Marketing and Framing

My previous post brought to light the utilization of classical conditioning in advertisement. Another psychological phenomena exploited for the sake of successful marketing (often in tandem with classical conditioning) is framing. Framing manipulates your outlook on something through the use of select vernacular. Advertisers apply the effects of framing by surrounding an ad with rhetoric that attracts consumers towards their own products. Alternatively, framing can bolster smear campaigns by detracting individuals through slanderous language use.

Framing's application by marketers can be seen in the strong emphasis placed on the benefits that a product can bring to a consumer. This is known as positive message framing and it is the staple in advertising strategy. Framing enables advertisements to “verbally” paint their subject in a flattering manner. The positive wording attributed to an ad's focus is done in order to elicit a likewise positive emotional response. Consider the following ad:

The amount of words used in this ad are few, but their actual impact is quite profound. By juxtaposing the words “Chaos” and “Order” with their respective pictures, a clear message is made about the product being showcased; this Palm can bring order to the chaos of your life. The succinct nature of the ad allows for an immediate response to occur in the consumer. This ad suggests you can live a life of mess and disarray, or you can use this product and live in neatness and orderliness. Consumers will draw upon these conclusions despite having no idea how much the product costs, or any real notion of what it can do. These unmentioned details fail to be considered because of the buyer's fixation on the promise that it can, “Organize your life”. This sole argument for the product serves as justification for its acquisition, regardless of whatever unrecognized downsides it may posses.

Framing can be done in the hopes of achieving an adverse attitude towards a subject as well. Placing vehemence on the downfalls of an advertisement’s subject is known as negative message framing and is equally effective as positive message framing. This tactic is often used in political mud-slinging advertisements. Politicians and their supporters develop ads that cast opponents/proposed bills in an unnerving or unfavorable light. Take the following ad for instance:

The picture to this ad is terribly disturbing to begin with. The muzzling of this alarmed girl creates an uneasy attitude towards the ad. The phrases across the advertisement then gives direction to which these feelings can be placed upon. This ad takes the animosity created by the picture and the concept of the attacking of family values and characterizes them as the effects of the Democratic Party's control of Congress. A “self-respecting American” (or more likely, one not very knowledgeable of politics) would then, in response to such an ad, oppose Democrats from controlling Congress, without being versed on the stances and opinions these “destroyers of values” supposedly have.

Framing clearly can have a powerful effect on the psyche of a individual. The pairing of images with suggestive or influential wordage allows advertisers to develop strong messages within their ads. Whether it be positive or negative, the targets of these ads can be greatly swayed by their contents. Therefore, you, as the well educated individual that you are, would be wise to stay as objective as possible when faced with such ads, lest you be like the sheepish saps they attempt to persuade.

Classically Conditioned Commercials

It does not take a comprehensive knowledge of Pavlov's Dog Experiment to understand the powerful effect Classical Conditioning can have. Through the pairing of a conditioned stimulus with the unconditioned stimulus and response that normally result, associations that would not usually form now become the new norm. Utilizing the simple tactic, companies market their products to consumers through the induced influence of Classical Conditioning.

Consider the last commercial you watched on TV. Was the background music a trendy song performed by a “hot” artist of the target-consumer's generation? Was the individual, pitching or vouching for the product, done by someone of relative social importance or popularity? How about the connotations of the messages presented throughout the ad? Did they appeal to your pathos, be it through plucking upon your heart strings, or reminding you of a fond childhood memory? If you said yes to any of these questions, you have also likely experienced the effects these commercials cause via Classical Conditioning.

This is not to say you, as a consumer, have been psychologically conned into every purchase you have made. Some products that are advertised are truly good merchandise and have intrinsic value. But naïve customers, who are likely more receptive to the influences of Classical Conditioning, can end up getting bamboozled into buying shoddy commodities.

So how do they do it?

As stated before, music plays an integral role in the Classical Conditioning within commercials. Songs and jingles that are favored by the public, or have that knack for getting stuck in your head, work for the product in two ways. First, it is attention grabbing, providing a sticking point for the good. Second, whenever the song is played again though any medium, e.g TV, radio, your own mouth, it immediately causes the customer to recall the product the song was paired with. Therefore, every subsequent playing of the song serves as a “pseudo-advertisement” for the product.

Famous or well known individuals also help push companies' products off the shelves with their featuring in commercials. Marketers had the foresight to realize that the opinions you have of these spokespersons could translate over to your notions of what they are trying to sell. By playing off the regard and/or general approval you hold for select athletes, actors, or celebrities, companies can develop a flattering association you will affiliate towards their merchandise. A testament to Classical Conditioning's puissance, all this occurs without the product's quality even coming into question

The toying with emotions is arguably the most powerful tool marketers have in their arsenal. Emotions, especially strong ones like love, sympathy, hatred, and lust, are so embedded into your being, that upon their arousal, they overtake the body, and manifest throughout every square inch of your person. With this in mind, the developers of commercials aim to have their work appeal to the consumers' pathos. This is done in the hopes that buyers will consequently align themselves concurrently with the sentimental message(s) paired to subject of the commercial. If this all occurs, your emotive response can then be attributed to the product itself, forming an emotional attachment to the matter.

