If that’s true, then you are one in a million. A statistical outlier.
The problem is, one seems to meet statistical outliers 99% of the time. So one is naturally skeptical.
Well, the reason it mystifies me is because I can’t grasp the concept that there are substantial numbers of consumers who make their buying decisions based on what they’ve seen advertised, rather than on what they actually, you know, think is a good product.
Coke vs. Pepsi is the perfect example. I prefer the taste of Pepsi. If the Pepsi company stopped all their advertising today, I would still prefer the taste of Pepsi. If day after day, year after year, I was bombarded with nothing but advertising for Coke, I would still prefer the taste of Pepsi. If I want to the supermarket and immediately upon entry I saw a gigantic display of Coke, and then I walked over to the soft drink aisle and saw shelf after shelf of Coke, and had to walk past all of that to find the little rack of Pepsi at the back, I would still prefer the taste of Pepsi and would buy it rather than Coke.
People who choose their soft drinks based on some criteria other than what their personal taste buds prefer are a mystery to me.
The key is that the two bolded categories overlap to one degree or another. And you can’t try something to see how good it is in the first place if you don’t know about it.
I would like to think I’m resistant to advertising! But since I buy the same things over and over and over again, I might remember that new brand of detergent, see it on the shelf, and think, “huh, there’s that new detergent. Smells nice. Now, where is the Wisk…”. Doesn’t mean I’ll buy it for something new and different (because some of us living in my house are extremely brand-loyal and can, apparently, tell the difference between Bayer aspirin and generic aspirin, like the princess and the pea). With a lot of stuff, like Taco Bell or potato chips, there’s really nothing new and different. No matter what they call the new gutbuster at Taco Bell, it’s still hamburger,beans, cheese, and chili powder in a slightly different form. The potato chip companies have invented every flavor of chip they are ever going to sell in the US, no matter if it comes in a different shape. I might notice these things but probably wouldn’t yearn to buy them.
Sure, and no matter how sexy a cig ad is, I am not going to start smoking.
But if Pepsi came out with a new product and you saw a ad for it, you might try it. I am a pepsi fan myself (well Diet Pepsi) so when I saw some new flavors advertised I gave them a try. (But I admit, Diet Pepsi Jazz was pretty vile, there’s a hilarious PIT thread here from many years ago about it).
Or if there was a type of baked beans, and you had no particular preference, but saw a interesting and well done ad- why not try that brand of baked beans- all other things being equal?
Even though many of us will not have our minds changed by an ad, you have to be pretty much no longer human to not be influenced by product advertising.
But why do you drink Pepsi? What about Shasta? RC Cola? Sam’s brand? Safeway brand? Have you tried every cola and decided Pepsi was the best? Or perhaps, because of advertising, you consider the cola landscape as consisting of Coke and Pepsi. You picked the best between those two, but does that mean you have really picked the best cola?
If Pepsi never advertised, I wonder if you would still consider it as your cola of choice.
I also make it my business to never buy any product advertised as putting other people out of work (for example, Bertolli frozen dinners).
And there are plenty of chains I will not patronize from past experience. They can (and do) blanket the airwaves until Kingdom Come and I will avoid them (Red Lobster comes immediately to mind).
Most colas have a slight spice note- Coke does. Fewer have the slight citrus note that Pepsi has. In general I prefer Pepsi and not house brands due to this. I would not be surprised if Roadfood is similar. Of course only about half the dudes can really tell the two apart in a blind taste test.
Incidentally this is why both Coke and Pepsi fans claim the other product is “too sweet”. Pepsi has actually a tiny bit more sugar than Coke. But the citrus notes cut the sweet taste, while the cinnamon and other spice notes in Coke accentuate the sweetness. So, they are both right. This is why Diet Pepsi does better in blind taste tests, the citrus notes cut that artifical sweetener taste.
