Visual Tropes vs. Verbal Tropes in Advertising. Libby Issendorf's Summa Cum Laude thesis at the University of Minnesota, 2008. Unpublished.
See the accompanying presentation here: http://www.slideshare.net/libbyjuju/summa-cum-laude-thesis
5. Visual vs. Verbal Tropes 5
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.
6. Visual vs. Verbal Tropes 6
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).
7. Visual vs. Verbal Tropes 7
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
8. Visual vs. Verbal Tropes 8
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
10. Visual vs. Verbal Tropes 10
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
12. Visual vs. Verbal Tropes 12
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,
13. Visual vs. Verbal Tropes 13
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
14. Visual vs. Verbal Tropes 14
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
15. Visual vs. Verbal Tropes 15
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
16. Visual vs. Verbal Tropes 16
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
17. Visual vs. Verbal Tropes 17
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
19. Visual vs. Verbal Tropes 19
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
20. Visual vs. Verbal Tropes 20
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
21. Visual vs. Verbal Tropes 21
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.
22. Visual vs. Verbal Tropes 22
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
23. Visual vs. Verbal Tropes 23
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.
24. Visual vs. Verbal Tropes 24
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
25. Visual vs. Verbal Tropes 25
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
26. Visual vs. Verbal Tropes 26
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
27. Visual vs. Verbal Tropes 27
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.
28. Visual vs. Verbal Tropes 28
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
29. Visual vs. Verbal Tropes 29
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,
31. Visual vs. Verbal Tropes 31
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
33. Visual vs. Verbal Tropes 33
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
35. Visual vs. Verbal Tropes 35
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.
36. Visual vs. Verbal Tropes 36
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.
47. Visual vs. Verbal Tropes 47
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
t-Test Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
Verbal Visual
Mean 3.54 3.25
Standard Deviation 1.81 1.58
P (T<=t) two-tail 0.705787323
Because p > 0.05, the difference is not statistically significant.
48. Visual vs. Verbal Tropes 48
Figure 3‐6: “This ad was easy to understand”
Figure 3‐6b: Tabasco Comprehension T‐test results
t-Test Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
Verbal Visual
Mean 3.33 3.57
Standard Deviation 1.66 1.90
P (T<=t) two-tail 0.77143403
Because p > 0.05, the difference is not statistically significant.
Figure 3‐6c: Orbit Comprehension T‐test results
t-Test Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
Verbal Visual
Mean 2.79 3.75
Standard Deviation 1.93 2.25
P (T<=t) two-tail 0.328035521
Because p > 0.05, the difference is not statistically significant.
49. Visual vs. Verbal Tropes 49
Figure 3‐7: “I liked this ad”
Figure 3‐7b: Tabasco Attitude T‐test results
t-Test Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
Verbal Visual
Mean 3.49 3.71
Standard Deviation 1.56 1.38
P (T<=t) two-tail 0.683477849
Because p > 0.05, the difference is not statistically significant.
Figure 3‐7c: Orbit Attitude T‐test results
t-Test Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
Verbal Visual
Mean 3.29 3.13
Standard Deviation 1.49 1.13
P (T<=t) two-tail 0.778537605
Because p > 0.05, the difference is not statistically significant.
50. Visual vs. Verbal Tropes 50
Special Thanks
Shirley Nelson Garner
Jennifer Johnson
Erin Lamberty
Mary Moga
Sarah Shaw
Brian Southwell
Dan Wackman