Annoyance factor
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
|
An annoyance factor (or nuisance or irritation factor
History
Comment on advertising in 1850 associated some practices (disparagingly) with begging.[1]
Measuring annoyance factors
The discipline of identifying and measuring annoyance in
Generally, annoyance from an ad can be identified in three areas:[v][iii][vi]
- content
- execution
- placement
Annoyance in ad production and placement
Setting aside advances in technology, the interdisciplinary fields involved in production phases of broadcast media (including digital online) that deal with advertising annoyance – including film (videography), music, art, design, and copy – have remained relatively similar since the dawn of broadcasting.[citation needed]
Applications
An annoyance stimulus can be (a) a desired marketing strategy or (b) an unavoidable, albeit
Generally, broadcast and streaming advertising is annoying. Exceptions might include
Annoyance stimuli – visual or auditory or perceptual – can be in any combination of loudness, repetition, length ... On
, e.g.:- banners
- pop-ups[viii][ix]
- floating ads
- interstitials
- prevideo (skip and no-skip)
- autoplay video
- skyscrapers
- large rectangles
- sponsored social media content
- digital on-screen graphic
... also direct-to-consumer ads (especially pharmaceuticals), call to action marketing, and false ads.[x]
The annoyance stimuli of some ad campaigns might be so subtle that, initially, it is unnoticeable, but over time, highly noticeable. For instance,
Annoyance factor thresholds
When advertisers intentionally use annoyance stimuli, they strive to know annoyance thresholds (compare to
Advertising in premium venues or platforms (where consumers have already paid) –
Email spam, universally accepted as an annoyance factor threshold breach,[c] can be effective from a statistical perspective. However, since 1998, when unsolicited political bulk email first became widespread, legal analyst Seth Grossman pointed out (in 2004) that state and federal governments increasingly have regulated unsolicited commercial email, but political spam had almost uniformly been exempted. Grossman averred that politicians apparently did not feel a need to regulate political spam, their argument being that they would never use spam, due to the annoyance factor.[xi]
Challenges of minimizing avoidance of longer ads
For DVR-TiVo users, studies have shown that short ads, 5 seconds, are more effective than 30-second (and longer) ads – due to the annoyance factor of longer ads. The problem, however, is whether programmers can sell 5-second ads instead of 30-second (and longer) ads, with similar pricing – especially considering the challenge of consistently producing effective 5-second ads.[9][xii][xiii]
Annoyance factors that influence ad avoidance
- Perceived intrusiveness[xiv]
- Perceived informativeness
- Ad utilities
- High-pressure advertising (hard sell, as contrasted by soft sell)
- Questionable and polarized advertising, including political campaigns, tobacco
Annoying albeit effective ads
Some ads are deliberately annoying. Some are cute or funny, but, for some, wear thin over time. "Memorable, but not always effective"[10]
North America
- Mascots
- The Aflac Duck
- The Band, FreeCreditScore.com
- Betty White, Snickers
- Dusty the Dusthole, Clark County, Nevada
- Energizer Bunny
- Erin Esurance
- Flo, Progressive
- Go-Gurt independent child, Yoplait
- The King, Burger King
- GEICO
- GEICO gecko
- GEICO Cavemen
- HeadOn
- Kia Soul Hamsters
- Mayhem, Allstate
- Mr. Mucus, played byMucinex
- Mr. Opportunity, Honda
- Mr. Six, Six Flags
- Peggy, Discover Card
- Pillsbury
- Jingles
- Phrases
- "Life Alert
Exhibit of an annoyance factor analysis table
Factor analysis of perceptual items and attitude measures in online advertising:
Academicians Kelli S. Burns, PhD, and Richard J. Lutz, PhD, surveyed online users in 2002. In doing so, they chose six
To develop perceptual factors, ratings of the 15 perceptual items for all six on-line ad formats were run through principal components analysis with varimax rotation. The authors inferred – from a scree plot – a possible three-factor solution. The first three factors accounted for over 68% of the total variance. The remaining 12 reflected no more than 5% of the variance, each. The first of the seven tables in their paper, Table 1 (below), shows the loadings of the factors generated through principal component extraction and varimax rotation.[ix]
Table 1 | ||||
Summary of Factor Loadings for the Rotated Three-Factor Solution for Perceptual Items | ||||
Perception | Factor scores | |||
Factor I entertainment |
Factor II annoyance |
Factor III information | ||
1) | Innovative | 0.81 | (0.01) | 0.07 |
2) | Different | 0.75 | (0.01) | (0.06) |
3) | Entertaining | 0.75 | (0.27) | 0.14 |
4) | Sophisticated | 0.72 | (0.07) | 0.22 |
5) | Amusing | 0.71 | (0.34) | 0.11 |
6) | Elaborate | 0.70 | 0.24 | 0.17 |
7) | Eye-catching | 0.70 | 0.24 | 0.17 |
8) | Attractive | 0.64 | (0.37) | 0.32 |
9) | Disruptive | (0.04) | 0.89 | (0.21) |
10) | Intrusive | 0.06 | 0.87 | (0.14) |
11) | Overbearing | (0.03) | 0.86 | (0.23) |
12) | Annoying | (0.12) | 0.85 | (0.25) |
13) | Informative | 0.08 | (0.23) | 0.84 |
14) | Useful | 0.29 | (0.37) | 0.74 |
15) | Beneficial | 0.35 | (0.45) | 0.65 |
(2002) | Green boldface data indicate items loading on each factor |
Performing arts analogy
Using annoyances as disruptive devices in advertising to help messages
See also
The following subjects may address certain aspects or fall within the scope of annoyance dynamics.
