Summa Cum Laude Thesis

Visual vs. Verbal Tropes 1

Running head: VISUAL VS. VERBAL TROPES

Visual Tropes vs. Verbal Tropes in Advertising

Libby Issendorf

University of Minnesota

Summa Cum Laude Thesis


Table of Contents

Abstract......................................................................................................................................................................... 5

Introduction................................................................................................................................................................ 6

Existing Reseach ....................................................................................................................................................... 7

Current Industry Trend .......................................................................................................................................12

Research Question .................................................................................................................................................15

Methods – Procedures..........................................................................................................................................16

                  – Analysis................................................................................................................................................19

Results.........................................................................................................................................................................22

Discussion and Analysis ......................................................................................................................................28

Suggestions for Future Research.....................................................................................................................32

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................................33

References .................................................................................................................................................................35

Appendix 1:  Sample Ads.....................................................................................................................................38

Appendix 2:  Results..............................................................................................................................................45

Special Thanks .........................................................................................................................................................50


Table of Contents:  Figures and Appendices

In‐Text Figures

Figure 3‐1: Unaided recall ..................................................................................................................................22

Figure 3‐2: Aided recall .......................................................................................................................................23

Figure 3‐3: Recall of key points........................................................................................................................23

Figure 3‐4: Comprehension of main message............................................................................................24

Figure 3‐5: “This ad grabbed my attention” ...............................................................................................25

Figure 3‐6: “This ad was easy to understand” ...........................................................................................26

Figure 3‐7: “I liked this ad”.................................................................................................................................27

Appendix 1:  Sample Ads

Figure 1‐1: Lego ad ................................................................................................................................................38

Figure 2‐1: Tabasco ad with visual trope.....................................................................................................39

Figure 2‐2: Tabasco ad with verbal trope....................................................................................................40

Figure 2‐3: Orbit ad with visual trope...........................................................................................................41

Figure 2‐4: Orbit ad with verbal trope ..........................................................................................................42

Figure 2‐5: Article with visual trope ads inserted ...................................................................................43

Figure 2‐6: Article with verbal trope ads inserted...................................................................................44

Appendix 2:  Results

Figure 3‐1: Unaided recall ..................................................................................................................................45

Figure 3‐2: Aided recall .......................................................................................................................................45


Figure 3‐3: Recall of key points........................................................................................................................46

Figure 3‐4: Comprehension of main message............................................................................................46

Figure 3‐5: “This ad grabbed my attention” ...............................................................................................47

Figure 3‐5b:  Tabasco Attention T‐test results..........................................................................................47

Figure 3‐5c:  Orbit Attention T‐test results.................................................................................................47

Figure 3‐6: “This ad was easy to understand” ...........................................................................................48

Figure 3‐6b:  Tabasco Comprehension T‐test results.............................................................................48

Figure 3‐6c:  Orbit Comprehension T‐test results ...................................................................................48

Figure 3‐7: “I liked this ad”.................................................................................................................................49

Figure 3‐7b:  Tabasco Attitude T‐test results.............................................................................................49

Figure 3‐7c:  Orbit Attitude T‐test results ...................................................................................................49


Abstract

Using visual tropes to convey ad messages has become a trend in creative advertising

awards shows.  This study compares the effects of visual and verbal tropes in advertising

on audience memory, comprehension, and attitude.  For two different brands, the same

trope was depicted in both words and images.  The verbal tropes were remembered more

frequently than the visual tropes; however, the main message was comprehended more

accurately in the visual tropes.  The theoretical explanations and implications of the

findings of this study are further discussed.


One glance through the 2007 One Show award gallery reveals a collection of print

ads that are almost exclusively visual.  In the categories of consumer magazine, consumer

newspaper, small space print, and outdoor, none of the recipients of the Gold award have

more than five words of copy.  Across the board of award shows and client reels, copy‐free

print ads with an emphasis on powerful art direction over clever copy have become the

trend.  Jennifer Johnson (2007), former creative director at Leo Burnett, believes that

“people don’t really read anymore.  You need to be able to show them something that they

can just get, without having to work too hard at the copy.”  In a society where people are

exposed to thousands of ads per day, advertisers need ways to break through the media

clutter and catch consumers’ attention with a message that is both intriguing and easy to

understand.  An emphasis on visuals to relay that message appears to be their current

solution.

Contradicting the idea that visuals always communicate better than copy is a man

sometimes called the father of modern advertising, David Ogilvy (1973, 1985).  In two of

his books, he maintains that advertising should be upfront and to the point about product

benefits and defends copy as the most effective way for ads to express these messages.  He

says:

• Your headline should telegraph what you want to say (1985, p. 74).

• The wickedest of all sins is to run an advertisement without a headline (1973, p.

133).

• All my experience says that for a great many products, long copy sells more than

short (1985, p. 84).


Ogilvy’s fondness for words may stem from his own experience as a copywriter, but

his long, successful career testifies to the validity of his opinions.  On visuals, he explains,

“The kind of photographs which work hardest are those which arouse the reader’s

curiosity.  He glances at the photograph and says to himself, ‘What goes on here?’” (1973 p.

144).  But Ogilvy maintains that to discover the meaning of the photograph, “[the

consumer] reads your copy to find out.”  For him, even with strong visuals, copy is an

essential part of an advertisement.

The Effie Awards, sponsored by the American Marketing Association, reward ads

based solely on how effectively the campaign has met its goals, such as increased

awareness, brand equity, or sales.  Advertisements that won Effies in 2007 are almost

exclusively based in words rather than images.   For example, the winner of the world’s

most effective marketing campaign in 2007 was Apple’s “Get a Mac” campaign, which

featured 14‐page magazine inserts that used hundreds of words to describe product and

brand benefits.  Images of Apple computers and iPods accompany the text, but the ad truly

relies on its copy to communicate its message (http://www.effie.org, 2007).

