Interpreting explicit and implicit advertisements

Introduction: The pragmatic relation between textual and pictorial information in implicit and explicit advertisements was investigated by means of two experiments. The division between implicit and explicit ads hinges around the relation between what the ad is for and what is depicted in the picture and message: is there a direct link with the product advertised or not? In explicit advertisements the relation between text and image is straightforward: image and text depict what the advertisements is about. In implicit advertisements, the relation between image and text is more complex. Neither is directly related to the product at hand, but the reference remains implicit. This study raises an important question for marketers: Should one opt for a message that is immediately clear for the receiver or should one opt for a message that is at first sight more obscure but might linger longer on memory precisely because of its initial obscurity? Literature: The two studies we present here, are based on a previous study on the topic by Radach, Lemmer, Vorstius, Heller, and Radach (2003). In an eye tracking study, they compared implicit and explicit advertisements as regards eye movements, affective responses and memory. Participants looked longer at the implicit ads compared to the explicit ads. The number of fixations was also significantly higher for the implicit ads. There was a general preference for the implicit ads in that they were liked better and thought of as more interesting than the explicit ones. Overall, implicit ads were better recalled than explicit ads. Experiments: Our first experiment (N=82) consisted of a questionnaire investigating the cognitive elaboration evoked by these ads, appreciation, understanding, purchase intention and recall. This experiment adduced evidence that implicit ads call for more cognitive elaboration, are more appreciated, are more difficult to understand and are in the long run better recalled compared to explicit ads. No differences surfaced concerning purchase intention. The second experiment (N=31) consisted of an eye tracking experiment. It showed that implicit ads are looked at longer than the explicit counterparts and receive more fixations, indicative of the fact that they take longer to process. Discussion and conclusion: From these two experiments, it appears that the effect of processing time is related to memory performance, resulting in a better recall for implicit advertisements in the long run. Implicit ads were also more appreciated, invited more cognitive elaboration and participants claimed they were more difficult to understand. It seems interpretive diversity (Utsumi 2007) and richness (Phillips & McQuarrie, 2004) of the advertisements are crucial factors. We can conclude with formulating an inspiring implication for marketers and advertisers. Creativity and a spark of complexity are the key to hold customers’ attention, ask some effort of the customers to grasp the gist of the ad, make them elaborate cognitively on what they observe, and hence boost appreciation of advertisements and their recall in the long run.status: accepte