Yola



Jessica GonzalezDr. HaendigesEng 2010-14 November, 1, 2011Brain Branding: The Invasion of Advertising EarwormsThe invasion of earworms is nothing new. Humans have been captivated by them since the early 1920’s when radio broadcasting became popular. With the rise of television and the internet, earworm usage has increased and the effect they have on consumers has become substantially more alluring; both to the consumer and the companies. The transformation of earworms has led to the creation of audio branding which strategically uses earworms to promote brand notoriety and profit. In order to recognize how the use of earworms in advertising hinders society by subconsciously manipulating consumers, people must first know what earworms are (including their effects on the brain), what audio branding is, and how the collaboration of earworms and audio branding create the invasive process I call brain branding. Earworms are best defined by neurologist Dr. Oliver Sacks in the article entitled “Brainworms, Sticky Music, and Catchy Tunes”. Dr. Sacks describes the experience of earworms, or as he is apt to call them brainworms, as when music becomes lodged in your head ferociously repeating itself to the point of annoyance. Dr. Sacks explains, “This endless repetition and the fact that the music in question may be irrelevant or trivial, not to one’s taste, or even hateful, suggest a coercive process, that the music has entered and subverted a part of the brain, forcing it to fire repetitively and autonomously (as may happen with a tic or a seizure)” (Sacks, 2011, p.100)This description illustrates the metamorphosis of a simple tune into something akin to a brain disorder. Dr. Sacks goes on to explain that “…the automatic or compulsive internal repetition of musical phrases is almost universal – the clearest sign of the overwhelming, and at times helpless, sensitivity of our brains to music.” (Sacks, 2011, p.104) Dr. Sacks implies that anyone is at risk of developing earworms because people’s brains in general are highly susceptible to music and to a certain extent, people cannot control how their brains process music. A negative aspect of the brain’s limitation is mentioned in another article by Dr. Sacks entitled “The Power of Music” in which he emphasizes a disadvantage of the brain’s receptiveness by stating “…there seems to be in us a peculiar sensitivity to music, a sensitivity that can all too easily slip out of control, become excessive, become a susceptibility or a vulnerability” (Sacks, 2006) The vulnerability of the brain to music is currently a popular topic among neurologists. They have determined that the way music is processed by the human brain is vastly different compared to other brain processes. In the Harvard Mental Health Letter, an example of this aspect can be seen using an MRI. “Studies involving functional MRI have revealed that people “hear” internal melodies in much the same way as they hear music from a real orchestra. In both cases, the auditory cortex – the part of the brain that processes sounds – becomes active.” (“Why Songs Get ‘Stuck’,” 2010, p. 7) In other words, real or imagined music is processed by the brain in similar ways. A scientific article in the journal of Cognition and Emotion explored the effect music has on physiological functions such as heart rate, smiling, and facial electromyography (EMG) which measures emotional response to a stimulus (music). Some of the results observed are a decrease in heart rate, an activated zygomaticus (the smile muscle) when the subjects consider the music pleasant, and activity of the orbicularis oculi or eye muscle demonstrating that “reactivity scores were higher during high- compared to low-arousal music conditions” (Witvliet & Vrana, 2007) This evidence supports the claim that music has such an incredible influence on people’s brains that people’s bodies are reacting on subconscious levels. The use of earworms in advertising is commonly called sound, audio or sonic branding. Audio branding “includes any strategically selected voices, music or functional sounds that represent the values or proposition of a brand” (Jackson, 2006) Marketers have utilized this concept to increase brand recognition with the agenda to enhance brand profitability. Although earworms and audio branding are essentially the same concept, some marketing directors such as Daniel Jackson of Cutting Edge Commercial consider them to be different. Interestingly enough Jackson did say that “both are aimed at instilling a brand trigger in your mind and, in this sense, both are extremely effective ways of marketing a product” (Otter, 2010) Examples of audio branding people may be familiar with include the Oscar Mayer Wiener song, the Intel theme, and the Kit Kat jingle. One of the most frequent audio branding variations that companies utilize is the use of Hollywood icons, including musicians to increase brand notoriety. This interrelationship benefits both parties in that sales increase for