 | This article has multiple issues. Please helpimprove it or discuss these issues on thetalk page.(Learn how and when to remove these messages) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
|
Anannoyance factor (ornuisance orirritation factor[a]), in advertising andbrand management, is avariable used to measure consumers' perception level of annoyance in an ad, then analyzed to help evaluate the ad's effectiveness. The variable can beobserved orinferred and is a type that might be used infactor analyses. Anannoyance effect (ornuisance orirritation effect[a]) is a reference to the impact or result of an annoyingstimulus, which can be a strategic aspect of an advertisement intended to help a message stick in the minds of consumers. References to annoyance effects have been referred to asannoyancedynamics.[i][ii] While the words "factor" and "effect", as used in thebehavioral sciences, have different meanings, in casualvernacular, they have been used interchangeably assynonymous. A more general orumbrella term would simply beadvertising annoyance.
Comment on advertising in 1850 associated some practices (disparagingly) withbegging.[1]
The discipline of identifying and measuring annoyance inquantitative research became prevalent around 1968,[iii] an outgrowth of thequantitative revolution insocial sciences that began in the 1950s.[2] Before that, use and assessment – theoretical and applied (pre-testing, case studies,etc.) – was mostly qualitative (even simplyintuitive or anecdotal); although the literature, since 1968,[b][iv] has been a mix of qualitative and quantitative. Identifying, testing, and evaluating annoyance factors is bothcross-disciplinary andinterdisciplinary. Activity includespsychology,sociology,anthropology,semiotics,economics,management science, and (since the advent of theinformation revolution about 1992) many fields related toinformation technology and engineering.
Generally, annoyance from an ad can be identified in three areas:[v][iii][vi]
Setting aside advances in technology, the interdisciplinary fields involved inproduction phases of broadcast media (including digital online) that deal with advertising annoyance – including film (videography),music, art, design, andcopy – have remained relatively similar since the dawn of broadcasting.[citation needed]
Anannoyance stimulus can be (a) a desired marketing strategy or (b) an unavoidable, albeitinherent mix of attributes of a marketing message to weigh and balance or minimize. Traditional annoyance stimuli might feature repetitive phrases or repetitive ads[vii] or an annoying communicator. Annoyance stimuli – whether nuanced, subtle, or overt – might involve creating an unpleasant sound, such as a badjingle – one that consumers can't get out of their heads. In theNortheastern United States, specifically theNew York andPhiladelphia metropolitan areas, theMister Softee jingle, officially titled "Jingle and Chimes", is both loved and hated. It sticks in people's heads.The New York Times characterized it as "exquisitelyPavlovian, triggering salivation or shrieking – sometimes both at once." In the same article, theNew York Times asserted that "it is the textbook embodiment of anearworm: once heard, never forgotten."[3][4]
Generally, broadcast and streaming advertising is annoying. Exceptions might includeproduct placement – which avoidsinterruptions. Advertisers commonly try to appeal to positive emotions – and, with a careful mix of various gradations of annoyance(s), appealing to those emotions can be achieved. Nonetheless, the goal is to etch a message in the minds of consumers without turning them off. Capital outlay for the use of it can be relatively expensive for majorconsumer product companies and theresearch behind it, sophisticated.[5]
Annoyance stimuli – visual or auditory or perceptual – can be in any combination of loudness, repetition, length ... Ontelevision,[6] radio, print media,packaging, productdisplays,billboards,mail,telemarketing (especiallyrobocalls), theinternet – includingemail, andmobile devices,e.g.:
... alsodirect-to-consumer ads (especiallypharmaceuticals),call to action marketing, andfalse ads.[x]
The annoyance stimuli of some ad campaigns might be so subtle that, initially, it is unnoticeable, but over time, highly noticeable. For instance,Folgers Coffee, which was acquired byProcter & Gamble in 1963, ranhigh frequency ads on TV and in print from 1965 to 1986 featuring "Mrs. Olson", portrayed by actressVirginia Christine (1920–1996). Some consumers initially perceived her messages as pleasant, but over time, annoying – as some research found. Yet, the annoyance technique was a successful brand-strengthening strategy. UnderP&G, Folgers became the number one coffee brand in America. Thetarget market of P&G's high-frequency campaign becamemultipronged. Consumers who infrequently watched TV were likely to see the message at least once (an effectivereach strategy) – while those whobinge-watched, even if annoyed, might still choose Folgers, if for no other reason, because the name is etched in their minds (an effectiveweight strategy). Although interruptions are annoying – whether high-frequency or long run-slots – the disruptions caused by the interruptions are most often intentional efforts to redirect the attention of viewers with the aim of sharpening their focus.[7]Primetime TV (as of 2019) has breaks that run back-to-back 30-second ads for as long as 6-minute intervals.
