We found 4 different advertisements and took off the text/logo so only the image was left. Here are the 4 images;
The images were very varied and also not obvious so the results were quite interesting. As a group we went into the student union just after lunch time so we could ask people about the images without being a pain! We asked 5 groups of people and gathered the results for each as all the people in a group combined.
The first image had most groups baffled, however the over all idea was that it was funny and weird. The image confused most people not understanding what it was about. After asking people what they thought it might be advertising no-one knew, someone guessed religion but this was the only guess.
The second image was a lot more obvious to the groups as being about some kind of danger and that it was also something about children. Someone also said that it was dangerous and that they wanted to stay away from it. For a complete opposite one group said it was happy and reminded them of childhood. Two groups also guessed that it may advertise child abuse.
The third image was the most popular image, with people laughing, finding it funny and 'cool'. One person said they also thought it was a little creepy and about control. A lot of the groups thought that, perhaps obvious, it advertised a magic show.
The final image was in complete contrast the least favourite image. One girl in a group didn't even want to look at it after a while. A lot of people screwed their faces up when the image was shown to them for the first time. The general consensus was that it was 'horrid'. A lot of people also guessed that it advertised domestic abuse.
Images with the advertisements still attached:
domestic abuse helpline
viagra
mens deodorant 'Axe'
save the children
When we revealed to the groups what each of the advertisements were the reactions were quite interesting. The Viagra advert was one of the best examples. When we explained it was for Viagra and showed the image again they had a little think while it all clicked in their heads and got a typical 'oh yeah!' as they worked it out. People used words such as 'magic' and 'control' to describe the image, which in a way does describe the product and people thought the advert was quite clever and understood it as soon as its meaning was revealed. The logo was a tiny part of the image but revealed a lot to make everything click together and make sense. I found this advert the most amusing as unknowingly the people described the advert to be exactly what Viagra is about (well not exactly literally) and only from an image. Its very clever advertising in my opinion.
The nun image, which advertises 'Axe' deodorant, the equivalent to the UK's 'Lynx' confused people, and even when the meaning was revealed, still confused people a little. Lynx advertisements are well known to be about attracting women with their scent, so i would guess that Axe is very similar with their approach. So the nun and the clothes peg is quite clever, saying that without it she too would be attracted to men, how sinful! People didn't seem to think much about the peg, only seeing the nun. The one guess we got about this advert was it advertised religion, a type of advert i personally don't see too often! The placement of the brand on the image was a discrete deodorant can in the corner of the advert, not obvious at all. Telling people the meaning of the advert didn't really clear up the confusion either, a lot of people still not 'getting it'. This shows that logos sometimes don't make an image 'make sense'. Maybe the advert needed a logo? Or was meant to just grab the viewers attention, and purposefully not obvious.
The two more serious adverts, one for save the children and one for domestic abuse, were more hard hitting, hard to look at and also apparently more obvious. These advertisements are important, not selling a product so therefore cant be too clever and difficult for people to 'read' as they need their message out there in the best possible way. Both images didn't even need a logo or writing for people to understand them and this shows just how successful and powerful they are. What was interesting about these adverts was that the two groups of people who guessed very quickly, before even asked, studied psychology and social work. The social work group commented on this fact that they could understand the harder hitting images more than the more light hearted adverts. This shows that different people see images in very different ways. One of the groups we asked was a younger girl and her parents waiting in the union for a nursing degree interview. She was clearly going to be nervous and i'm guessing was a little younger so perhaps more immune to some serious issues. She thought the save the children advert was happy and reminded her of childhood... probably not what STC had in mind when implementing the advertisement.
In 'The Rhetoric of the Image' by Roland Barthes, Barthes talks about three types of messages in advertising; text, symoblic and non symbolic. All of the images we showed people were symbolic ones. There was no text describing what was being advertised and the literal product was not involved. However the 2 adverts we had that were advertising a tangible product were the ones that people couldn't guess... The two advertising services, people could guess. Possibly we asked the wrong people, or that the particular people we asked needed all three types of images to get what they were supposed to from the advertisement. For our experiment, it seems that more than just a symbolic message was needed.
No comments:
Post a Comment