1. VISUAL METAPHOR AND CONSUMER RESPONSE Margot van Mulken, Rob Le Pair ICORIA 2006 BATH

2. ICORIA 2006 Bath Visual Metaphor Metaphor Lakoff & Johnson (1980): Understandig one kind of thing in terms of another kind of thing

3. ICORIA 2006 Bath Visual Metaphor

4. ICORIA 2006 Bath Visual Metaphor Rhetoric in advertising Rhetorical figures: artful deviation in form that adheres to an identifiable template. Number of templates is limited, consumers learn to respond to a figure –The nature of the link between the two domains determines the type of rhetorical figure Metaphor (Trope) : Many definitions –Understanding one thing in terms of another (Lakoff & Johnson 1980) –Source domain, target domain

5. ICORIA 2006 Bath Visual Metaphor Advantages of rhetoric in advertising Attracts attention; getting noticed Complex rhetoric: involves comprehension and cognitive processing, generates inferences, involves interpretation Provides pleasure, arousal, self-contentment: pleasant feelings (Tanaka 1996) Provides longer retention (Tom & Eves 1999) McQuarrie & Mick (2003) : it works for verbal rhetoric (‘Put a tiger in your tank’) claim: it also works for visual rhetoric

6. ICORIA 2006 Bath Visual Metaphor Phillips & McQuarrie 2004 Visual rhetoric ≠ verbal rhetoric Visual processing presupposes another kind of processing. Iconical representation vs. Verbal code (‘double articulation’) Therefore: New Framework –1 axe: Richness of meaning –2 axe: Visual structure Visual structure –Juxtaposition, –Fusion and –Replacement are an exhaustive list of the possible ways two image elements can be combined within a two-dimensional representation

7. ICORIA 2006 Bath Visual Metaphor Visual structure No metaphor Juxtaposition –Source and target domain are both present, presented separately, side-by-side Fusion –Target and source domain are combined together Replacement –Source domain replaces target domain, the present image calls to mind the absent image | C o m p l e x i t y + Consumer response more complex processing? more appreciation?

8. ICORIA 2006 Bath Visual Metaphor Culture differences / Gender differences Culture differences –Culture may override the universal mapping in metaphors (Kövecses 2005) –Latin cultures are more apt to derive implicit meaning from visual images than anglosaxon cultures (Callow & Schiffman 2002) Gender differences in processing strategies –‘selectivity model’: females are comprehensive information processors (Meyers-Levy & Maheswaran 1991) –women are more likely than men to make inferences from advertisements (Edens & McCormick 2000)

9. ICORIA 2006 Bath Visual Metaphor Hypotheses Experienced complexity –Juxtaposition is perceived as less complex than fusion, which is perceived as less complex than replacement Appreciation –Juxtaposition is less appreciated than fusion, which is less appreciated than replacement (no moderation) Culture –French and Spanish respondents perceive all types of metaphor as less complex than Dutch respondents; French and Spanish appreciate all types of metaphor better than Dutch respondents Gender –Female respondents appreciate all types of metaphor better than male respondents

10. ICORIA 2006 Bath Visual Metaphor Method Material –16 authentic ads, 4 groups (no rhetorical figure, 3 types of metaphor) –All verbal information (except brand name) had been removed –All ads were identical in all countries Participants –60 French participants, 275 Dutch, 88 Spanish (Total 423) –263 Female, 160 Male Design –Within-participants design for type of metaphor –Between-participants for culture and gender

11. ICORIA 2006 Bath Visual Metaphor Method (2) Instrumentation –Online experiment (2 versions) –Experienced complexity: 7-point Likert scale This ad is easy to understand; the meaning is clear to me –Appreciation This ad is well-chosen; original; pleasing Procedure –Participants invited by e-mail. Questionnaire lasted 15 minutes approx. Treatment –Analyses for repeated measures, pair wise comparisons (LSD) and univariate analysis

12. ICORIA 2006 Bath Visual Metaphor Results Mean experienced complexity per advertisement (1 = very difficult to understand 7 = very easy to understand) per Nationality (French, Dutch and Spanish) as a function of type of metaphor (1 = no metaphor, 2 = juxtaposition, 3 = fusion, 4 = replacement)