When advertisers intentionally use annoyance stimuli, they strive to know annoyance thresholds (compare toanxiety thresholds) and carefully monitor them. Crossing thresholds can adversely affect brands and consumer behavior.[i] For example, TVchannel surfing – especially in eras following the emergence ofremote controls, is a concern for advertisers and program producers. To mitigate viewer drift from surfing, programmers strategically place ads just moments in front of the apex of aplot device orrising action orclimax or conclusion or in the midst ofsuspense – leaving viewers hanging. It doesn't significantly deter channel surfing, but it does lure surfers back. Strategic timing, however, is not commonly deployed in internet broadcasts. For example, aYouTube re-broadcast ofCNN news might simply insert ad interruptions in random spots. Another way that major TV networks attempt to mitigate viewer drift from surfing is to synchronize ad-breaks with those of other networks so that their respective ads run at the same time; when a viewer switches to another channel during a commercial break, they will be switching to another advertisement. In some situations, the samesponsor will air an ad simultaneously on one or more of the other channels.
Advertising in premium venues or platforms (where consumers have already paid) –movie theaters,cable TV,satellite radio – are routine and generally accepted. Any associated annoyance factors, even perceptions ofbait-and-switch, are dismissed by consumers as negative albeit long-standing unavoidable economic realities of the respective industries.[8]
Email spam, universally accepted as an annoyance factor threshold breach,[c] can be effective from a statistical perspective. However, since 1998, when unsolicited political bulk email first became widespread, legal analyst Seth Grossman pointed out (in 2004) that state and federal governments increasingly have regulated unsolicitedcommercial email, butpolitical spam had almost uniformly been exempted. Grossman averred that politicians apparently did not feel a need to regulate political spam, their argument being that they would never use spam, due to the annoyance factor.[xi]
ForDVR-TiVo users, studies have shown that short ads, 5 seconds, are more effective than 30-second (and longer) ads – due to the annoyance factor of longer ads. The problem, however, is whether programmers can sell 5-second ads instead of 30-second (and longer) ads, with similar pricing – especially considering the challenge ofconsistently producingeffective 5-second ads.[9][xii][xiii]
Some ads are deliberately annoying. Some are cute or funny, but, for some, wear thin over time. "Memorable, but not always effective"[10]
North America
Factor analysis of perceptual items and attitude measures in online advertising:
Academicians Kelli S. Burns, PhD, and Richard J. Lutz, PhD, surveyed online users in 2002. In doing so, they chose sixonline ad formats: (i)banners, (ii)pop-ups, (iii)floating ads, (iv)skyscrapers, (v)large rectangles, and (vi)interstitials.
To developperceptual factors, ratings of the 15 perceptual items for all six on-line ad formats were run throughprincipal components analysis withvarimax rotation. The authors inferred – from ascree plot – a possible three-factor solution. The first three factors accounted for over 68% of thetotal variance. The remaining 12 reflected no more than 5% of thevariance, each. The first of the seven tables in their paper, Table 1 (below), shows theloadings of the factors generated throughprincipal component extraction andvarimax rotation.[ix]
| Table 1 | ||||
| Summary of Factor Loadings for theRotated Three-Factor Solution for Perceptual Items | ||||
| Perception | Factor scores | |||
| Factor I entertainment | Factor II annoyance | Factor III information | ||
| 1) | Innovative | 0.81 | (0.01) | 0.07 |
| 2) | Different | 0.75 | (0.01) | (0.06) |
| 3) | Entertaining | 0.75 | (0.27) | 0.14 |
| 4) | Sophisticated | 0.72 | (0.07) | 0.22 |
| 5) | Amusing | 0.71 | (0.34) | 0.11 |
| 6) | Elaborate | 0.70 | 0.24 | 0.17 |
| 7) | Eye-catching | 0.70 | 0.24 | 0.17 |
| 8) | Attractive | 0.64 | (0.37) | 0.32 |
| 9) | Disruptive | (0.04) | 0.89 | (0.21) |
| 10) | Intrusive | 0.06 | 0.87 | (0.14) |
| 11) | Overbearing | (0.03) | 0.86 | (0.23) |
| 12) | Annoying | (0.12) | 0.85 | (0.25) |
| 13) | Informative | 0.08 | (0.23) | 0.84 |
| 14) | Useful | 0.29 | (0.37) | 0.74 |
| 15) | Beneficial | 0.35 | (0.45) | 0.65 |
| (2002) | Green boldface data indicate items loading on each factor | |||
Using annoyances as disruptive devices in advertising to help messagessink-in can be analogous tojarring devices used in performing arts. For example, in theAlvin Ailey American Dance Theater December 6, 2019, premier ofGreenwood atCity Center inNew York,Donald Byrd (born 1949), the choreographer, described his work as "theater of disruption" ... "it disrupts our thinking about things, especially, in particular, things aroundrace." The dance performance addresses a1921 racist mob attack inTulsa's then segregatedGreenwood District, which, at the time, was one of the country's most affluentAfrican American communities, known as "America's Black Wall Street."[11][12][13]
The following subjects may address certain aspects or fall within the scope of annoyance dynamics.
{{cite book}}:|work= ignored (help))
): 1. RetrievedNovember 14, 2019.{{cite journal}}:Cite journal requires|journal= (help)ISSN 2476-2679;EBSCOhost 96048559.