To further complicate the debate of whether visuals work better than words, award‐

winning One Show ads do not merely show a picture of the product being advertised.

Instead, many use visual tropes that communicate specific product benefits with creative,

unique visuals.  For example, a Lego ad shows an image of a train depot that is completely

empty except for a pile of green Lego bricks on the tracks.  The only copy occurs in tiny

print in the bottom right corner and reads “Build it,” alongside the Lego logo  (See Figure 1‐

1 in the Appendix).  Ads like these inherently invite reader engagement by presenting a


visual puzzle for readers to figure out, rather than “telegraphing” the message in words as

Ogilvy recommends.  But by making the message less straightforward, advertisers risk

burying the benefits of their products in these visuals and demanding more mental

involvement than consumers care to give.

Has the sophistication of consumers risen far enough from Ogilvy’s glory days that

visuals are no longer too much mental work for them to decipher?  Or are awards shows

and advertising organizations so eager to reward fresh, thought‐provoking images that

they are neglecting to measure ad effectiveness?  Have advertisers learned how to create

visual tropes that engage their consumers without making them work too hard for

comprehension, or should they stick with clear copy to convey their messages?

EXISTING RESEARCH

To begin answering these questions, researchers have conducted several studies to

examine the role of visuals in persuasive communication.  Images have always been an

important part of advertisements, but recently advertisers have begun relying on them to

convey more important elements of their messages (Phillips 2003).  Messaris (1997) notes

that while persuasive communication has been studied for hundreds of years, the focus of

that research has always been on verbal communication.  There is still ample room for

further investigation into the world of visual persuasion, specifically forms of visual

rhetoric.

Rhetorical figures, also called figures of speech, can be defined as “artful deviations

in the form taken by a statement” (McQuarrie and Mick 1996).  In other words, rhetorical

figures use novel or unexpected ways to convey their message.  They take ordinary objects


or ideas and use uncommon and unexpected methods to tell a story about them.  Rhetoric

can be divided into two types:  schemes (which utilize excess regularity like repetition) and

tropes (which utilize irregularity).  Tropes are considered the more complex of these two

types, as they often use words outside their literal sense to create new, unexpected

meaning and comparisons between two ideas.  Tropes are incomplete and require the

audience to engage with them to make sense of the words or images in context of the ad.

For example, a metaphor is a type of trope that suggests that one object or concept is or is

like an unrelated object or concept.  “The lake was as smooth as glass” is a metaphor.

Another type of trope is hyperbole, which uses obvious and intentional exaggeration to

convey its message.  “We had to wait an eternity” is a hyperbole (McQuarrie and Mick

1996).  In both of these examples, the reader understands that the metaphor is not literal.

He or she does not think that the lake is actually made up of glass or that the wait actually

lasted forever.  But the reader understands the dramatic comparison that highlights the

similarities between the objects compared: that the lake is incredibly smooth in the same

way that a pane of glass is incredibly smooth, or that the wait lasted an extremely long time

in the same way that an eternity is an extremely long time.

McQuarrie and Mick (1999) point out that most existing studies that deal with visual

rhetoric in persuasive communication have been limited to examining metaphor.  Other

tropes like hyperbole, pun, or irony lack sufficient research to determine their effects on

the consumer, especially in contrast to verbal tropes of the same types.

The question of how consumers process tropes in advertising is itself confusing.

Current research provides conflicting information as to how exactly metaphors are


deciphered.  Many psychologists have agreed that visual metaphors must first be mentally

translated into words before they can be decoded (Phillips 2003).   Logically, then, a verbal

metaphor would be comprehended more quickly and with less mental effort than a visual

one, since the consumer would not have to go through the additional mental process of

translating pictures to words.

But specifically within the discipline of advertising, little scholarly research has been

done to indicate whether visual or verbal metaphors are more effective (Morgan and

Reichert 1999).  Some research has indicated that visual metaphors might be recalled more

frequently.  Kaplan (1992) cites studies in the field of psychology that have shown visual

metaphors to be remembered more easily than verbal metaphors.  However, this research

did not specifically measure the effects of metaphors in advertising.

Whittock (1990) believes that advertisers make metaphors easier to understand

when they use visuals to convey their messages.  He argues that when consumers interpret

verbal metaphors, they create mental images to accompany the ideas expressed in words

as they decode the metaphor.  By using images to illustrate the comparison presented in

verbal metaphors, advertisers shorten the decoding process by supplying the consumer

with that image already.  Lester (2002) agrees that visuals aid recall because people tend to

remember things visually or spatially rather than verbally.

Morgan and Reichert (1999) performed a study that compared visual and verbal

metaphors in advertising.  The purpose of their study was to compare right‐ and left‐brain

use in decoding metaphors, but they also found that their subjects understood the

meanings of the advertisements more accurately when visuals were present to illustrate


concrete verbal metaphors.  This study, however, did not directly contrast recall or attitude

toward verbal and visual metaphors.  It also included both a visual and verbal

representation of the same metaphor in many of the sample ads for the study.  At the time,

this was realistic; many ads in the marketplace contained both a visual and a headline to

communicate the same idea.  However, as stated earlier, copy‐free advertising is becoming

more popular and comprising the majority of award‐winning advertising at creative shows.

McQuarrie and Mick (2002) discovered that when reading magazines, consumers

paid more attention to ads with visual tropes.  In another study, they found that ads with

visual tropes not only gained more attention from consumers, but were also liked better

than those without (1999).  In this study, however, they were comparing ads that contained

visual tropes to those that contained visuals without tropes.  For example, an ad for a

motion sickness remedy depicted the package for the sickness as a seat belt buckle in a car.

The modified ad adds a buckle to the seat belt and moves the package slightly farther back

in the seat, removing the visual metaphor.  It could be argued that the real finding for this

study is that ads with tropes are more effective than ads without them.