13. ICORIA 2006 Bath Visual Metaphor Results (2) Mean appreciation per advertisement (1 = very low appreciation 7 = very high appreciation) per Nationality (French, Dutch and Spanish) as a function of type of metaphor (1 = no metaphor, 2 = juxtaposition, 3 = fusion, 4 = replacement)

14. ICORIA 2006 Bath Visual Metaphor Results (3) Mean experienced complexity per advertisement (1 = very difficult to understand 7 = very easy to understand) Mean appreciation per advertisement (1 = very low appreciation 7 = very high appreciation)

15. ICORIA 2006 Bath Visual Metaphor Conclusions Experienced complexity hypothesis: confirmed –Juxtaposition is perceived as less complex than fusion, which is perceived as less complex than replacement Appreciation partially confirmed : inverted U-pattern –Juxtaposition is less appreciated than fusion, which, on turn, is more appreciated than replacement Culture: partially confirmed –French participants respond similarly to the Dutch respondents, although they have an average better liking of all types of metaphor (including No Metaphor) than the Dutch –Spanish participants prefer Replacement ads (conform the hypothesis) to Juxtaposition, Fusion and No Metaphor. Gender: not confirmed –The appreciation pattern of the female respondents has the shape of an inverted U-form. –The appreciation pattern of the male respondents shows a linear increment

16. ICORIA 2006 Bath Visual Metaphor Implications Visual structure works for metaphor Visual complexity is appreciated up to a certain degree –More research necessary: measuring actual comprehension in stead of self reported comprehension or perceived complexity Culture matters –Is appreciation * comprehension the reason for the preference for Replacement by the Spanish? Gender matters, although not in the expected direction –Practical implication: the type of visual metaphor should be adapted to the product category (targeted towards male/female audiences)

17. ICORIA 2006 Bath Visual Metaphor Limitations We did not control for product or brand liking, product category We did not verify the actual understanding of the advertisement We did not adapt the choice of the stimuli to gender preferences (e.g. cars vs deodorant). Thank you m.v.mulken@let.ru.nl

18. ICORIA 2006 Bath Visual Metaphor

19. ICORIA 2006 Bath Visual Metaphor Claims –Fusion involves a more complex processing task than juxtapostion (and replacement than fusion) and this difference in complexity can be systematically related to differences in consumer response –“Because complexity, within limits, is pleasurably arousing, it will also be associated with greater ad liking. However, too much complexity reduces comprehension of the ad, so the outcome of ad liking associated with more complex visual figures is particularly likely to be subject to moderating factors” (Phillips & McQuarrie 2004) dus replacement: less ad liking? geen dia, maar is uitleg bij vorige dia

20. ICORIA 2006 Bath Visual Metaphor Results Culture Experienced complexity –Interaction effect of Nationality and Type of metaphor (F (838, 6) = 11.36, p <.001, Wilks’ Lambda =.86,  2 =.08) –Strong main effect for Type of metaphor (F (3, 418) = 123.09, p <.001, Wilks’ Lambda =.53,  2 =.47) Appreciation –Interaction effect of Nationality and Type of metaphor (F (838, 6) = 6.99, p <.001,  2 =.05 –Strong main effect of Type of metaphor (F (418, 3) = 134.42, p<.001,  2 =.49)

21. ICORIA 2006 Bath Visual Metaphor Results Gender Experienced complexity –Interaction effect of Gender and Type of metaphor (F (419, 3) = 4.01, p <.05, Wilks’ Lambda =.98,  2 =.03) –Strong main effect for Type of metaphor (F (419, 3) = 199.17, p <.001, Wilks’ Lambda =.41,  2 =.59) Appreciation –Interaction effect of Gender and Type of metaphor (F (419, 3) = 13.72, p <.001, Wilks’Lambda =.91,  2 =.09 –Strong main effect of Type of metaphor (F (419, 3) = 186.16, p<.001,  2 =.57) on appreciation.