CS & CO Roles & Responsibilities US FDA Presentatioin - Scott Rawls
Second-Order Conditioning Pair CS 1 with US Pair CS 2 with CS 1 CS 2 produces CR CS 1 serves as US...
-
Upload
brayan-ferrebee -
Category
Documents
-
view
221 -
download
0
Transcript of Second-Order Conditioning Pair CS 1 with US Pair CS 2 with CS 1 CS 2 produces CR CS 1 serves as US...
Second-Order Conditioning
• Pair CS1 with US
• Pair CS2 with CS1
• CS2 produces CR
• CS1 serves as US for CS2
Blair & Shimp (1992)
• Unpleasant experience paired with music
• Brand paired with music
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
Terminology
• Article uses older terminology– Music as US, not CS1
Results
• Negative conditioning to brand in pre-conditioning group
• Music acquired negative affect
• Negative affect transferred to brand
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)
US Pre-exposure
• Repeatedly present US
• More difficult to subsequently condition CS– US occurs without predictive stimulus
Second Order Classical
• US is affective state, mood, etc.
• CS1 is celebrity, expert, consumer, or TPO
• CS2 is brand
Celebrities
• Famous people
• Associations– Popular– Rich– Attractive
Experts
• Known or unknown– e.g., scientist, doctor, lawyer, mechanic,
etc.
• Associations– Knowledge– Authorities
“Typical”Consumer
• Average shopper– Real or fake
• Association– Nothing to gain (leads to trust)– Credibility
Third Party Organizations
• Popular in advertising
• Independent organizations– Rank, rate, or promote a product
• Quality indicators
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
Social Learning Theory
• Bandura
• Observational learning
• Attributes of model and learner
Characteristics
• Model– Rewardingness– Authority– Dominance– Similarity– Sincerity
• Learner– Uncertainty– Age– Sex
Operant
• Observe
• Reinforcement or punishment
• Imitate with expectation
• Generalized imitation
Attractiveness
• Important for– Celebrity endorsers
• Less important (but not ignored) for– Experts, typical consumers
Attractiveness
• Can act as US itself
• Innate predispositions
• Evolved– Health, genotype– Evolutionary psychology
• Mating, social interactions
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)
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
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)
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
Ohanian (1991)
• Attractiveness, expertise, and trustworthiness
• Use of product– For self or for gift
• Male or female consumer
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.jpgespn.go.com/classic/biography/s/McEnroe_John.htmltomselleck.tv-website.com/www.geocities.com/lindaevans9/
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
Subjects
• Residential neighborhoods
• Churches
• Graduate and undergraduate students
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
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
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
Conclusions
• To be useful celebrity spokespersons should be– Knowledgeable– Experienced– Qualified to endorse the product
Celebrity
• Virgin
• Christina Aguilera
• Virgin mobile phone
• UK release
• The devil makes work for idle thumbs. Keep yours busy. Text Virgin Mobile for 3P.
Celebrity
• Commodore Vic 20
• Priceline
• William Shatner
• From playing on Star Trek status to playing on Shatner status
Celebrity
• Independence Air• Dennis Miller• Comedian• Started SNL in 1980s• Currently, talk radio show• Endorses conservative opinions,
supports Republican candidates, pro military action
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
Celebrity
• Power drink
• Arnold Schwarzenegger
• Japanese commercial
• Sometimes celebrity does cross cultures…but the ad might not
Expert
• Nike
• Tiger Woods
• Use the product, be like the expert
Expert
• Chesterfields
• Opinion of a physician
• Trusted
(Anti-) Expert
• BT information technology
• Gordon Ramsay
• Area of specialization
Expert
• Ask an expert
• Future Shop
• Spoofing use of experts in ads
Typical Consumer
• Tide
• Moroccan commercial, 1993
Typical Consumer
• Salem's cigarettes
• Supposedly average couple
• Note music score
• Gives performance information
Co-Branding
• Higher order conditioning association
• Two brands are deliberately paired
• Favourable attitude to second brand due to positive attitude to first brand
• MI
Does it Work?
• Well… sometimes
BMW Z3
Sales increase
+
Sony Mini Disk
No benefit
+
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
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
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
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)
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)
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
Types
• Deceptive– Consumer unaware product is fake
• Nondeceptive– Consumer is aware product is fake– Especially prevalent in luxury brand
markets
Reasons to Purchase
• See: Eisend & Schuchert-Guler (2006)• Person
– Demographic and psychological issues– E.g., purchasers often of lower social status
• Aspects of product– Price, uniqueness, availability– E.g., likelihood of purchase negatively related to price
• Social and cultural– Cultural norms to shopping environment– E.g., consumer more likely to purchase counterfeit if
shopping experience more appetitive
Attitudes
• Social-adjustive attitude (SAA)– Purchase motivated by effort to improve
individual’s approval level in social situations– “Status-symbol”
• Value-expressive attitudes (VEA)– Purchase demonstrate’s consumer’s central
beliefs, attitudes, values– “Self-expression”
• Luxury brand purchases may serve both these functions
Ad-Consumer Interaction
• See: Snyder & DeBono (1985)
• If holding SAA, more favourable to product appeals showcasing social validation goals
• If motivated by VEA, consumer more favourable to ads highlighting intrinsic aspects (“product function” appeals)
Luxury Items & Counterfeits
• VEA will motivate purchase for product function (quality-related reasons)– Less likely to purchase luxury counterfeits
• SAA will motivate purchase of counterfeit luxury items (aim is to make social statement)– More likely to purchase luxury counterfeits
Brand Identifiability
• Recognizable logo/brand characteristic
• Easier higher-order conditioning vector
• Real product already paired with celebrity, sports figure, social class, etc.
• Logo serves as CS2 for idealized trait
High Recognition Brand Counterfeits
• Counterfeit gives same association, but for less money
• Appearance of social elite…even if you aren’t
• Actual quality irrelevant for social validation vector
• “Surface” level analysis
Quality-Driven Luxury Brands• Often non-explicit logo, characteristics, etc.
– Luxury detail based on subtle quality distinctions– “If you have to ask”…
• Not ideal items for counterfeit– VEA-driven, not SAA-driven
• 2nd order conditioning just not there to begin with– Salience on identifying these luxury items is low
Consumer Personality Traits
• Moral/ethics re: counterfeit– Lower on scale more
likely to purchase
• High-self monitors– More likely to adopt SAA
• Low-self monitors– More likely to adopt VEA
Anti-Counterfeiting Campaigns
• Difficult to police• Negative publicity to designer brands
– E.g., Louis Vuitton
• Fashion industry appeals– Hurts designers
– Appealing to those who can already afford high-end luxury items
• Negative ad framing– Might highlight loss in social status if
counterfeit detected
Knock-offs
• Technically, not counterfeits
• Inspired by more innovative, higher-end brands– E.g., GAP, H&M
• Lacks the same moral/ethical objections to purchase Kim Kardashian Knock off