There is arguably no advertisement that more effectively utilizes these ploys of Classical Conditioning then the following commercial:

(How many times has this happened to you?)

Your favorite show breaks for commercials. The TV, albeit just for a second or two, is blank and still. Suddenly emerging from the silence, you hear a measure of the haunting notes to Sarah McLacklan's song “Angel”. Knowing what is about to come, you frantically search for your remote in hope you can change the channel before its too late...but its no use. The image of a decrepit looking dog, helplessly collapsed in the arms of someone, appears on the screen as Sarah vocalizes with her evocative requiem.

Try as you may, your attention is unwavering and wholly focused on the woeful animals that flash across the television. McLachlan then appears on the screen, informing you of the horrible existence animals like these must endure. However, with your help (and a daily donation of 60 cents) you can change the otherwise pitiful fate of these creatures. At this point, while you are fighting off tears and a heavy feeling of obligation, the organization's number and URL pop up on the screen. Several more deplorable cats and dogs, which you can “give a second chance, right now” cross the screen. A couple more beckons for your help are voiced and then the commercial fades into blackness.

Now you may or may not have succumbed to contacting this organization upon the completion of this commercial but there is no denying that it has left a resounding effect on your mood and your feelings toward animal cruelty. Furthermore, anytime you hear the song “Angel” you cannot help but be reminded of those miserable cats and dogs. You may have been able to eventually shrug of the burden such commercials and reminders have given you, but not everyone could. In fact, ASPCA (the organization featured in the commercial above) was able to raise $30 million and gain almost 200,000 new donors with just a year of airing this commercial¹. With its incorporation of the detailed components of Classical Conditioning, this commercial was able to greatly bolster ASPCA's efforts towards achieving their mission of ending animal cruelty while promoting animal welfare.

¹http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/26/us/26charity.html?_r=3&scp=1&sq=ASPCA&st=cse

The Fallacy of Positive Instances and its Influence in Politics

The fallacy of positive instances is the tendency for individuals to only recognize components of statements or arguments that coincides with their preconceptions on the matter at hand. This inclination in human behavior has been utilized in various pseudopsychologies as a primary mechanism for the justification of credibility they undeservedly claim. However, the exploitation of this psychological trend is not something that should only be dismissed as the work of these fake sciences; its applications transcend over various components of everyday life, politics being a prime example.

Politics is one area that is riddled with the influences of the fallacy of positive instances. Politicians and their party's make various claims in order to appeal to voters of interest. The platform upon which politicians stand are composed of “solutions” to the issues and complaints the current voting population has. These hypothetical alternatives to the current manner in which political matters are handled, irrespective of whether the politician follows through with them, are purely a means of “advertising”. This “advertisement” has become a fundamental component to the campaigning tactics politicians use.

Candidates who adequately cover enough political matter in this manner, find themselves winning the position. This, however, leads to a new issue; the highlighted perspectives that had been used as a means of promotion, now become actual agendas and plans they are expected to adhere to. This proves to be exceptional difficult and more often then not, the promises these individuals make during their campaigning go unfulfilled. The occurrence of election promise-breaking gives rise to the argument that politicians manipulate voters by invoking the fallacy of positive instances.

The list of broken promises made by U.S Presidents is rather substantial and includes very lofty claims. In hindsight, the promises seem unreasonable and it becomes a wonder how they were even accepted to begin with. The rationale behind these claims will not always undergo due scrutiny, sheerly because they touch upon an area of real dissatisfaction of voters. One such example is seen in George H. W. Bush's campaign for presidency in 1988. Bush made his share of promises if elected, but none were more widely blazoned then the promise of “No New Taxes”. Its important to understand that at the time, the nation was struggling economically. The concept of solving the financial situation without the use of new taxes was a welcome one, and agreeable by all. Bush handily won the election and two months later, assumed his position as Commander – in – Chief. However, with a increasingly staggering national deficit, Bush would have to go back on his major election promise, made just one year before, and raise taxes. George H. W. Bush had acquired his position as Head of State through his promising of no new taxes. It comes as no real surprise that he failed to retain office for a second term, after reneging his “firmly” established disposition

The polarization of political parties has also allowed the fallacy of positive instances of voters to be taken advantage of. The political landscape of today, which often dismisses the intrinsic value in moderation, forces voters to pigeonhole themselves into fitting one of the two major parties. Concurrent with this political ultimatum, is the dominating nature of both parties. This shared trait causes the parties to take stances of extremity on opposite sides of the political spectrum. The abundant and stark differentiation between the stances of the parties provides a voter with multitude of factors they can find pleasing. The tipping point for selection could even be limited to a single common aspect, like the embracement of certain religious values. This is why Republican and Democratic platforms are rather all-encompassing. By taking a defined stance on so many different topics, the political party creates more opportunities where they can potentially share the ideology of a voter. The fallacy of positive instances allows the voter to use as little as one issue they feel strong enough about to justify their choice of a politician, notwithstanding their being indifferent or even opposed to the position the same candidate takes on another matter.