Aside from the limited findings they have gleaned from these studies, advertising

researchers have assumed that visual and verbal metaphors have equal effects on

consumers.  This assumption is validated by researchers who have found that metaphor

occurs at the level of thought rather than at the level of language and images and that the

specific form the metaphor takes has little to do with how it is understood (Forceville

1996; Hitchon 1997).  Smith (1991) determined that advertising messages are interpreted

similarly, whether they are based in images or words.


However, further research that directly compares consumer interpretation of visual

and verbal tropes is necessary (Phillips 2003).  Both studies by McQuarrie and Mick (1999,

2002) and the study by Morgan and Reichert (1999) compared ads for different brands and

products with different features benefits.  Most importantly the ads they compared used

different metaphors to communicate their messages.  This raises the question of validity in

comparing advertisements with potentially different target audiences, creative strategies,

and messages.  It is possible that the advertisements featuring visual metaphors had

advertised brands that were more well‐liked or well‐known than those in the ads with

verbal metaphors, or vice versa. It is also possible that one specific message measured was

more memorable or easier to understand.  Because of these inconsistencies, further

research is needed to directly compare visual and verbal tropes.  The same message for the

same product must be presented purely in text and purely with visuals.

CURRENT INDUSTRY TREND

Before further research can be conducted to examine the effectiveness of visual

versus verbal tropes, the current industry trends toward visual tropes must be examined.

One potential explanation for an industry trend that emphasizes visuals rather than

text points to the reason many consumers mistrust and dislike advertising:  the potential

for deception.  Using images to convey meaning in advertisements serves a greater purpose

than aesthetic attractiveness; it also has a legal advantage for the advertiser.  Messaris

(1997) and McQuarrie and Mick (1999) state that visual devices do not have an established

syntax the way that verbal devices do.  Unlike words with concrete definitions—one

product is better than another or one action caused a result—visuals do not make explicit,


provable claims because they lack equivalent structure and inarguable meaning.  Because

visuals are open to more interpretations than text, they have the ability to mislead

consumers.  Advertisers have more flexibility to make outrageous or false product claims

that could be firmly refuted if expressed in text by arguing that their target is

misunderstanding their visual claims.

Many ad professionals think visuals resonate more with consumers and are easier

to understand than verbal messages.  In the book Creative Advertising:  Ideas and

Techniques from the World’s Best Campaigns, Mario Pricken argues early on that “stories

can be told in an effective way without using words” (2002).  He devotes most of his book

to advertisements that tell stories with visual elements, encouraging budding copywriters

to think visually rather than verbally, so that consumers understand advertising messages

“at a glance.”  According to Pricken, visual tropes require the least amount of work for

consumers to comprehend.

Professionals within the ad industry have other theories about the trend toward

images.  Sarah Shaw, retired copywriter from three major Twin Cities agencies, believes

that whether an ad is anchored in text or in visuals, it needs to first and foremost be

relevant to the consumer before it will gain any attention.   Then it needs to communicate

as much information as possible at first glance.  “The people who are really interested will

read the body copy, but 80% of people will skip it” (2008).  Instead, most consumers rely

on what they see in the headline and visual, which is why so much emphasis is placed on

the clarity and simplicity of both of these.  The potential for visuals to communicate


instantly, rather than requiring consumers to take the time of physically reading a headline,

could increase the amount of information the consumers can get from the ad at first glance.

Jennifer Johnson agrees.  “Your visuals should do as much of the work in your ad as

possible.”  While she emphasizes that many great ads do rely on copy, the trend in the

industry is moving toward increased visuals.  Above all, she mandates that effective ads

need to be simple, and she believes visuals can often achieve simplicity better than text can

(2007).

Shaw notes, too, that advertising is not the only industry to have an increased

reliance on visuals to convey its message.  She cites an increase in pictures and video in

news media to tell stories and entertain.  “People are expecting to see more visuals and get

more instant information from them,” she says (2008).  The ad industry trend toward

increased reliance on visuals to communicate could be a response to match consumers’

sophistication and increased visual literacy.

Shaw also stresses that copy‐free ads are not yet the norm in most consumer print,

and that not every brand or every product can use them successfully.  “[Ads that rely

completely on visuals] are great for brands like [Tabasco and Orbit], but you can’t use an ad

like this to sell insurance,” she says of copy‐free print (2008).  She believes that visual‐only

ads work best for established brands trying to convey a single, simple message.  In

response to the recent trend towards copyless ads in creative awards shows like the Clios

and One Show, she says, “I don’t place much stock in awards shows.  I’m in the business

world.”  This statement suggests that the business world of advertising has different values


and goals from the world of creative awards shows, and that creative awards do not always

translate into advertising effectiveness.

This belief underscores the importance of studying the effectiveness of visual

advertising, especially as compared to verbal.  As Shaw said, the most important thing for

an ad to be is relevant; secondly, simple.  Regardless of how many creative awards an ad

might win, in the business world, its goal is to effectively communicate with consumers.

This leads to the question:  do visual messages present their argument more simply and

clearly than verbal messages, especially when the complex rhetorical figure of tropes is

involved?

RESEARCH QUESTION

Further research is needed to determine the different strengths and weaknesses of

verbal and visual tropes in advertising.  Therefore, this study was conducted to answer the

following research question:

Do visual and verbal tropes in advertising have different effects on memory,

attitude, and comprehension?

METHODS

Procedures

To answer this question, a study was designed to directly compare the effectiveness

of the same trope expressed in words and in pictures.  Two groups of university students

were asked to read an article that related to media in society.  One group read and article

that included ads with visual tropes; the other read an article with ads that used verbal


tropes.  After five days, participants took an online survey in which they answered

questions that measured their memory, comprehension, and attitude about the ads.

