Search
Search Results
-
Comparative Pilot Study of Communication Paradoxes in Food Advertising Using Semantic Differential
17-28Views:114Effective advertising grabs attention, its message is understandable, acceptable, memorable, and stimulates purchasing. To achieve those complex goals, it is not enough to simply communicate information, some additional communication technique (e.g., paradox messages) may be justified. There are several communication paradoxes with different effects. Using Osgood's semantic differential, this paper compares the different types of communication paradoxes, double bind, ambiguous, and neutral advertising, at the visual-quantitative level. Neutral advertising only names a product. While ambiguous advertising contains a contradictory verbal or visual message. Double bind advertising contains mutually exclusive commands (e.g., "Eat and lose weight!"). The sampling was random and not representative. The study sample was predominantly young people in their 20s, mostly university students. Responses were assessed using the MindTitude™ application, and the results were presented according to the principles of this program. A more detailed description of the application can be obtained by typing the brand name MindTitude into web search engines. Ambiguous advertising was perceived more positively from all aspects by respondents. Ambiguous message requires cognitive reframing and therefore involves deeper emotional and cognitive processing, creates tension and interest, attention concentration, long-term memory retention, and consequently, effective purchase incentives. The double bind instruction has a primarily behavioural inhibitory effect, reducing the urge to buy. The secondary effect of the double bind is emotional, lethargic through inertia, dampening the amplitude of emotional processing. Based on our findings, use of ambiguity is recommended in advertising, while the use of double bind is contraindicated.
JEL Codes: L66, L82, L96, M31