Note to those who would like to switch to diet:
-
After about a month of drinking nothing but diet, the sugared/HFCS stuff tastes bad and the diet drinks taste right. Really.
-
A wedge of lemon or lime (or a couple of wedges) will make the diet sodas much better. Don;t go the cherry route.
Because I know people whose entire job revolves around evaluating and quantifying the effectiveness of marketing and advertising for their company.
No one makes their buying decisions solely because of advertising. And most influence advertising has in on a subconscious level.
For you, maybe you like Pepsi enough that nothing Coke could do would get you to purchase it. But someone else could prefer Pepsi, but after seeing a Coke commercial on Monday, when he’s shopping on Saturday he might decide to try something different and buy some Coke. If you asked him why he bought Coke instead of Pepsi, he probably wouldn’t say or even realize it was partly because of the commercial. But the commercial made Coke sound delicious and it put that idea in his mind to try it.
Also, when someone is shopping, there are many things that go into making decisions on they’ll buy. For soda, some of the things that can go into making their purchasing decision could include:
[ul]
[li]Taste[/li][li]Price[/li][li]Easy to get- maybe one brand is in a big display at the front of the store so it’s easy to grab some packs, and the other brand is in the soda aisle deeper within the store[/li][li]Packaging- There’s the different sizes of drinks in cans or bottles, and different sizes of packaging with 6 packs, 12 packs, 24 packs, and maybe one brand has more convenient packaging for someone [/li][li]What the rest of the household prefers[/li][li]Health- maybe one has less calories, or uses a different type of sugar[/li][li]Novelty- there’s often new special flavors like Cherry, Vanilla, Cherry Vanilla, Lime, Lemon, and so on.[/li][/ul]
Maybe someone prefers Pepsi and usually buys it. But then a commercial comes on about how Coke has convenient 8 oz cans, or a great new Raspberry Vanilla flavor, or has no Chemical X, or just that it’s on sale at the local grocery store. If someone is absolutely devoted to Pepsi, then advertising won’t affect him as much. But if those who are less loyal, a commercial advertising some great aspect of Coke could grab him.
For one example, even if someone is not normally that health conscious and doesn’t usually care about what chemicals he’s consuming, a commercial that talks about how Coke doesn’t have Chemical X and makes Coke sound more healthy and natural and other drinks evil and chemical laden might on a subconscious level make him think of Coke a little more positively and Pepsi a little more negatively. And in turn it might make him more likely to consider buying Coke next time he’s at the store.
So they can come up with an ad campaign and promise a 5-10% increase in business before they start it?
Fair question. I’ve been using Pepsi (and Pepsi vs. Coke) because it’s an easy example.
In point of fact, I actually don’t particularly like cola drinks at all. I like lemon-lime flavored drinks. I’ve tried 7-Up and Sprite, and prefer Sprite. I’ve tried several of the lesser-known brands, but prefer the taste of Sprite. Nothing to do with advertising.
I also like root beers. Mug, Dad’s, A&W are all very similar to me, although I’d give A&W a slight edge. Which one of those does more advertising? Beats hell out of me. My number one root beer, though, is probably Barq’s. I think I remember seeing some TV ads for it, years ago.
However, the drink I drink more often than all others combined is Tea Java iced tea. If that brand has ever advertised on TV, I’ve totally missed it. If memory serves, I tried it because I saw it on the shelf at the store. Other brands, like Lipton and Snapple do nearly infinitely more advertising. But they taste like crap, to me.
As to your question, “perhaps, because of advertising, you consider the cola landscape as consisting of Coke and Pepsi. You picked the best between those two, but does that mean you have really picked the best cola?”, let’s apply it to what I really drink, i.e. Tea Java. Advertising – demonstrably – had absolutely zero to do with my choice. It’s likely, although I can’t prove it, that advertising didn’t even have anything to do with my knowing that Tea Java exists. That I consume so much of it is !00% based on the qualities (i.e. taste) of the product.