Two advertisements that use visual rhetoric to convey their messages represented

visual tropes in this study.  Both of these advertisements have won awards from

prestigious creative advertising associations:  the Tabasco ad “Cigarette” by Sino Pacific has

won a Cannes Gold Lion, and the Orbit White ad “Lampshade” by BBDO Chicago has won a

New York Festivals award.  These honors ensure that the ads are the type of creatively

applauded ads referred to earlier.  Both ads are completely free of copy except the

appearance of the brand names.  Both Tabasco and Orbit have high brand awareness

within the audience surveyed.  Both brands also have large target audiences that

encompass the 18‐ to 24‐year‐olds surveyed in this study.  Both are the types of parity

products that Sarah Shaw had cited as products that can convey effective messages with

visual tropes.

In order to compare these visual tropes to verbal tropes, their messages were

translated into text for the comparison ads that the second group of survey participants

would read.  The original Tabasco ad that uses visual trope is an image of a man’s hand

holding a cigarette that is burning from both ends.  In the background, out of focus, is a

bottle of Tabasco sauce and the corner of a plate of food (See Figure 2‐1 in the Appendix).

The verbal translation of the trope in this ad is: Tabasco sauce is so hot that after eating it,

your cigarette will burn from both ends because your mouth will start the “wrong” end on fire.

To compare this message verbally, the message is translated into the copy Caution:  May


cause your cigarettes to burn from both ends.  The copy for this ad is stylized fit the layout of

the Tabasco label (See Figure 2‐2).

This art direction in which the ad copy replaces the words on the label comes from

another award‐winning campaign run by Tabasco that featured close‐up shots of the label

with ad copy instead of the brand name and descriptive text on the label.  Using this

particular layout is validated because Tabasco has already run ads with this type of art

direction.  The main message for consumers to take away from both versions of this ad is

that Tabasco sauce is extremely hot.

The second ad used in the study is for Orbit White, a variety of Orbit gum.  The

original Orbit White ad that uses visual tropes contains an image of a woman whose head is

covered by a lampshade.  The shade appears illuminated, as though light is radiating from

her head.  She is holding a pack of Orbit White gum.  The background features 1970’s‐style

patterned wallpaper (See Figure 2‐3).  The verbal translation of the trope in this ad is that

Orbit White will make your teeth so white that you will need a lampshade to shield the

brightness of your smile.  For the verbal trope comparison ad, this is translated into the copy

Your smile will need a lampshade!  To keep the mood of the original ad, this copy is stylized

and placed over a patterned background that resembled the wallpaper background of the

original (See Figure 2‐4).  The main message for consumers to take away from this ad is

that Orbit White whitens teeth.

For the study, the ads were inserted into a two‐page article.  The first version of the

article, given to one group of participants, contained the ads from both brands that used

visual tropes to convey their messages.  The second version of the article, given to the other


group of participants, contained the Tabasco and Orbit ads that used verbal tropes.  Each

ad up the left half of a two‐page spread; the right half contained the text of the article  (See

Figures 2‐5 and 2‐6).  This format was chosen to simulate a more realistic reading

experience, rather than having the students specifically study the advertisements in

question outside of a natural reading context.  The article for the survey was chosen

because it discussed media in society, which was the topic of a class in which all of the

study participants were enrolled.

Students were recruited to participate in the study with the incentive of extra credit

in their introductory mass communication class.  Fifty‐six students participated in the

study; 32 read the article that included ads with verbal tropes and 24 read the article that

included ads with visual tropes.  The participants ranged in age from 17 to 25 and were

comprised of 32% male students and 68% female students.  They represented 17 different

majors and multiple ethnicities.

Participants were split into two sessions for reading the article.  Each group was

asked to read the article silently in a group setting and answer a follow‐up survey five days

later.  They were not allowed to take the handouts with them or to take notes about the

handouts.  They were not advised as to what type of questions would be on the survey, but

were instructed that it would ask questions about what they had read.  Participants

received the survey via email and had two days to complete it to earn their extra credit

points.


Analysis

The survey first measured unaided recall of both brands by asking “Which brands, if

any, do you remember being advertised on the same handout as the article?”  On the next

page, respondents were prompted with the brand name Tabasco and then asked whether

they remembered the ad.  If they did remember, they were given two open‐ended

questions. The first, “What do you remember about this ad?” was designed to measure the

salience of each ad’s message.  The imprecise wording of this question was chosen

intentionally in order to give respondents liberty to describe what they remembered most

clearly or most prominently.  Measuring the salience of the ad’s message helps determine

whether the readers understood the key message of the ad, and what elements of the ad

were remembered most clearly and prominently.

Responses to the prompt for respondents to list what they remembered about each

ad were coded according to whether they identified the main message that the ad

communicated.  Answers that correctly expressed the message affirmed that the ad’s

message was the most salient memory in the respondents’ minds. Two types of answers

were accepted:  those that mentioned key elements of the trope that were integral to its

meaning, and those that correctly translated the trope into plain English that conveyed the

main message of the ad.  The most important point about the trope itself in the Tabasco ad

was that the cigarette would burn at both ends; for Orbit, it was that the smile would need

a lampshade.  In plain English, the main messages for the ads were that Tabasco sauce is hot

and that Orbit gum whitens teeth.  Above all, accepted responses affirmed that the message

of the ad was the most salient element in consumers’ minds and was remembered first


when they were prompted about the ad.  This measurement helps answer the question of

comprehension, but mostly investigates more deeply the question of memory.  This

question and the coding of the answers explain not just whether the ad was remember, but

what about it was remembered.

Specifically for verbal tropes, accepted answers identified elements about what the

copy said.  Sample accepted answers included:

• “it will make your cigarette burn at both ends” (for Tabasco)

• “this gum will make your smile bright.” (for Orbit)

Unaccepted answers alluded to the layout of the text or other visual elements of the

ad that did not relate to its message.  Some of these included:

• “I remember that it was a zoomed in picture of a tabasco bottle.” (for Tabasco)

• “not much.  I just remember the logo.” (for Orbit)

For visual tropes, accepted answers identified visual elements that conveyed the

ad’s meaning:

• “It was a picture of a hand holding a cigarette that was burning at both ends.

