In this research paper, the author undertakes a detailed evaluation of a vast amount of written literature mainly of research studies that have been done on the same area with the sole intention of verifying whether indeed the notion of subliminal advertising is effective in marketing strategies and if they are applicable. Throughout this paper, the author objectively discusses in great detail dozens of research studies, both that support the phenomenon of subliminal advertising and those that do not in addition to reviewing marketing models and even psychological studies as well to refute or support the various theories of subliminal advertising that are discussed in the paper. So in essence what the author is doing, in this case, is presenting the evidence, which is then reviewed systematically in a manner that enables the reader to be the judge.
As such, by the end of this evaluation the author can make a strong case on why subliminal advertising has little application in the art of marketing despite the seemingly weak evidence that exists in the several studies that claim so. In fact, the author undertakes a critical evaluation of each component of subliminal advertising strategy and shows in more than one way why it cannot be applied in marketing due to many challenges such as their subtle positioning, interference of other supraliminal stimuli, inability of establishing a standardized threshold concept, practical challenges of embedding subliminal stimuli and inability to guarantee a specific behavior outcome among others.
Critique
This is one of the most elaborately written research papers on the topic of subliminal advertising in which the author objectively presents evidence in very systematic manner for purposes of reassessing the applications of subliminal advertising. This paper has few if any weaknesses for obvious reasons; the fact that it is a desk-based review of relevant literature means that it is not inclined to have any methodological shortcomings in the first place which is the major pitfall for almost all forms of research studies. In my opinion this paper has no shortcoming that I could readily identify except perhaps for the fact that despite the vast literature reviewed there appears to be still more evidence that was not reviewed by the end of it.
Low Involvement Learning: Memory without Evaluation
The focus of this research study focused on determination of the impact that low-involvement Learning has in respect of two factors that were the central issues of the research study; that of the learning process and how this relates with the resulting belief (Hawkins and Hoch, 1992). The objective of this research study was to measure the impact that the level of Learning on subjects impacted on their learning process and the resulting belief that they formed. To determine this, the authors used an experimental research design whereby three experiments were used to measure the various key variables of the research. This meant that each of the three experiments used in the study focused on a specific component of the wider topic that is under investigation in this study. Consequently, the focus of the first experiment was to assess the level of truth in what the researchers describe as a low-involvement learning context and determine how this compares with high involvement learning (Hawkins and Hoch, 1992).
In the second experiment that was derived from the findings of the first experiment, the researchers intended to explore ways in which the memory aspect of the learning process could be manipulated to attain the desired effect. Finally the third experiment of this study further assessed ways in which memory can be enhanced under low-involvement learning that incorporated still more variables (Hawkins and Hoch, 1992).
Critique
Foremost, how this research study is designed, is in such a manner whereby the findings of the first experiment were relied upon by the researchers to guide and design the next two research study experiments. The problem with such a study design is that any errors or weaknesses in the first experiment will be translated to the resulting findings and ultimately the final findings because they will be based on the first experiment. In addition, an inherent weakness of this research study is its focus of study which mainly involves determination of memory among the subjects of the study; this is because memory is essentially relative and widely differs among persons even of the same personality. This means it will be impossible at best to obtain a workable yardstick that can be used reliably to measure the variable of memory across all the subjects of interest that were used in the study.
The Effects of Incidental Ad Exposure on the Formation of Consideration Sets
The purpose of this study was to assess the impact that incidental ad exposure has on the process of advertising by examining various contexts in which incidental ad exposure is found to occur. Thus, the study objective for this paper was to find out whether the incidental advert exposure has any effect on the resulting product or choice that is eventually chosen by the consumer (Shapiro, Maoinnis, and Heokler, 1997). To carry out the study the authors developed the hypothesis necessary to evaluate the primary data collected from the field and thereby determine if incidental ad exposure does indeed influence consumer choice or not.
The experimental research design was used to collect data from one hundred and fifty-two students that made up the sample size and subdivided into two groups; the control group and the experimental group. Seventy-four students were used as the experimental group while the remaining seventy-eight were the control group (Shapiro et al, 1997). The research design involved a pre-test component that tested for validity and reliability; the independent variables identified were manipulated to determine their effect on the dependent variable (Shapiro et al, 1997).
The results findings of this study after the data analysis indicated that an advert has the possibility of affecting future buying choices even when the consumers are lost in thought and do not pay attention to the ad or when they do not even remember ever seeing the advert (Shapiro et al, 1997). Thus incidental advert exposure is effective as it was proven that it can boost the probability of a product inclusion to the consumer’s consideration set (Shapiro et al, 1997).
Critic
One major weakness with this study experiment was the fact that the control group and the experimental group were not equal in number as should have been the case in an ideal experiment; the problem with this is that observable differences between the two groups could be attributed to the difference in number between the two groups. Additionally, in an experimental study the researcher can manipulate the independent variables to suit his/her objectives thus making the experiment subjective in nature. In this case the authors used the experimental design to collect primary data, which raises the question of research ethics. Like all qualitatively designed research studies such as this, the study results cannot be generalized in another context despite their replicability because there is always an element of subjective interpretation of data which makes the study results to be subjective as well.
An Examination of Different Explanations for the Mere Exposure Effect
Fang, Singh and Ahluwalia (2007) examine in this study two different reasons that are given for what they refer to as the Mere Exposure Effect. They assess diverse descriptions of Mere Exposure Effect (MEE) in two experiments through the use of banner ads as incentives to determine which among the two models of “cognition-based perceptual fluency/misattribution theory (PF/M) and the affect-based hedonic fluency model (HFM)” are best placed to explain the MEE phenomenon (Fang et al, 2007). The reason they used banner ads for the study was that most audiences pay less attention to banner ads and that these audiences help the authors to comprehend how banner ads work (Fang et al, 2007).
Their first research examines the influential effects of banner ads while the second one looks at fundamental process problems in the setting of banner ads. Both studies utilized experimental design to collect the data during this study with the first study using a sample size of 232 students while the second used 304 students (Fang et al, 2007). The identified independent variables in both cases were manipulated to verify the study hypothesis.
In their first study they concluded that repetition of exposure to banner advert improved perceptual ease and as a consequence, there is more positive assessment (Fang et al, 2007). In the second study, they found out that misattribution of experience or signals gets rid of MEE; in general, the study fails to find any evidence of the PF/M model being applicable in the case of MEE but instead identifies the spontaneous affective reaction to being more relevant in the process of MEE (Fang et al, 2007).
Critic
The study used students as the experimental group which may have an influential effect on the experiment results that is normally described as the “herd behavior” which may affect the researcher’s general conclusion and which was not appropriately controlled in this case (Fang et al, 2007). The research should have relied on a more diverse sample size to control this phenomenon and also for generalization purposes. Again in this case as well the sample size should ideally have been the same. Finally, this research study did not incorporate enough variables of interest since it was focused on just a few variables that were used during this study.
References
Fang, X., Singh, S. and Ahluwalia, R. (2007). An Examination of Different Explanations for the exposure Effect, Journal of consumer Research, 34: 1-7.
Hawkins, S. & Hoch, S. (1992). Low Involvement Learning: Memory without Evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 19: 212-224.
Moore, T. (1983). Subliminal Advertising: What you see is what you get. Journal of Marketing, 46: 38-47.
Shapiro, S., Maoinnis, D. and Heokler, S. (1997). The Effects of Incidental Ad Exposure on the Formation of Consideration Sets, Journal of Consumer 24: 1-12.