the brand, and Hollywood icons are enabled to use their new found status to launch their own brands/labels. This crossover is the reason “why teen sensation Brittney Spears and sitcom character Ally McBeal each have their own line of designer clothing; why Tommy Hilfiger has helped launch a record label…Ralph Lauren has a line of designer household paints…Nike is set to launch a swooshed cruise ship” (Klein, 2011 p.169) Celebrities have marketed numerous items including perfumes, clothing lines, and energy drinks, and brands have expanded into other lucrative business ventures. I recently had the opportunity to attend a gig presenting a group of rap/hip-hop artists; aspiring celebrities. Although I don’t often listen to that genre of music because the majority of the lyrics are violent, sexist and objectify women, I thought it was a good opportunity to ask the group members if they slip messages in their lyrics to make people shop at a particular store or buy a particular brand. Tiwan a.k.a. Slykat responded:“Of course we do. Take a look at Jay-Z for example, when he promoted Cristal (champagne) in his lyrics, sales increased and everyone in the community drank Cristal. Then the company thought it was getting too closely associated to the ‘ghetto’ lifestyle and played down the connection. Jay-Z was offended and boycotted Cristal, taking all the business away from them and moving on to promoting Ace of Spades (champagne).”Not only does Jay-Z actively promote Ace of Spades, the champagne is available at the 40/40 Clubs; a business that Jay-Z owns. When companies succeed in using audio branding, meaning that a particular brand is recalled influencing consumer purchase decisions, brain branding has occurred. Another way to describe this occurrence is to say that companies are trademarking people’s brains. There are three main reasons I think brain branding is detrimental to society. The first reason is because I think the use of any type of audio branding or earworm use is unethical. Companies that actively engage in audio branding are intentionally tricking the minds of consumers by subtle infiltration of brain physiology. Instead of allowing consumers to be active participants in their purchases, companies abuse the brain’s susceptibility to music by bombarding the auditory cortex with brain branding. Greedily increasing monetary profit and consumption of their products, brain branding penetrates the area of people’s brains where it is helpless and defenseless; the auditory cortex. This malicious intent can be witnessed in numerous articles of various marketing and advertising journals. For example, in the article titled “Ubiquitous Music” guest editors have issued a letter requesting scholarly papers regarding the use of music in advertising in connection to consumer behavior. An excerpt states,“The advertising literature also regards music as a tool of persuasion through which consumers are exposed to sonic branding, earworms and jingles that can enhance brand attitudes, recall of key benefits, and subsequent purchase behavior.” (Oakes, Brownlie, & Dennis, 2011, p.93)This illustrates that marketing executives are highly aware of the vulnerability of people’s brains and intend to exploit it and explore its susceptibilities specifically for profit. Proof of the amount of profit a company may gain can be seen in the experiment conducted by Ronald Milliman in which he recorded consumer retail purchasing behavior in a grocery store during different music tempos. Milliman concluded that changing the tempo of the background music to a slower pace prolonged the amount of time shoppers spent in the store which increased the amount of money the people spent at the store. Companies in the study had “an average increase of $4,627.39 per day, or a 38.2% increase in sales volume.” (Milliman, 1982) Simply by changing the music, a company could potentially raise their yearly profit to over 1.5 million dollars. Regardless of the amount of revenue, people’s weaknesses should not be taken advantage of. Companies should feel ashamed that they willingly violate people’s minds for the sake of making money.The second reason why I think earworms are harmful to society is because the use of audio branding isn’t regulated. Society has numerous laws to regulate prescription and illegal drugs however; there is a lack of similar laws for audio branding although both drugs and branding affect brain physiology. Companies have free rein to use audio branding without limitations, guidelines or laws; restraints that would protect consumers from unwarranted audio violation. Because audio branding is such a lucrative business, it has led to the creation of companies such as Audiobrain and Sonicbrand. Both of these companies create audio branding for other companies. Their clientele list includes Microsoft, NBC Sports, L’Oreal, Wheat Thins, and Subway. Audio branding is a universally applied marketing technique and although companies compete for business, they have a