Behind is a bottle of Tabasco on the table.” (for Tabasco)

• “It was a person with a lampshade on their head, and it looked like there was a

light coming from her head.  (Presumably her teeth)” (for Orbit)

Unaccepted answers cited visual elements that did not contribute to the ad’s

message.  For example, unaccepted answers for the Tabasco visual trope may have noted a

cigarette in the frame, but did not mention that it was burning at both ends, the crucial


detail that conveyed the ad’s message that Tabasco sauce is hot.  Unaccepted answers

included:

• “There was someone holding a cigarette, the picture just showed the person's right

hand holding the lit cigarette between their fingers.” (for Tabasco)

• “I just remember a woman with the gum, but her entire head was covered, you could

just see her torso and legs.  She wasn't wearing anything that was ‘revealing’, and

the ad seemed really low key, maybe even a bit melancholy.” (for Orbit)

Many other unacceptable responses were variations of “I don’t remember,” or “I

don’t know.” For a complete list of responses, please see the appendix.

The second open‐ended question, “What do you think the ad was trying to say (its

message)?” was intended to measure the clarity with which respondents could describe the

ad’s main message.  If respondents were able to accurately remember and restate the ads’

main messages, the ad would be determined to be highly comprehendible.

Responses to the question of what the respondent judged to be the ad’s main

message were coded by whether the main message was correctly identified.  Accepted

answers for Tabasco mentioned that Tabasco sauce was hot; accepted answers for Orbit

mentioned that Orbit gum whitens teeth.

Respondents were also asked to rank on a Likert scale of 1‐7 how much they agreed

with the following statements:

• This ad grabbed my attention.

• The main message of this ad was easy to understand.

• I liked this ad.


These statements were designed to measure how attention‐grabbing they perceived

the ad to be, how easy they found the ad to comprehend, and what their attitude toward

the ad was.  On the Likert scale, a “1” response indicated that the respondent strongly

agreed with the statement; a “7” indicated that he or she strongly disagreed.  A “4” response

is considered neutral.

The same questions were repeated regarding the ad that the participant saw for

Orbit.  The final page asked participants to optionally submit demographic information.

RESULTS

In unaided recall, the Tabasco ad that used verbal tropes was remembered more

frequently; there was little difference between the recall of ads that used verbal or visual

Figure 3 - 0 trope for the Orbit brand (See Figure 3‐1).  For

the Tabasco ad, 40.6% of respondents who had

seen the verbal iteration of the ad were able to

identify the brand name without being

prompted; just 16.7% of respondents who had

seen the visual version could name the brand.

For the Orbit ad, of those who had seen the

verbal trope, 28.1% remembered the brand without a prompt; 25% remembered the visual

trope version.

For aided recall, the ads that used verbal tropes were remembered more frequently

for both brands (See Figure 3‐2 on the next page).  The difference was more dramatic for

Tabasco.  Of the respondents who had seen the verbal trope, 78.1% remembered the ad


when supplied with the brand name.  Just
Figure 3 - 2
29.2% of those who had seen the visual

version remembered the ad after being

given the brand name.  For Orbit, 46.9% of

respondents remembered the verbal ad

when prompted; 33.3% remembered the

visual ad.

For the open‐ended question, “What

do you remember about this ad?” respondents who had seen the ads with visual tropes

gave accepted answers that identified key messages more often than respondents who had

seen ads with verbal tropes (See Figure 3‐3).  For the Tabasco ads, 28.6% of respondents

who saw the visual trope identified that the sauce was so hot that it caused the cigarette to

burn from both ends. Just 8.7% of those who saw the ad with verbal trope mentioned

responses about Tabasco being hot or a cigarette burning at both ends.  For Orbit, 50% of

respondents who saw the visual trope
Figure 3 - 3
mentioned the key point of the lampshade

on the woman’s head because of the

brightness of her teeth, while only 7.7% of

those who saw the verbal trope could

identify that the ad was about needing a

lampshade for a bright smile or that Orbit

whitens teeth.


An analysis of the content of these open‐ended questions shows that even in the ads

that used verbal trope, most respondents remembered visual elements of the ad.  In fact,

52% of those who remembered the Tabasco ad mentioned that the copy was designed in

the layout of the Tabasco label.  Of those who remembered the Orbit ad, 20% mentioned

Figure 3 - 4 the paisley background.  These numbers

greatly exceeded the 8.7% and 7.7% who

cited the message of the ads as something

they remembered.

Responses to the question, “What

do you think the ad was trying to say?”

were also coded by whether respondents

correctly identified the main message.  For

the Orbit brand, the visual trope garnered accepted answers more frequently than did

verbal trope; there was no significant difference in the Tabasco ads (See Figure 3‐4).  Of

respondents who had seen the visual trope in the Orbit ad, 40% correctly identified its

main message; 23.1% of those who had seen the verbal trope did the same.  In the Tabasco

ad, 14.3% of those who saw the visual trope and 13% of those who saw the verbal trope

correctly identified the main message.

Respondents were also asked to rank whether they agreed with opinion statements

about the ads on a Likert scale of 1‐7, with a 1 response meaning “strongly agree” and a 7

response meaning “strongly disagree.”  The results for all three of the statements showed

little difference between the visual and verbal tropes (See Figure 3‐5).  T‐tests determined


only one result to be statistically significant:  the difference in the ability for the verbal

Tabasco ad to grab the viewers’ attention more than the visual version of the same ad

(p=0.028).  For the statement, “This ad grabbed my attention,” respondents who had seen

Figure 3 - 5 the verbal Tabasco ad rated it a 2.9 on a 7

point scale with 1 being “strongly agree.”

