SEX SELLS! Conference Presentation - Final

1. SEX SELLS Who’s buying it? Advertising & Marketing Communications Charlotte Magnani

2. GEN Y Understand perceptions Explore evaluations of brands Investigate behavioural intent

3. GEN Y Progressive Values Ethics, Corporate Responsibility, Living for the moment Pre-Conceived Values Rebellion, Hedonism, Instant Gratiﬁcations

4. GEN Y Progressive Values Ethics, Corporate Responsibility, Living for the moment Pre-Conceived Values Rebellion, Hedonism, Instant Gratiﬁcations Culture Religion

5. GEN Y 19 - 24 Students & Full-Time Workers 16 Participants - Mixed Gender 1 Pilot (Results not included - gender bias) 1 Male Focus Group | 1 Female Focus Group 2 Male In-Depth Interviews | 2 Female In-Depth Interviews

6. CHOICE

7. CHOICE “Choice” Andreassen 2001

10. “Surprise” Dahl et al. 2003

11. CHOICES

12. –Dahl et al. 2003 No advanced warning Breach advertising clutter Demand attention SHOCK ADVERTISING

13. “to make people think they will look good to someone else, in a sexual way if they wear the brands clothes” –Female Interior Designer, 19

14. Awareness: Product & brand Knowledge: Deeper level of awareness Liking: Associating feelings to advertisements Conviction: Making an active judgement Purchase: Acting on feelings and judgement - Hierarchy of Eﬀects, Lavidge & Steiner (1961)

15. Shock Advertising Sex Appeals Negative Attitude Towards Advert Low Offence Negative Behavioural Intent Positive Behavioural Intent Positive Attitude Towards Advert High Offence Figure 1 : Conceptual Framework, Magnani 2015 1. Awareness 2. Knowledge 3. Liking 4. Conviction 5. Purchase

16. StylisticStatementOvert Reference Blatant, highly sexualised Avoidable, uncontroversial product Unavoidable, controversial product Subject to interpretation (i.e. copy only)

17. Shock Advertising Sex Appeals High-Intensity Of Appeal Negative Attitude Towards Advert Low Offence Negative Behavioural Intent Positive Behavioural Intent Positive Attitude Towards Advert High Offence Figure 1 : Conceptual Framework, Magnani 2015 1. Awareness 2. Knowledge 3. Liking 4. Conviction 5. Purchase

18. Shock Advertising Sex Appeals High-Intensity Of Appeal Negative Attitude Towards Advert Low Offence Positive Attitude Towards Advert High Offence Figure 1 : Conceptual Framework, Magnani 2015

19. Shock Advertising Sex Appeals High-Intensity Of Appeal Negative Attitude Towards Advert Low Offence Positive Attitude Towards Advert High Offence Figure 1 : Conceptual Framework, Magnani 2015

20. Shock Advertising Sex Appeals High-Intensity Of Appeal Negative Attitude Towards Advert Low Offence Negative Behavioural Intent Positive Behavioural Intent Positive Attitude Towards Advert High Offence Figure 1 : Conceptual Framework, Magnani 2015 1. Awareness 2. Knowledge 3. Liking 4. Conviction 5. Purchase i.e HUMOURi.e MEDIA

21. Coﬀee Kitchen Suits…?

22. Coﬀee Kitchen Suits…? LIFESTYLES

23. Shock Advertising Sex Appeals High-Intensity Of Appeal Negative Attitude Towards Advert Low Offence Negative Behavioural Intent Positive Behavioural Intent Positive Attitude Towards Advert High Offence Figure 1 : Conceptual Framework, Magnani 2015 1. Awareness 2. Knowledge 3. Liking 4. Conviction 5. Purchase Perceived ‘Fit’ of Brand with Appeal

24. High-Intensity Of Appeal Negative Attitude Towards Advert Low Offence Negative Behavioural Intent Positive Behavioural Intent Positive Attitude Towards Advert High Offence Figure 1 : Conceptual Framework, Magnani 2015 Perceived ‘Fit’ of Brand with Appeal i.e. SCEPTICISM i.e. CONGRUENCE

25. High-Intensity Of Appeal Negative Attitude Towards Advert Low Offence Negative Behavioural Intent Positive Behavioural Intent Positive Attitude Towards Advert High Offence Figure 1 : Conceptual Framework, Magnani 2015 Perceived ‘Fit’ of Brand with Appeal i.e. AWARENESS i.e. VALUES

26. High Interest in Ad Message High-Intensity Of Appeal Negative Attitude Towards Advert Low Offence Negative Behavioural Intent Positive Behavioural Intent Positive Attitude Towards Advert High Offence Figure 1 : Conceptual Framework, Magnani 2015 Perceived ‘Fit’ of Brand with Appeal i.e. AWARENESS i.e. VALUES

27. Where social welfare meets soft-core pornography

28. Attention Poor Fit Negative

29. Attention USP Valued

30. CHOICE

31. CHOICE

32. CHOICE

33. Diﬀerent age group Diﬀerent professions Media and Humour Congruence - industries beyond apparel Pre-existing relationships with brands FUTURE STUDIES

34. Shock Advertising Sex Appeals High-Intensity Of Appeal Negative Attitude Towards Advert Low Offence Negative Behavioural Intent Positive Behavioural Intent Positive Attitude Towards Advert High Offence Figure 1 : Conceptual Framework, Magnani 2015 1. Awareness 2. Knowledge 3. Liking 4. Conviction 5. Purchase Perceived ‘Fit’ of Brand with Appeal High Interest in Ad Message

35. - Lightfoot et al. 2006, p.157-163 “The shock of the new that was modernity, is no longer new… Our new, if it is anything, is old”

36. Andreasen, A.R., 2001. Ethics In Social Marketing. Washington D.C.:Georgetown University Press. Dahl, DW., Frankenberger KD. and Manchanda RV., 2003. Does It Pay To Shock? Reactions To Shocking And Nonshocking Advertising Content Among University Students. Journal Of Advertising Research 43 (3), 268– 281. Lavidge, R.J. and Steiner, G.A., 1961. A Model For Predictive Measurements Of Advertising Eﬀectiveness. Journal Of Marketing, 25 (4), 59–62. Lightfoot, G., Lilley, S and Kavanagh, D., 2006. The End Of The Shock Of The New. Creativity & Innovation Management. 15 (2), 157-163. REFERENCES

SEX SELLS! Conference Presentation - Final

Esté a ler uma amostra.

Confira estes a seguir

SEX SELLS! Conference Presentation - Final

Mais Conteúdo rRelacionado

Diapositivos para si (11)

Quem viu também gostou (14)

Semelhante a SEX SELLS! Conference Presentation - Final (20)