus at the same time, but dividing them appropriately and assigning one out of other choices to immediately process or hold for later processing.

This means that the filter prevents overloading of messages and therefore the overloading of the tremendous advertising sensory aspects we can experience in a flashy billboard crowded street in Hong Kong. Hence, ultimately the attention-to-memory processing will lead to a single focus and processing of complex information about the driving conditions, managing well the challenge of cruising the streets of Hong Kong.

However, if the filter chooses to direct attention to the neon flashy outdoor advertisements, all the drivers which had it more inclined to ‘choose’ processing information such as the neon lights would put the individual in a serious problem when driving. One could imagine processing an ad message without paying attention to the traffic (although it might happen in some situations, namely when text messaging, it is not the average).

Thus, in this situation the attention and information processing were driven out to secondary aspects instead of the primary aspect that is the current action of driving, makes this theory ambiguous to the case as people can drive in harsh conditions and in the streets of crowded ad spaces such as Hong Kong. Therefore, probably not applicable to the case in terms of cognition related to visuals, but others would be applicable such as Broadbent’s auditory experiences.

More, the outcome we can take from here regarding advertising effectiveness is that within a crowded ad space, people tend not to pay attention to specific advertising unless it is remarkable. The cognitive process described above, although not fully fitting the overall ad space context, we can argue that a person in principle doesn’t process / store information about probably more than half ads present in a crowded space such as Hong Kong streets outdoor advertising.

: : :

Ads that don’t get out of the way

Today I came across another ad that simply keeps spreading the thinking of  interruption marketing on the web. Besides the fact that the website below as a lot of ads, the one in the middle is just annoying, and one of those banners that as you scroll up or down it follows, covering the text that indeed you’re looking forward to read.

So the point when mentioning again the awareness vs engagement, is that you can get a lot of awareness here – buy ads, buy more ads, buy more and more ads, and people will notice your brand! Great, but will they buy it? Will they get out of their own way to click, read, spend time learning more, send an email asking for more information, pick up the phone and call your company asking about your service, schedule a meeting and eventually convince others or themselves to close a deal with you? just because you interrupted them when they were reading something that they were interested in and the ad didn’t went out of their way so easily?

What attracts companies to keep working like this is that if you buy a lot of ads, spend a lot of money, get a lot of impressions and eventually some clicks – Yes.. Eventually someone will buy it! But the percentage of that “someone” compared with the money spent or impressions, i.e. conversions, will be probably not relevant, not worthy, insignificant within lower budget opportunities. You can build high awareness, but low CTR’s, in the same way you interrupt people to make them buy your products, but you don’t engage them to build your brand and eventually buy your products in a sustainable way.

Key thing here is to stop interrupting people and start thinking on how you could engage and spread the word about your brand, make a better product, make a better marketing campaign that doesn’t annoy a lot of people, build interaction, fun, curiosity, help people solve their problems, communicate how you can help people solve their problems, integrate different channels, innovate, create something new, something worth to talk about, talk with people, change the way you handle the service, use the web to connect people on achieving something good, it can be free, or you can use ads to reinforce your message, not to interrupt people, use them to make people participate in something, not to try to find the “close this window” link. Want an example? Find them, create them! Below you can find two already.

www.twix.com

www.willitblend.com

: : :

Why advertising fails? One of many reasons

I am reading a fine book on advertising, and what makes this book quite good is the approach on common sense key points that we usually tend to forget. Beyond several insights that caught my attention so far, there is one to highlight that is simple when building a communication strategy but ignored often, it says:

Clearly list and brainstorm the features, advantages and benefits of your offering, but start by the benefits, advantages and features when communicating with your market.

The attention your consumers dedicate to your brand is scarce within today’s landscape of ad clutter, if you don’t show fast the benefits consumers have with your offering, how do you think you’re going to get their buy-in in a tremendous competitive landscape? Below is a easy simple framework which should be always kept in mind. Consumers think on the benefits first, though several advertising messages think on the features first.

According with the authors, the thinking on true value propositions for the consumer is being easily filled by blank “buy me” propositions. As advertising seems to be dying nowadays, if you keep thinking on the traditional monologue, it will die faster. Why does this book have to highlight simple common sense and the community repeatedly be reminded of these time and time again? Here are a couple of reasons why I think it happens:

- Lack of proper research

- Research is not converted into valuable insights

- Consumers fail to provide true behavioral answers

- A few people in a focus group is not enough to get valuable conclusions

- Advertisers, marketers are busy enough they ignore insights from stakeholders

- Advertisers try to please marketers, marketers CEO’s: all fail on customers

If your advertising copy says, “we pride ourselves on the exceptional service we provide to all of our clients”, or “the best place on earth”, erase, rethink today.

: : :

Brand preference hard to say

“I bought it because was cheap and I really like the brand”. Says a friend of mine regarding a sun cream. So I asked, why do you really like the brand? First thing was, “I don’t know”. Then trying to extend his arguments came more rational attributes to justify the brand choice. The product smell or parfum experience was great and could even make the bathroom have an aroma in the air. Then also the competitive pricing and some comparisons with other brands, as well as the creamy side of Dove’s line of products. Funny to see how rational attributes come to justify a brand choice when there’s a bunch of emotional attributes behind that. The first glimpse of my friend’s answer was that he actually didn’t know what to answer. People take it hard to understand, market researchers harder.

: : :