Those who had seen the visual version of the

ad rated it a 4.4, slightly below a “neutral”

ranking of 4.  Seventy‐one percent of

respondents gave the Tabasco ad with verbal

trope a positive value rating of 1, 2, or 3

responses that all indicate agreement with the statement.  Only 29% of those who saw the

visual trope gave a positive value rating.  The most frequent response for the verbal trope

was a 2 with 38% of the responses, indicating fairly strong agreement with the statement

about the adding grabbing attention.  Also, none of the respondents who saw the visual ad

rated its ability to grab their attention as a 1 or 2.  The range of responses for the verbal

trope was 1‐6; for visual, 3‐7.  The responses to this question correspond to the

significantly higher number of respondents who remembered the Tabasco ad with the

verbal trope versus the visual trope in both unaided and aided recall.

For the Orbit ad, the small difference in responses was not statistically significant.

On average, those who saw the verbal trope rated it a 3.5; the visual trope, 3.3.   Forty‐six

percent of respondents who saw the verbal trope gave it a positive value rating; 50% of

those who saw the visual trope did the same.  The mode for the verbal trope was 5 with


38% responses; for visual trope, a 4 with 38%.  The range of responses for both types of

tropes was 1‐6.

The second statement measured by Likert scale read, “The main message of this ad

was easy to understand.”  The degree to which respondents agreed with this statement

demonstrated their perceived clarity of the ad’s message and their ability to comprehend it.

Figure 3 - 6 For this statement, t‐tests determined that

the differences in responses for both brands

were not statistically significant (See Figure

3‐6).  The average response for those who

saw the verbal trope for Orbit was 2.8; for the

visual trope, it was 3.8.  Additionally, 69% of

respondents gave the verbal trope a positive

value rating.  The mode was a 1, or “strongly agree,” which was selected by 38% of

respondents.  Of those who saw the visual trope, 37% gave it a positive value rating; the

mode was a neutral 4 rating with 25% of responses.  There was a wide range of responses

for each type of trope; both had ranges of 1‐7.

For the Tabasco ad, also, the results were similar for both the verbal and visual

trope.  The average response for verbal trope was 3.3; for visual, 3.6.  Fifty percent of

respondents exposed to the verbal trope gave it a positive value rating, as did 43% of those

who saw the visual trope.  The mode response to the verbal trope was a 2, with 29% of

responses.  There was a wide variation of responses to the visual trope.  An equal

percentage of respondents (29%) rated the ad a 2, meaning that they agreed that the


message was easy to understand, as they did a 5, meaning that they slightly disagreed.  The

two had similar ranges, as well; responses to the verbal trope ranged from 1‐7; to the visual

trope, 1‐6.

The final statement about which respondents rated their agreement was, “I liked

this ad.”  This statement measured the positive or negative attitude that respondents had

Figure 3 - 7 about the ads.  No statistical difference was

detected in between visual and verbal

tropes for either brand (See Figure 3‐7).

For Tabasco, the ad with verbal trope

earned an average 3.5 rating with 33% of

respondents giving it a 3 rating, the most

frequent response.  Sixty‐two percent of

respondents gave this ad a positive value rating, and the range of responses was between

1‐7.  Results for the visual trope were very similar.  The average rating was 3.7, although

the mode was lower as 43% of respondents rated the ad a 5.  Forty‐three percent of

respondents gave the visual trope a positive value rating.  The range of responses was

much smaller and only varied from 2‐5.

For the Orbit ad, results were also similar for both types of trope.  The average

response for the verbal trope was a 3.3 with 23% of respondents choosing 3 and 23%

choosing 4.  Fifty‐four percent of respondents gave the verbal trope a positive value rating,

and the range of responses was 1‐6.  For the visual ad, the average was a very similar 3.1.


However, the range of responses was much smaller at 2‐5.  Sixty‐two percent of

respondents gave the visual trope a positive value rating with the mode being a 2 at 37%.

For results and accompanying charts, please see the appendix.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

The survey results point to two distinct conclusions:  that verbal tropes were

recalled more frequently, but that visual tropes resulted in increased comprehension.

The difference between recall of verbal tropes and visual tropes is significant,

especially for the Tabasco ad.  For both unaided and aided recall, the percentage of

respondents who remembered the ad with the visual trope was more than double the

percentage of those who remembered the ad with the verbal trope (40.6% and 16.7%

unaided; 78.1% and 29.2% aided).

The difference is less dramatic for the Orbit ad, but still significant in terms of aided

recall.  Although the unaided recall numbers are similar (28.1% verbal and 25% visual), the

percentage of respondents who remembered the Orbit ad after the brand name prompt

was higher for those who had seen the verbal trope than the visual trope (46.9% versus

33.3%).

Several factors within the ads themselves may have affected these results.  In both of

the ads that used verbal tropes, visual cues that identified the brand name were larger and

more prominent.  This increased importance of the brand name may have made brand

identification easier or more salient for readers and facilitated brand recall.  In the Orbit ad

with verbal trope, the logo and brand name occupied approximately twice the area that

they did in the ad with visual trope.  Similarly, the brand name in the Tabasco ad with


visual trope is blurred and placed in the background, whereas in the ad with verbal trope,

the entire layout of the ad suggests the Tabasco bottle and represents the brand identity.

Although the brand identities may have been more firmly established in the ads

with verbal trope, this difference could be argued to be characteristic of ads that primarily

use verbal tropes to convey their messages.  Using images to convey so much of the

message limits the space that can be used to display identifying brand characteristics.  Ads

with verbal tropes, however, can rely on just a few words to convey their messages, and

therefore have more physical space to devote to branding.  The implications for advertisers

are that prominent brand identification may facilitate recall, and that further research

should be conducted to measure the effects of visual and verbal tropes that blatantly

display the brand name with those that use more subtle branding techniques.

