Annoyance factor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

An annoyance factor (aka nuisance or irritation[a]), in advertising and brand management, is a variable used to measure consumers' perception level of annoyance in an ad, then analyzed to help evaluate the ad's effectiveness. The variable can be observed or inferred and is a type that might be used in factor analyses. An annoyance effect (aka nuisance or irritation[a]) is a reference to the impact or result of an annoying stimuli, 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 as annoyance dynamics.[i][ii] While the words "factor" and "effect," as used in the behavioral sciences, have different meanings, in casual vernacular, they have been used interchangeably as synonymous. A more general or umbrella term would simply be advertising annoyance.

History[edit]

Measuring annoyance factors[edit]

The discipline of identifying and measuring annoyance in quantitative research became prevalent around 1968,[iii] an outgrowth the quant revolution in social sciences that began in the 1950s.[1] Before that, use and assessment – theoretical and applied (pre-testing, case studies, etc.) – was mostly qualitative (even simply intuitive or anecdotal); although the literature, since 1968,[b][iv] has been a mix of qualitative and quant. Identifying, testing, and evaluating annoyance factors is both cross-disciplinary and interdisciplinary, which includes psychology, sociology, anthropology, semiotics, economics, management science, and, since the advent of the information revolution, since about 1992, many fields related to information technology and engineering.

Generally, annoyance from an ad can be identified in three areas: (i) content, (ii) execution, and (iii) placement.[v][iii][vi]

Annoyance in ad production and placement[edit]

Setting aside advances in technology, the interdisciplinary fields involved in production phases of broadcast media (including digital online) that deal with advertising annoyance – including film (videography), music, art, design, and copy – have remained relatively similar since the dawn of broadcasting.

Applications[edit]

An annoyance stimulus can be (a) a desired marketing strategy or (b) an unavoidable, albeit inherent 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 bad jingle – one that consumers can't get out of their heads. In the Northeastern United States, specifically the New York and Philadelphia metropolitan areas, the Mister 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 "exquisitely Pavlovian, triggering salivation or shrieking — sometimes both at once." In the same article, the New York Times asserted that "it is the textbook embodiment of an earworm: once heard, never forgotten."[2][3]

Generally, broadcast and streaming advertising is annoying. Exceptions might include product placement – which avoids interruptions. 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 major consumer product companies and the research behind it, sophisticated.[4]

Annoyance stimuli – visual or auditory or perceptual – can be in any combination of loudness, repetition, length ... On television,[5] radio, print media, packaging, product displays, billboards, mail, telemarketing (especially robocalls), the internet – including email, and mobile devices, e.g.:

... also direct-to-consumer ads (especially pharmaceuticals), call to action marketing, and false 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 by Procter & Gamble in 1963, ran high frequency ads on TV and in print from 1965 to 1986 featuring "Mrs. Olson," portrayed by actress Virginia 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. Under P&G, Folgers became the number one coffee brand in America. The target market of P&G's high-frequency campaign became multipronged. Consumers who infrequently watched TV were likely to see the message at least once (an effective reach strategy) – while those who binge-watched, even if annoyed, might still choose Folgers, if for no other reason, because the name is etched in their minds (an effective weight 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.[6] Primetime TV (as of 2019) has breaks that run back-to-back 30-second ads for as long as 6-minute intervals.

Annoyance factor thresholds[edit]

When advertisers intentionally use annoyance stimuli, they strive to know annoyance thresholds (compare to anxiety thresholds) and carefully monitor them. Crossing thresholds can adversely affect brands and consumer behavior.[i] For example, TV channel surfing – especially in eras following the emergence of remote 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 a plot device or rising action or climax or conclusion or in the midst of suspense – 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, a YouTube re-broadcast of CNN 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 same sponsor will air an ad simultaneously on one 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 of bait-and-switch, are dismissed by consumers as negative albeit long-standing unavoidable economic realities of the respective industries.[7]

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 unsolicited commercial email, but political 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]

Challenges of minimizing avoidance of longer ads[edit]

For DVR-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 of consistently producing effective 5-second ads.[8][xii][xiii]

Annoyance factors that influence ad avoidance[edit]

Annoying albeit effective ads[edit]

Some ads are deliberately annoying. Some are cute or funny, but, for some, wear thin over time. "Memorable, but not always effective"[9] ...

North America

Exhibit of an annoyance factor analysis table[edit]

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 six online ad formats: (i) banners, (ii) pop-ups, (iii) floating ads, (iv) skyscrapers, (v) large rectangles, and (vi) interstitials.

