The main causes for poor advertisements

Graves (2013) offers Campaign magazine an explanation of the three psychological causes for poor advertisements. It is often assumed that any marketing communications that is done by large organisation’s should be very enticing and successful in meeting the objectives which are set. The reason being is that they usually spend a huge amount of money performing market research in attempting to find out the current perceptions of the brand, the key aspects to focus on and which media vehicles to use.

It is said that within the new Ikea advert (shown below) is creative in linking the practical storage furniture with the fact that life is a lot better when the room/house is not cluttered. At an implicit level, the advertisement is attractive and elegant, by allowing the viewer to build up the association between Ikea and how creatively designed its furniture is. However, Graves (2013) states the fact that an additional emotive quality alongside an intriguing story ‘builds and reinforces the brand proposition at the level that matters most.’

 

The first main cause for poor advertisements is not understanding the decision-making frailty of the consumer. Graves (2013) argues that scripts for advertisements are given to clients with a cover letter that influences the reaction of the client by explaining the advertisement. By this, clients then see the advertisement in the same way that it is seen by the agency (and the way they think it will be seen), rather than in an objective and impartial manner.

The second cause for the creation of poor advertisements has been said to be failing to appreciate the way that the brain of the consumer’s work. It is explained how the motive to create a new and never-been-seen type of campaign is seen as important for your work to be completely appreciated. However, this means that when there is a successful advertising campaign, it is unceremoniously discarded and swapped with a new proposition.

A good example is Pepsi, recent articles have shown that Pepsi has had 12 advertising slogans in the US since 2008. Graves (2013) states how commercials and advertisements are usually something that you don’t just sit down and watch, but instead exist in the background and picked up upon by the unconscious mind. It is argued that while a creative marketing expert may become a jaded with the proposition, the ‘consumer’s unconscious mind thrives on consistent associations: new expressions of the brand proposition are useful because the unconscious tries to learn something new, but ends up reinforcing existing associations.’ New propositions, on the other hand, build new associations and dilute the unconscious response when the brand is encountered.

The third and final cause for poor advertisements is said to be the brands not listening to consumers. When it comes to performing market research to attempt to gain an opinion on the campaign in questions, it doesn’t normally turn out the way that was wished. The reason for this is because the customers themselves do not know how they will respond in a real-life context to a proposition. There is a copious amount of evidence in psychology to prove that the method of asking people what they think creates a different context that exerts its own influences on what people say they think. In conclusion to this final cause, the organisation must find a way of gaining an opinion of their advertisements without external influences such as being in a focus group where peoples opinions may change due to the environment that they are being asked.