Have I really picked the best iced tea? Did I ever say that I did? Even when talking about Pepsi, I believe I said things like “I prefer Pepsi”, and never, “I think Pepsi is the best cola on the planet.” so that strikes me as an irrelevant question, no matter what I drink or what effect advertising does or does not have.
Larger purchases: I recently bought a new Hyundai Sonata. How many Sonata ads have I seen, compared to ads for BMW, Lexus, Audi, Ford, Nissan, Toyota, even Volvo? I’d bet the number of Sonata ads I’ve seen are dwarfed by any one of the others. I test-drove each of those other cars (as well as others that advertise even less than Hyundai, like Mitsubishi). I researched them all online. I made the decision on the Sonata because it had the best combination of what I was looking for (price, performance, fuel economy, looks, interior room, etc.). Again, advertising had, demonstrably, absolutely zero effect on my decision.
It’s a direct result of Pepsi’s massive advertising budget that you thought to bring their name up. Their advertising creates demand, which causes consumers to buy it, stores to stock it, and restaurants to serve it. When you look at the sodas in the store cooler, the choices you have in front of you are the direct result of advertising. Advertisements affect what you drink because it affects the choices you have.
When you go to a 7-11 to get a drink, you’re limited to the selection they have. At that moment it doesn’t matter that Tea Java is the best drink in the world if it’s not carried in the store. You instead have to make a selection from the sodas they do carry, which are likely sodas which spend a lot on advertising.
If Shasta spent $1 billion in ads and Pepsi spent $0, your post would be about Coke vs. Shasta. Even if you don’t directly react to ads for specific sodas, the soda choices you have before you are shaped by advertising.
Again, fair enough. But off the only point I’ve been making here. I never tried to claim that advertising has no effect. I never tried to claim that advertising has no effect on the choices available to me, in some circumstances.
I’ve only been saying that advertising has little to no effect on what I purchase, that the actual decision-making process I go through to determine what I buy is scarcely influenced by whatever advertising I’ve been exposed to. Which is what the OP asked, isn’t it?
I never go into a 7-11 to get a drink. Some might find that hard to believe, but honestly I just never do. I’ve never really thought about it, but aside from being a person who doesn’t feel the need to have a drinkable liquid in my hand at all times, perhaps part of why I don’t go to 7-11 for a drink is precisely because I’d be limited to choices that I don’t want.
Just because advertising has an effect on the choices I have before me, it does not follow that therefore my ultimate decision has somehow been influenced by advertising. My decision – among the choices available – is still based on the attributes of those choices and not anything that advertising has instilled into me, subconsciously or otherwise.
I mean, let’s say that I have the choice between A, B, C, and D, and I choose D. Or I would, if I had all of those options. But as it turns out, A, B, and C are heavily advertised so consequently I am denied the option of D. Ok, so now I choose B. You’re saying that therefore it must be the advertising that influenced me to reject A and C, and choose B? That just doesn’t follow.
This whole argument about advertising limiting my choices has nothing to do with either the OP or what I’ve been saying.
No, but they can certainly measure it’s effectiveness and impact on the business.
Offhand, the only commercials that have moved me to buy are for Apple products. But there have been many commercials that have moved me ***not ***to buy things (I would rather walk around naked than buy suits from Joseph A. Bank).
But thanks to Tivo, I only see a fraction of the commercials I used to see.
Just a quick question for the people in this thread that claim that advertising doesn’t influence their decisions - what do you think of the Citizens United decision and its fallout? Since advertising doesn’t influence people’s decisions, do you think the politicians and Super PACs are wasting millions on political advertising that doesn’t have any influence on the elections?
In what way? I know they can measure things like brand recognition or whether or not a test audience likes a particular campaign. How do they measure an increase in business based on advertisements?
I said it generally doesn’t affect me because I avoid looking at it. Most people do look at it and therefore can be affected.
Well, the simplest way is to run an ad in a test market and see if the sales change.