Another important factor may have been the degree to which the ads immediately

surprised or intrigued the readers with unexpected or unusual elements.  Regarding the

Tabasco ad, t‐tests confirm that respondents agreed with the statement “This ad grabbed

my attention” significantly more often for the ad with verbal trope than the one with visual

trope.  But as already stated, the design and layout of this ad takes a familiar image (the

Tabasco label) and changes it into something unexpected.  Because of this unexpectedness,

this art direction may be inherently more attention‐grabbing than the more subtle image of

the cigarette with both ends burning.

Similarly, the visual trope in the Orbit ad was comprehended better than the one in

the Tabasco ad.  This could be because the Orbit ad contains a more blatantly unexpected

image than the Tabasco ad.  The lampshade that replaced the woman’s head was larger,


brighter, and more surprising than the smoldering “wrong end” of the cigarette in the

Tabasco ad.  Its novelty may have aided in respondents’ ability to recall and restate its

message.  Taking something familiar and changing it to make it novel or unexpected

appeals to readers’ desire to engage with the ad and figure out the meaning of familiar

objects or ideas used in new ways (Pricken).  This is the appeal of tropes in general for

advertisers.  The implication is that advertisers should consider using tropes that

immediately telegraph to the reader that they have taken something ordinary and changed

it into a new message in order to spark the readers’ attention and motivate them to engage

with the ad.

While smaller percentages of respondents remembered ads that used visual tropes,

those who did remember were better able to restate the ads’ meanings.  However, they did

not perceive the ads as easier to understand.  For the Orbit ad, responses to the statement

“The main message of this ad was easy to understand” contrasted the data from the open‐

ended questions that asked respondents to list what they remembered about the ads and

what the ads’ main messages were.  Although respondents did not perceive the visual trope

to be easier to understand than verbal, they recalled key points of the ad and the ad’s main

message more frequently than did respondents who were exposed to the verbal trope.

Responses to this statement for the Tabasco ad were statistically similar for both

types of trope.  This accurately reflected how readers interpreted the ad, because their

ability to restate the main message of the ad in the open‐ended question was also similar

for both types of trope.  However, in responding to the question, “What do you remember

about this ad?” they listed key elements of the ad that directly contributed to its meaning


more often with for the ad the visual tropes than the verbal tropes.  This suggests that

although respondents may have accurately gauged their comprehension of the ads’ main

messages to be similar, the specific idea of the cigarette burning at both ends was more

salient for respondents who had seen the ad with visual trope.

The fact that respondents comprehended the visual tropes better but did not judge

them to be easier to comprehend suggests that visual tropes might demand more

elaboration from readers in order to understand their messages.  Since readers could more

accurately restate the message of visual ads, they might be expected to have judged these

as easier to understand.  However, they judged both types of trope as very similar in terms

of how easy they are to understand.  The increased comprehension and retention of the

main messages in ads that are not any easier to understand could be linked to the

Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty 1986, 1999).  This model indicates that when

consumers elaborate on the arguments of the message to a certain extent, changes in their

attitude regarding the ad and the brand are longer lasting.  The same general principles can

be applied to this study.  When readers take the time to elaborate on the visual ads and

complete their meaning, they understand the meaning better and are more likely to be able

to restate that meaning.

Other studies have indicated that incomplete information in advertisements—

information that the reader must mentally figure out and complete to determine its

meaning—is often remembered better than stimuli that do not require as much elaboration

(Heimbach 1972).  Although the ads themselves were not remembered as frequently when

visuals that required completion from the reader were given, their messages were


comprehended better.  This theory supports the idea that visual tropes might ask the

readers to engage more with the ad, which not all readers are motivated or able to do.  But

those who do elaborate on the visual trope and understand its meaning will retain that

message better that those who just skim a line of text.  The implication for advertisers is

that they need to weigh the advantage of more people reading and remembering an ad that

requires less elaboration against the advantage of fewer people elaborating on an ad to a

greater extent but comprehending the ad’s message more clearly.

Another important conclusion drawn from the results is that visual elements in all

ads, even ones with primarily verbal messages, are the elements of the ads recalled most

frequently.  In the Tabasco ad with verbal trope, 52% of respondents cited a visual element

of the ad when asked what they remembered.  They listed details about the layout of the

text or the suggested image of the bottle about six times more often than they stated any

part of the ad’s message.  Additionally, in the Orbit ad with verbal trope, 20% of

respondents mentioned a visual element of the ad like the paisley background.  The

implication of this finding is an affirmation that art direction is crucial to an ad’s successful

communication, because visual elements were by far the respondents’ most salient

memories of the ads.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Further study into the advantages over visual trope versus verbal trope should

include experiments that measure only attitude and comprehension, rather than recall.

Although the setting of these ads would be less realistic than that of this study, the


response pool would not be diminished by participants who had forgotten or ignored the

ads.

To create a more realistic reading environment, the ads could be inserted into

magazines and interspersed with other ads that did not use trope at all.  Comparing ads in

this setting could give more accurate results as to how attention‐grabbing ads with visual

and verbal trope really are, and whether they are recalled more frequently than ads

without a form of trope.

Another important point of differentiation in future studies would be to ensure that

ads with both verbal and visual tropes were measured against ads that use only one of

these devices.  Morgan and Reichert’s study (1999) that found metaphors with both visuals

and copy to be more effective than copy alone opens a door for new research possibilities

that compare different combinations of tropes.  One question to examine is whether

relaying the message in both visuals and copy would diminish the readers’ need for

elaboration and make the results similar to copy‐only ads, in which the message wasn’t

remembered or comprehended as well.

CONCLUSION

So who is right—the One Show and their copy‐free images or David Ogilvy and his

blatant headlines?  Although more research is required to draw absolute conclusions, this

study indicates that consumers’ visual literacy enables them to comprehend visual tropes

more effectively than verbal.  It seems that while verbal tropes might communicate their

brand identity more quickly or easily with readers, eliciting a higher recall rate, the

consumers who are motivated to engage with visual ads internalize their meaning better


than those who just read a headline.  Advertisers must understand that their consumers

are sophisticated and visually literate.  They must weigh the advantage of making their ad

easier to recall with consumers’ increased comprehension of its message.


