ilori
Uploaded by
60 SLIDES
739 VIEWS
600LIKES

Influence of Music and Celebrities on Brand Perception: A Study of Second-Order Conditioning

DESCRIPTION

This study explores second-order conditioning in marketing, examining how pairing music (CS1) with unpleasant experiences (US) influences consumer perceptions of a fictitious sportswear brand (CS2). Conducted by Blair & Shimp (1992), the research involved subjects listening to theme music during bad weather, revealing negative conditioning effects towards the brand. The findings imply significant associations between music and brand perception, suggesting that carefully selected music can enhance or impede advertising effectiveness. The results highlight the need for brands to consider previously conditioned musical associations in marketing strategies.

1 / 60

Download Presentation

Influence of Music and Celebrities on Brand Perception: A Study of Second-Order Conditioning

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Second-Order Conditioning • Pair CS1 with US • Pair CS2 with CS1 • CS2 produces CR • CS1 serves as US for CS2

  2. Blair & Shimp (1992) • Unpleasant experience paired with music • Brand paired with music

  3. Design • Pre-conditioning phase • Subjects listen to theme music • Sessions during bad weather • Usually, music induces mood, so US • But, here treat music as CS1 and bad weather as US • Conditioning phase • Fictitious sportswear brand paired with theme music • Brand is CS2 • Control group • Random pairing of CS2 and CS1 • Test • Measure affect toward brand

  4. Terminology • Article uses older terminology • Music as US, not CS1

  5. Results • Negative conditioning to brand in pre-conditioning group • Music acquired negative affect • Negative affect transferred to brand

  6. Implications • Music choice in advertising significant • May have previously conditioned connotations • Enhance or impede intended effect • Transfer to brand • Overshadowing effects • Popular music • More salient than brand (ignore CS)

  7. US Pre-exposure • Repeatedly present US • More difficult to subsequently condition CS • US occurs without predictive stimulus

  8. Second Order Classical • US is affective state, mood, etc. • CS1 is celebrity, expert, consumer, or TPO • CS2 is brand

  9. Celebrities • Famous people • Associations • Popular • Rich • Attractive

  10. Experts • Known or unknown • e.g., scientist, doctor, lawyer, mechanic, etc. • Associations • Knowledge • Authorities

  11. “Typical”Consumer • Average shopper • Real or fake • Association • Nothing to gain (leads to trust) • Credibility

  12. Third Party Organizations • Popular in advertising • Independent organizations • Rank, rate, or promote a product • Quality indicators

  13. Effectiveness of TPOs • Work through credibility vector • Indicate quality • TPO won’t want to lose public opinion • Won’t endorse a poor product • Good for • Products of high financial value and low psychological risk

  14. Social Learning Theory • Bandura • Observational learning • Attributes of model and learner

  15. Model Rewardingness Authority Dominance Similarity Sincerity Learner Uncertainty Age Sex Characteristics

  16. Operant • Observe • Reinforcement or punishment • Imitate with expectation • Generalized imitation

  17. Attractiveness • Important for • Celebrity endorsers • Less important (but not ignored) for • Experts, typical consumers

  18. Attractiveness • Can act as US itself • Innate predispositions • Evolved • Health, genotype • Evolutionary psychology • Mating, social interactions

  19. Nature vs. Nurture Debate • Is attractiveness/beauty learned or innate? • Until early 1980s, common consensus was learned • Langlois and collegues • Infant gaze studies • Tips to innate predispositions (with subsequent learning)

  20. Attractiveness as US • With actors and celebrities, usually attractive • Both the recognition of the individual and association with specific traits • Innate attractiveness • Consider • Antonio Banderas • Danny DeVito www.banderas-mall.com/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Image:Danny_DeVito_2008.jpg

  21. Cognitive Factor • Attention and recall • Celebrities, experts • Associated with specific aspect of product • Athlete with sports car (fast) • Ex-drug addict with anti-drug campaign (credibility)

  22. Appropriateness • Any celebrity/expert for any product? • Achieving a match • Changes in celebrity/expert’s status? • e.g., O.J. Simpson, Michael Jackson, Kobe Bryant, Madonna, Kate Moss, etc. • Associated with brand • Change in brand status? • e.g., tobacco

  23. Ohanian (1991) • Attractiveness, expertise, and trustworthiness • Use of product • For self or for gift • Male or female consumer

  24. Fictitious Pairings • Celebrities and products • Madonna and designer jeans • John McEnroe and tennis rackets • Tom Selleck and men’s cologne • Linda Evans and perfume en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Madonna-Material-Girl-333295.jpg espn.go.com/classic/biography/s/McEnroe_John.html tomselleck.tv-website.com/ www.geocities.com/lindaevans9/