To develop perceptual factors, ratings of the 15 perceptual items for all six on-line ad formats were run through principal components analysis with varimax rotation. The authors inferred – from a scree plot – a possible three-factor solution. The first three factors accounted for over 68% of the total variance. The remaining 12 reflected no more than 5% of the variance, each. The first of the seven tables in their paper, Table 1 (below), shows the loadings of the factors generated through principal component extraction and varimax rotation.[ix]

Table 1
Summary of Factor Loadings for the Rotated 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

Performing arts analogy[edit]

Using annoyances as disruptive devices in advertising to help messages sink-in can be analogous to jarring devices used in performing arts. For example, in the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater December 6, 2019, premier of Greenwood at City Center in New York, Donald Byrd (born 1949), the choreographer, described his work as "theater of disruption" ... "it disrupts our thinking about things, especially, in particular, things around race." The dance performance addresses a 1921 racist mob attack in Tulsa's then segregated Greenwood District, which, at the time, was one of the country's most affluent African American communities, known as "America's Black Wall Street."[10][11][12]

See also[edit]

The following subjects may address certain aspects or fall within the scope of annoyance dynamics.

General
Broadcast
TV-online hybrid
Illicit, malicious, or misleading
Internet and mobile
Psychology
Research and criticism
Advertising research organizations and firms
Categories
In other languages on Wikipedia

Notes and references[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ a b While the phrase "irritation" ("factor" or "effect") in advertising is synonymous with "annoyance" ("factor" or "effect"), it is more frequently used in medical and pharmaceutical contexts.
  2. ^ The Ford and Carnegie Foundations, in the 1950s, issued reports encouraging business schools to incorporate behavioral sciences, mathematics, statistics, and other social sciences in teaching, thinking, and research. Around 1954, the Ford Foundation commissioned John Arnold Howard, PhD (1915–1999) (bio – OCLC 4780435477), to write a monograph on the topic. Howard, in turn, began examining behavioral, economic, and quantitative aspects of marketing; and his early work became seminal in the growth of quantitative analyses in marketing. (Research Traditions in Marketing, Gilles Laurent, Gary L. Lilien, Bernard Pras, eds., Springer Science+Business Media, 1993, p. 271; OCLC 968303787)
  3. ^ Note from Seth Grossman's paper (referenced below): According to a 2003 study by the Pew Internet and American Life Project, seventy-six percent of email users consider unsolicited email with political messages to be spam. ("Spam: How It Is Hurting email and Degrading Life on the Internet," by Deborah Fallows, Pew Internet and American Life Project, October 22, 2003)

References[edit]

  1. ^ "A Brief History of Market Research," by Kuba Kierlanczyk, blog of Kelton Global (headquartered in Playa Vista, California) February 4, 2016
  2. ^ a b "Les Waas, Adman, Dies at 94; Gave Mister Softee a Soundtrack," by Margalit Fox, New York Times, April 27, 2016
  3. ^ Chapter 5: "Ding, Ding!: The Aesthetic of Ice Cream Truck Music," by Daniel T. Neeley, The Oxford Handbook of Mobile Music Studies (Vol. 2), Sumanth Gopinath & Jason Stanyek (eds.), Oxford University Press (2014), p. 155
  4. ^ "Advertising – Studying the 'Hard Sell,'" by Eric Pace, New York Times, August 26, 1981, p. D15 (accessible via timesmachine; subscription required)
  5. ^ "Advertising: Here's Exactly Why Watching TV Has Gotten So Annoying," by Victor Luckerson, Time, May 12, 2014
  6. ^ "How VR Could Change Advertising Forever," by Samuel Huber, Medium, December 1, 2017 (retrieved November 18, 2019)
  7. ^ "Advantages & Disadvantages of Advertising in Cinemas," by M.T. Wroblewski, Houston Chronicle (online), updated October 30, 2018
  8. ^ "Advertising Trends: 5 Second Ads," by Robyn Tippins (née Robyn V. Green; born 1975), AllBusiness.com (no date) (retrieved November 14, 2019)
    Note: Tippins' article reviews a graph by ClickZ, a digital marketing company founded in 1997
  9. ^ "16 Most Annoying Ad Mascots on TV Today" (comment of David A Sawyer, February 1, 2016), US Data Corporation (a marketing list company based in Westlake Village, California, and Omaha), March 7, 2012 (retrieved November 15, 2019)
  10. ^ "Donald Byrd's Theory of Disruption" (Richard Hake interviews Donald Byrd; audio and transcript), WNYC News (New York), December 6, 2019
  11. ^ "Donald Byrd 1949–," by Robert R. Jacobson, encyclopedia.com (retrieved December 12, 2019)
  12. ^ "Can Dance Make a More Just America? Donald Byrd Is Working on It," by Siobhan Burke, New York Times, November 28, 2019

