Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id RAA22193 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 10 May 2000 17:39:36 +0100 Message-ID: <39194B20.EB74E3FB@mediaone.net> Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 12:42:24 +0100 From: Chuck Palson <cpalson@mediaone.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: a memetic experiment- an eIe opener References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31CEB177@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Vincent Campbell wrote:
> Chuck, you say:
>
> >Yes - my point was that there is a lot of flim flam in advertising
> precisely
> >because no one could do the kind of research necessary to prove cause and
> effect
> >- it would be too expensive.
>
> If it's too expensive to prove it works, then why do companies spend so much
> money on something they don't know for certain works? That reminds me of
> that Dudley Moore film where he plays an advertising executive who decides
> to tell the truth, and posits one slogan for an airline as 'Most of our
> people get there alive!'. Imagine an airline that genuinely used planes
> that fell out of the sky repeatedly....
That's a complex question, but the most important part is that businesses must
wing it by using common sense and hope it works. They know there are no complete
certainties. And advertising salesman play on this.
But here's an interesting thing about it. The CEOs feel it is their duty to
pass on advertising campaigns even though they may not know enough to really do
it. That's because advertising is so public, they feel it is part of their
"badge" if you will. So they sometimes veto an effective advertising campaign
and lose business. I can't remember the specific type for sure, but I think it
has to do with violent programs. Some CEO's simply believe it's bad to be
associated with violence, so they won't advertise on those shows, yet no one can
find any such negative effect. So it's just the CEO's moral prejudice; in other
words, he refuses to act according to the profit motive even though that is his
God-given responsibililty!
>
>
> This is a genuine question for the persuasive industries. For example, a
> basic question in academic research into PR at the moment is PR evaluation.
> Unlike advertising or marketing, the results of PR aren't as clear cut as
> product sales or market share increasing. It's a question for the PR
> profession because of concerns about unscrupulous 'consultants' making lots
> of money without ever actually demonstrating they've made some kind of
> difference to their client's position. One of the problems is, how do you
> evaluate PR 'success'? There are some answers, but one of the problems is
> that clients expect results straight away, and there is little practical
> time for evaluation in the workplace, so the problem continues.
>
I am familiar with the problem and I don't think there is a solution that would
satisfy everyone - it's conflicting demands of two different groups, the PR
people and the institution.
>
> > ----------
> > From: Chuck Palson
> > Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 9:16 am
> > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > Subject: Re: a memetic experiment- an eIe opener
> >
> >
> >
> > Vincent Campbell wrote:
> >
> > > Actually Chuck, such research makes no sense.
> > >
> > > If people don't remember or mis-remember advertising then how did it
> > make
> > > them buy the product? The point I was making is about simple ideas of
> > > causality. Advertising researchers are only interested in whether or
> > not
> > > their specific adverts work on specific people, and they fundamentally
> > and
> > > persistently ignore context. If they say that people don't remember or
> > > mis-remember advertising messages but buy the product anyway, they still
> > > assume it's because of the advertising. Even the statistical studies
> > > demonstrate time and time again factors other than exposure to
> > advertising
> > > impacts on what products people buy.
> >
> > As I said in my other reply, you don't have to know how to say it to
> > remember it
> > enough to buy the product. So, yes, you are right. The interesting thing
> > that
> > this illustrates is how modularized the brain is. Pinker hypothesizes that
> > it is
> > modularized to prevent reducency - like procedures in a computer program
> > that
> > many other mudules can use. I find it quite fascinating how
> > psycholinguistics
> > can infer the different modules from the structure of speech.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > The problem for companies employing advertisers, marketing and PR
> > > consultants is that somebody somewhere buys the product (or votes for
> > the
> > > party), and those people can be deemd to have been successfully
> > persuaded by
> > > the campaign just because they bought the product.
> >
> > Yes - my point was that there is a lot of flim flam in advertising
> > precisely
> > because no one could do the kind of research necessary to prove cause and
> > effect
> > - it would be too expensive.
> >
> > > Even basic factors, such
> > > as product utility, are ignored.
> > >
> >
> > Not really. That's only true in a mature market where only brand name
> > differentiates. But the vast majority of products are not in mature
> > markets. You
> > only think so because the mature products are almost by definition the
> > most
> > visible.Vincent
> >
> > >
> > > > ----------
> > > > From: Chuck Palson
> > > > Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2000 2:49 pm
> > > > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > > > Subject: Re: a memetic experiment- an eIe opener
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Vincent Campbell wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > With respect, this idea ignores 75 or more years of media studies
> > that
> > > > have
> > > > > been trying to identify the pecularities of media effects.
> > > > >
> > > > > I believe memetics may offer a perspective on this, but there's no
> > way
> > > > in
> > > > > which your proposal would work because the uptake of memes is
> > > > > context-sensitive, both in the sense of the environment in which a
> > meme
> > > > > emerges, and second in terms of the people who are exposed to the
> > meme.
> > > > > This is exactly why most theories of advertising and marketing etc.
> > are
> > > > so
> > > > > flawed because they assume that if you construct a message with
> > > > > characteristic 'a' and disseminate it to audience member 'b' you
> > will
> > > > get
> > > > > the desired effect 'c'. But it obviously doesn't work like that.
> > There
> > > > is
> > > > > little evidence that there is something inherent in any media text
> > which
> > > > > makes it more or less likely to succeed in general terms, mainly
> > because
> > > > the
> > > > > audience is not an amorphous mass of automatons, but people with
> > both
> > > > > overlapping and contradictory attitudes, knowledge, etc. etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > Vincent
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I heartily agree. I want to add something that all of you might find
> > very
> > > > interesting in regards to the above. The media industry took several
> > to
> > > > complete
> > > > a study that studied the effect of advertising by actually following
> > > > people
> > > > around after they had been exposed to real advertising in their real
> > > > lives.
> > > > Here's what they found: there is very little correlation between what
> > > > people say
> > > > they remember of products with what they actually do in regards to
> > that
> > > > product. In other words, while they may not be able to SAY that they
> > > > remember
> > > > product X, they will nevertheless be more prone to buy that product if
> > > > they have
> > > > seen the advertising.
> > > >
> > > > That, of course, is how all research on the effect of advertising
> > should
> > > > be
> > > > done, but it's too expensive. So what do they do instead? They still
> > quote
> > > > figures on how many people remember!
> > > >
> > > > That's a real story that indicates just how hard it is to study the
> > > > effects of
> > > > media. The advertising industry may say they study such effects, but
> > it's
> > > > really
> > > > flim flam.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ===============================================================
> > > > This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> > > > Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> > > > For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> > > > see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
> > > >
> > >
> > > ===============================================================
> > > This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> > > Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> > > For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> > > see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
> >
> >
> > ===============================================================
> > This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> > Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> > For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> > see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
> >
>
> ===============================================================
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 10 2000 - 17:40:03 BST