  25. Questionnaires • Section 1 • Familiarity with celebrity? • Demographic information • Section 2 • Credibility scale • Section 3 • Subject’s likeliness to purchase product • For self or for gift

  26. Subjects • Residential neighborhoods • Churches • Graduate and undergraduate students

  27. Results • Age and gender • No significant impact on evaluation of celebrities’ attractiveness, trustworthiness, or expertise • Nor on likelihood to purchase a product promoted by the celebrity

  28. Celebrity Differences • John McEnroe • Least attractive and trustworthy • High levels of perceived expertise with sports gear • Linda Evans • High attractiveness and trustworthiness ratings • Only average perceived expertise with perfume

  29. Celebrity Attractiveness and Trustworthiness • Generally perceived as important by advertisers, but: • Minimal impact on subjects’ intention to purchase product • Most celebrities are attractive; minimal range, so no differentiation • Celebrities are paid for their endorsements, so not perceived as trustworthy • Expertise the determinant of intention to purchase

  30. Conclusions • To be useful celebrity spokespersons should be • Knowledgeable • Experienced • Qualified to endorse the product

  31. Celebrity • Virgin • Christina Aguilera • Virgin mobile phone • UK release • The devil makes work for idle thumbs. Keep yours busy. Text Virgin Mobile for 3P.

  32. Celebrity • Commodore Vic 20 • Priceline • William Shatner • From playing on Star Trek status to playing on Shatner status

  33. Celebrity • Independence Air • Dennis Miller • Comedian • Started SNL in 1980s • Currently, talk radio show • Endorses conservative opinions, supports Republican candidates, pro military action

  34. Celebrity • 7/11 • S.H.E. • Selina Ren, Hebe Tian, Ella Chen • Taiwanese girl band • 10 albums, $4.5 million sales since 2001, multiple TV roles

  35. Celebrity • Power drink • Arnold Schwarzenegger • Japanese commercial • Sometimes celebrity does cross cultures…but the ad might not

  36. Expert • Nike • Tiger Woods • Use the product, be like the expert

  37. Expert • Chesterfields • Opinion of a physician • Trusted

  38. (Anti-) Expert • BT information technology • Gordon Ramsay • Area of specialization

  39. Expert • Ask an expert • Future Shop • Spoofing use of experts in ads

  40. Typical Consumer • Tide • Moroccan commercial, 1993

  41. Typical Consumer • Salem's cigarettes • Supposedly average couple • Note music score • Gives performance information

  42. Co-Branding • Higher order conditioning association • Two brands are deliberately paired • Favourable attitude to second brand due to positive attitude to first brand • MI

  43. + + BMW Z3 Sony Mini Disk Sales increase No benefit Does it Work? • Well… sometimes

  44. Prior Associations • First brand should be: familiar, popular • Coca-Cola • Celebrities, characters, Olympics, concepts, music, even colour • Not an ideal co-branding candidate • Change the context • Present familiar brand in different context, causing increased attention & processing

  45. Belongingness • See Rescorla & Furrow (1977); classic study on 2nd order stimulus similarity increasing learning rate • Similar to product-model match • Need to find some way to link two brands • Worked: Bill Cosby and Jello • Failed: Bill Cosby and E.F. Hutton

  46. Similarity • Too much similarity can work against brand • E.g., see Rescorla & Gillan (1980), exp. 2 • Mistake other brands for co-brand • Salem cigarettes • Freshness positioning • Other brands followed this • Consumers made association to more familiar Salem ads, benefiting Salem

  47. Bidirectional? • Associative conditioning could work both ways • Familiar brand (CS1) can be influenced by targeted brand (CS2) • Negative affect from targeted brand • Greater attention paid to familiar brand; more processing • Erosion (additional associations weaken those initially created)

  48. Changing CS1 Post 2nd Order Conditioning • Rescorla (1973), Holland & Rescorla (1975a,b) • 2nd order conditioning • Tone & light as CSs, food as US • Devalue US via satiation or rapid rotation; extinction of CS1 • Reduced CR for CS1 but not for CS2 • Subsequently restoring US returns some CR for CS1 (not a repairing of CS1-US here)

  49. Brand Counterfeiting • Illegally made products resembling genuine product • Traditionally lower quality • Starting to shift for some counterfeits • Outsourced factories run extra “fake” shift • Sometimes shifts counterfeiters into legitimacy • Becoming a serious problem • Over $600 billion in sales

  50. Types • Deceptive • Consumer unaware product is fake • Nondeceptive • Consumer is aware product is fake • Especially prevalent in luxury brand markets

More Related