References

Effie Awards.  (2007, November 15).  <http://www.effie.org>

Forceville, C. (1996).  Pictorial metaphor in advertising.  New York:  Routledge.

Heimbach J.T., & Jacoby J.  (1972).  The Zeigernik effect in advertising.  In M. Venkatesan

(Ed.).  Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference (Association for Consumer

Research).  p. 746‐758.

Hitchon, J. C. (1997).  The locus of metaphorical persuasion:  An empirical test.  Journalism

and Mass Communication Quarterly, 74(1), 55‐68.

Johnson, J.  (2008, February 28).  Personal interview.

Kaplan, S. J. (1992), "A Conceptual Analysis of Form and Content in Visual Metaphors,"

Communication, 13(2), 197‐209.

Lester, P. M. (2002).  Visual Communication:  Images with Messages.  Belmont, CA:  Thomson

Wadsworth.

Messaris, P. (1992).  “Visual ‘Manipulation’: Visual Means of Affecting Responses to

Images,” Communication, 13(3), 181‐195.

Messaris, P. (1997).  Visual Persuasion:  The Role of Images in Advertising.  Thousand Oaks,

CA:  Sage Publications.

McQuarrie, E. F. & Mick, D. G.  (1996, March).  Figures of Rhetoric in Advertising Language.

Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 424‐438.

McQuarrie, E. F. & Mick, D. G.  (1999, June).  Visual Rhetoric in Advertising:  Text

Interpretive, Experimental, and Reader‐Response Analyses.  Journal of Consumer

Research, 26, 37‐54.


Morgan, S. E. & Reichert, T.  (1999). “The Message Is in the Metaphor:  Assessing the

Comprehension of Metaphors in Advertising.”  Journal of Advertising, 28(4), 1‐12.

Ogilvy, D. (1973).  Confessions of an Advertising Man, London, England:  Southbank

Publishing.

Ogilvy, D. (1985).  Ogilvy on Advertising, London, England:  Vintage Books.

One Club.  15 November 2007  <http://www.oneclub.org>

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and Persuasion: Central and

Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer‐Verlag.

Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1999). The Elaboration Likelihood Model: Current Status and

Controversies. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (eds.), Dual Process Theories in Social

Psychology (pp. 41‐72). New York: Guilford Press.

Phillips, B. J.  (1997). “Thinking into it:  Consumer interpretation of complex advertising

images.  Journal of Advertising, 26(2), 77‐87.

Phillips, B. J.  (2000).  “The impact of verbal anchoring on consumer response to image ads.

Journal of Advertising, 29(1), 15‐24.

Phillips, B. J.  (2003).  “Understanding Visual Metaphor in Advertising.”  Persuasive Imagery,

ed. Linda M. Scott & Rajeev Batra.  297‐310.  Lawrence Erdbaum Associates.

Mahweh, NJ.

Pricken, M. (2002).  Creative Advertising:  Ideas and Techniques from the World’s Best

Campaigns.  London:  Thames & Hudson.

Scott, L. M.  “Images in Advertising:  The Need for a Theory of Visual Rhetoric.”  The Journal

of Consumer Research, September 1994, 21, 252‐273.


Shaw, S.  (2008, May 1).  Personal interview.

Smith, R. A.  (1991).  “The Effects of Visual and Verbal Advertising Information on

Consumers’ Inferences.”  Journal of Advertising, 20 (4), 13‐24.

Whittock, Thomas (1990), Metaphor and Film, Cambridge, MA:  Cambridge University

Press.


Appendix 1:  Sample Ads

Figure 1‐1:  Lego ad

2007 One Show Gold Award

Color: Full Page or Spread ‐ Single


Figure 2‐1: Tabasco ad with visual trope


Figure 2‐2: Tabasco ad with verbal trope


Figure 2‐3: Orbit ad with visual trope


Figure 2‐4: Orbit ad with verbal trope


Figure 2‐5: Article with visual tropes inserted


Figure 2‐6: Article with verbal tropes inserted


Appendix 2:  Results

Figure 3‐1:  Unaided recall

Figure 3‐2:  Aided recall


Figure 3‐3:  Recall of key points

Figure 3‐4:  Comprehension of main message


Figure 3‐5:  “This ad grabbed my attention”

Figure 3‐5b:  Tabasco Attention T‐test results

t-Test Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
Verbal Visual
Mean 2.92 4.44
Standard Deviation 1.28 1.51

P (T<=t) two-tail 0.028051264

Because p < 0.05, the difference is statistically significant.

Figure 3‐5c:  Orbit Attention T‐test results

Verbal Visual
Mean 3.54 3.25
P (T<=t) two-tail 0.705787323

Because p > 0.05, the difference is not statistically significant.


Figure 3‐6:  “This ad was easy to understand”

Figure 3‐6b:  Tabasco Comprehension T‐test results

Verbal Visual
Mean 3.33 3.57

P (T<=t) two-tail 0.77143403


Figure 3‐6c:  Orbit Comprehension T‐test results

Verbal Visual
Mean 2.79 3.75
P (T<=t) two-tail 0.328035521



Figure 3‐7:  “I liked this ad”

Figure 3‐7b:  Tabasco Attitude T‐test results

Verbal Visual
Mean 3.49 3.71

P (T<=t) two-tail 0.683477849


Figure 3‐7c:  Orbit Attitude T‐test results

Verbal Visual
Mean 3.29 3.13
P (T<=t) two-tail 0.778537605



Special Thanks

Shirley Nelson Garner

Jennifer Johnson

Erin Lamberty

Mary Moga

Sarah Shaw

Brian Southwell

Dan Wackman

Summa Cum Laude Thesis

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (19)

Similaire à Summa Cum Laude Thesis

Similaire à Summa Cum Laude Thesis (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Summa Cum Laude Thesis