In today’s world we encounter thousands of advertisements every day. People tend to block out the ads for the most part, however, some campaigns are successful. In a world where almost everything is a way for organizations to advertise to their products, have you ever wondered how effective advertisements are in selling their products. I believe that the most successful advertising campaigns are those that feel less like advertising and more natural as well as bring the consumer to have a favorable view of the company. Being an election year, we have seen many more political news stories than ever before. While it is often clear that some media outlets have an inherent bias, does that bias play a role in the election? To what extent does the
…show more content…
Weinberger, Harlan Spotts, Leland Campbell, and Amy L. Parsons. The study looked at the use of humor in advertising as it is used in different media outlets. Not only do they look at it’s effectiveness on the advertisement but also on things such as attentiveness over radio broadcasts, frequency of usage and comprehension. The study involved analyzing advertisements used on television, magazine and radio mediums. The study found that “Most executives felt that radio followed closely by TV were the media best suited to using humor” (Weinberger, Spotts, Campbell & Parsons, 1995). The study then found that humor did increase the attentiveness of consumers yet reduces comprehension (Weinberger et al., 1995). Finally, the research found that humor also was more effective with some products rather than others. As the article detailed, “white goods” (products such as large appliances or insurance), were far less successful in using humor than “yellow goods” (products such as snack foods, beer and alcohol). In summary, humor increased the effectiveness of the advertisements when used over the correct medium for the correct product. Otherwise the humor would have a harmful …show more content…
The study analyzed the 1997 Virginia gubernatorial election. As stated in the article, the candidates aired many negative campaign ads against the other in the election. The analyzed the results by drawing data from numerous things such as “a panel survey of Virginia registered voters; second, a content analysis of television commercials aired during the campaign; and third, detailed satellite tracking data showing when, where, and how many times each campaign ad aired in each of Virginia 's top four media markets” (Freedman & Goldstein, 1999). The study combined the average television exposure the people had with the amount of negative campaigns that were aired in a certain media market. The results found that the increase in negative campaign ad exposure didn’t decrease a person’s likelihood to vote but actually increased it. Furthermore, at it’s peak, negative campaign exposure actually rose a person’s likelihood to vote by fifty-one points (Freedman & Goldstein, 1999). Overall, the findings suggest that the negative effects not only had no negative effects on voter turnout but in some cases caused a positive
Weinberger, Harlan Spotts, Leland Campbell, and Amy L. Parsons. The study looked at the use of humor in advertising as it is used in different media outlets. Not only do they look at it’s effectiveness on the advertisement but also on things such as attentiveness over radio broadcasts, frequency of usage and comprehension. The study involved analyzing advertisements used on television, magazine and radio mediums. The study found that “Most executives felt that radio followed closely by TV were the media best suited to using humor” (Weinberger, Spotts, Campbell & Parsons, 1995). The study then found that humor did increase the attentiveness of consumers yet reduces comprehension (Weinberger et al., 1995). Finally, the research found that humor also was more effective with some products rather than others. As the article detailed, “white goods” (products such as large appliances or insurance), were far less successful in using humor than “yellow goods” (products such as snack foods, beer and alcohol). In summary, humor increased the effectiveness of the advertisements when used over the correct medium for the correct product. Otherwise the humor would have a harmful …show more content…
The study analyzed the 1997 Virginia gubernatorial election. As stated in the article, the candidates aired many negative campaign ads against the other in the election. The analyzed the results by drawing data from numerous things such as “a panel survey of Virginia registered voters; second, a content analysis of television commercials aired during the campaign; and third, detailed satellite tracking data showing when, where, and how many times each campaign ad aired in each of Virginia 's top four media markets” (Freedman & Goldstein, 1999). The study combined the average television exposure the people had with the amount of negative campaigns that were aired in a certain media market. The results found that the increase in negative campaign ad exposure didn’t decrease a person’s likelihood to vote but actually increased it. Furthermore, at it’s peak, negative campaign exposure actually rose a person’s likelihood to vote by fifty-one points (Freedman & Goldstein, 1999). Overall, the findings suggest that the negative effects not only had no negative effects on voter turnout but in some cases caused a positive