Academic and/or peer reviewed references[edit]

  1. ^ a b "Got Annoyed? Examining the Advertising Effectiveness and Annoyance Dynamics," by:
    Param Vir Singh, PhD, Tepper School of Business
    Vilma Todri, PhD, Department of Information Systems and Operations Management, Emory University
    Thirty-Eighth International Conference on Information Systems, South Korea (2017)
  2. ^ "Trade-offs in Online Advertising: Advertising Effectiveness and Annoyance Dynamics Across the Purchase Funnel," Social Science Research Network, by:
    Vilma Todri, PhD, Department of Information Systems and Operations Management, Emory University
    Param Vir Singh, PhD, Tepper School of Business
    Social Science Research Network, April 17, 2019; SSRN 3400992
  3. ^ a b "Advertising in America: The Consumer View," Raymond Augustine Bauer, PhD (1916–1977), & Stephen Abel Greyser, DBA (born 1935) American Association of Advertising Agencies & Harvard Business School, Division of Research, Graduate Studies (1968); OCLC 868983437, 1071064096
  4. ^ "Operations Research and Market Research," by John Arnold Howard, PhD (1915-1999), Journal of Marketing, Vol. 20, No. 2, October 1, 1955, pps. 143–149; OCLC 5546189688; ISSN 0022-2429
  5. ^ "The relationship between advertising preference accuracy and consumer engagement in social media advertising" (master's thesis), by Jurre Oosterwechel, University of Twente, February 19, 2018
  6. ^ "Causes of Irritation in Advertising," by David Allen Aaker, PhD (born 1938) & Donald Emile Bruzzone (1929–2011), Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, No. 2, 1985; OCLC 5550023000, 7374764477; ISSN 0022-2429 (also accessible via JSTOR at www.jstor.org/stable/1251564)
  7. ^ "Brand Familiarity and Advertising Repetition Effects," by Margaret C. Campbell & Kevin Lane Miller, Journal of Consumer Research Vol. 30, No. 2, February 2003, pps. 292–304; OCLC 4643094954; ISSN 0093-5301
  8. ^ Digital Advertising: Theory and Research (3rd ed.), Shelly Rodgers, Esther Thorson, PhD (eds.), Routledge (1999, 2007, 2017), pps. 70 & 116; LCCN 2016-43446; OCLC 1101057869; ISBNs 978-1-138-65442-6 (hardcover), 978-1-138-65445-7 (paperback), 978-1-315-62325-2 (ebook), 978-1-317-22545-4,978-1-317-22546-1, 1-3156-2325-0, 1-3172-2545-7, 1-3172-2546-5
  9. ^ a b "The Function of Format: Consumer Responses to Six On-Line Advertising Formats," by Kelli S. Burns, PhD, and Richard J. Lutz, PhD, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 35, No. 1, Spring 2006, pps. 53–63; OCLC 4646618174; ISSN 0091-3367
  10. ^ "Intrusiveness of Online Video Advertising and its Effects on Marketing Outcomes" (research-in-progress), by Kendall Phillip Goodrich, PhD, Shu Schiller, PhD, Dennis Galletta, PhD, Thirty Second International Conference on Information Systems, Shanghai 2011
  11. ^ "Keeping Unwanted Donkeys and Elephants Out of Your Inbox: The Case for Regulating Political Spam," by Seth Grossman, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, Vol. 19, No. 4, Fall 2004, pps. 1533–1575 (accessible via JSTOR at www.jstor.org/stable/24116738)
  12. ^ "Why Do People Avoid Advertising on the Internet?" by Chang-Hoan Cho & Hongsik John Cheon, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 33, No. 4, 2004; pps. 89–97; OCLC 358842784; ISSN 0091-3367 (accessible via JSTOR at www.jstor.org/stable/4189279)
  13. ^ "Reinquiry into Advertising Avoidance on the Internet: A Conceptual Replication and Extension," by Zahra Seyedghorban, PhD, Hossein Tahernejad, Margaret Jekanyika Matanda, PhD, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 45, No. 1, October 19, 2015, pps. OCLC 6013942665; ISSN 0091-3367
  14. ^ a b "Physical and Mechanical Avoidance of Television Commercials: An Exploratory Study of Zipping, Zapping and Leaving," by Avery M. Abernethy, Proceedings of the American Academy of Advertising (1991); 223–231
  15. ^ "Differences in the Consumption of Traditional Broadcast and VCR Movie Rentals," by Dean M. Krugman, PhD, & Keith F. Johnson, PhD, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, Vol. 35, No. 2, March 1991, pps. 213–232; OCLC 4804755460; ISSN 0883-8151