- General
- Ad tracking
- Advertising
- Advertising adstock
- Advertising campaign
- Advertising media selection
- Advertorial
- Ambient media
- Audience measurement
- Attack marketing
- Campaign advertising
- Cause marketing
- Celebrity branding
- Clutter
- Comparative advertising
- Conquesting
- Content marketing
- Customer engagement
- Database marketing
- Demographic targeting
- Direct marketing
- Engagement marketing
- Event marketing
- Frequency capping
- Global advertising
- Guerrilla marketing
- In-flight advertising
- Integrated marketing communications
- Interruption science
- Marketing communications
- Marketing buzz
- Mind share
- Mobile billboard
- Multichannel marketing
- Music in advertising
- Native advertising
- Out-of-home advertising (OOH)
- People meter
- Perceptual mapping
- Positioning
- Promotional mix
- Puffery
- Targeted advertising
- Broadcast
- Bumper
- Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation (CALM) Act (does not apply to cell-phone cast apps)
- Commercial skipping
- Gross rating point
- Radio advertisement
- Skinny bundle
- Television advertisement
- TV-online hybrid
- Over-the-top media services(OTT)
- Virtual advertising
- Illicit, malicious, or misleading
- Internet and mobile
- Ad exchange
- Ad blocking
- Admail
- Banner blindness
- Behavioral retargeting
- Clickbait (or Chumbox)
- Contextual advertising
- Conversion marketing
- Cost per action
- Cost-per-click
- Cost per lead
- Display advertising
- Dynamic ad insertion
- Freemium
- Geotargeting
- Mobile marketing
- Mobile phone content advertising
- Online advertising
- Opt-in email
- Pay per 1000 impressions)
- Run of network
- Search engine marketing
- Share of voice
- Surround sessions
- Sticky content
- Video advertising
- Viewable Impression
- Viral marketing
- Psychology
- Research and criticism
Notes and references
Notes
- ^ a b While the phrase "irritation" ("factor" or "effect") in advertising is synonymous with "annoyance" ("factor" or "effect"), it is more frequently used in medical and pharmaceutical contexts.
- OCLC 968303787)
- Pew Internet and American Life Project, October 22, 2003)
References
- ^ Quackenbos, George Payn, ed. (July 13, 1850). "Newspaper Leeches – Advertising". The Literary American. Vol. 5, no. 2. New York: A.J. Townsend. p. 28. Retrieved June 12, 2020 – via Google Books.Advertisements and epitaphs would furnish ample material for a new volume on the curiosities of literature, and we have no doubt that some D'Israeli will find this a profitable subject for a new work. This would give a new impulse to the business of 'begging advertisements,' and thus prove quite a windfall to these leeches and those who like the blood they extract from the public.
- Playa Vista, California) February 4, 2016
- ^ New York Times, April 27, 2016
- ISBN 978-0-19-991365-7.
- ))
- EBSCOhost 96048559.
- ^ "How VR Could Change Advertising Forever," by Samuel Huber, Medium, December 1, 2017 (retrieved November 18, 2019)
- ^ "Advantages & Disadvantages of Advertising in Cinemas," by M.T. Wroblewski, Houston Chronicle (online), updated October 30, 2018
- ^ "Advertising Trends: 5 Second Ads," by Robyn Tippins (née Robyn V. Green; born 1975), AllBusiness.com (no date) (retrieved November 14, 2019)Note: Tippins' article reviews a graph by ClickZ, a digital marketing company founded in 1997
- Omaha), March 7, 2012 (retrieved November 15, 2019)
- ^ "Donald Byrd's Theory of Disruption" (Richard Hake interviews Donald Byrd; audio and transcript), WNYC News (New York), December 6, 2019
- ^ "Donald Byrd 1949–," by Robert R. Jacobson, encyclopedia.com (retrieved December 12, 2019)
- ProQuest 2319140382(U.S. Newsstream).
Academic and/or peer reviewed references
- ^ Stern School of BusinessParam Vir Singh, PhD, Tepper School of BusinessVilma Todri, PhD, Department of Information Systems and Operations Management, Emory University