united front regarding consumer spending habits. The more consumers spend the more profit there is to be made. Sonicbrand’s founding partner Paul Fulburg has helped to develop instruction manuals geared toward companies that desire to incorporate sound branding into their marketing strategy. In the article Fulburg wrote in the Journal of Consumer Behaviour he describes that “Through the careful selection and strategic implementation of music it is possible to create the holy grail of branding – invisible communications” (Fulberg, 2003) I think laws should be created to protect consumers or at least advise people that they are being subjected to subliminal communications. Perhaps implement warnings similar to those on alcohol or tobacco, such as “This advertisement may entice people to buy products they do not need”, “May cause overspending resulting in not being able to pay living expenses” or “This brand is not intended for people whose annual income is less than $30,000”The third reason why I think brain branding negatively affects society is because the music in advertisements is tailored specifically to increase the positive emotional response consumers have to the product. This emotionally provoking audio branding in combination with the lifestyle the brand is trying to promote can damage the self-esteem of consumers, causing them to feel as if they cannot measure up to society’s’ standards. When companies go beyond selling items and start to sell consumers a lifestyle, it becomes what Naomi Klein calls a “state of cultural expansionism”. Klein elaborates by stating,“It was about thirstily soaking up cultural ideas and iconography that their brands could reflect by projecting these ideas and images back on the culture as “extensions” of their brands.” (Klein, 2011, p.159)For example in the Chanel No.5 commercial featuring Nicole Kidman, the commercial focuses on a romance that is doomed but so passionate and freeing that it shall never be forgotten. The music arrangement is a composition of Clair De Lune an easily recognizable tune that is very emotionally arousing. The tune in combination with the script reading “And then she was gone, has she forgotten? I know I will not, her kiss, her smile, her perfume.” (Luhrmann, 2004) enhances brand recall and loyalty by associating lifestyle aspirations to have such an overwhelming love that the scent of that love remains long after the object of desire is gone. Consumer’s musical preferences are emotional connections to how they view themselves or how they would like to be viewed. In a recent article from the Journal of Marketing, researchers have differentiated between two views of self that people have. They call them the actual self and the ideal self; both reflections of how the consumer views themselves and expresses their values, personality and opinion through brand selection. The difference between the two selves is that the actual self reflects how the person believes themselves to be in reality while the ideal self is how the consumer desires to be viewed by others and reflects who the person aspires to be. The research showed that “Consumers with low self-esteem, however, would find brands related to the ideal self more attractive because these brands represent and opportunity to make them feel better about themselves by association (i.e., self-enhancement). In contrast, brands congruent with the actual self are perceived negatively when consumers do not feel good about their current selves (Malar, Krohmer, Hoyer, & Nyffenegger, 2011)In going back to the Chanel commercial, the perfume appeals to the ideal self of the average consumer. Many people are not financially secure enough to afford the luxury of a carefree, whirlwind romance, a love affair where bills and work do not interfere. This unattainability sets the consumer up to fail in their aspirations which causes damage their self-esteem. In the article “Effects of Advertising Exposure on Materialism and Self-Esteem: Advertised Luxuries as a Feel-Good Strategy?” the authors conducted experiments exploring the connection between advertising and self-esteem. The results showed that “advertising exposure significantly enhances the self-esteem of consumers who believe they can afford the promoted luxuries, compared to consumers who cannot afford them” (Lens, Pandelaere, & Warlop, 2010) The online website, sells one fluid ounce of Chanel No.5 parfum for $285.00, not including shipping. Most people I know, especially men, think that is an outrageous price to pay for a bottle of perfume. For me personally, I am one of the consumers who cannot afford the luxuries of my ideal self lifestyle and $285.00 is almost my monthly grocery bill. I wish I could afford a nice bottle of perfume but unfortunately at this point in my life, I would have an extremely hard time trying to rationalize the purchase. While I am working toward financial security in order to obtain my ideal lifestyle, I do get frustrated and depressed that I can’t have the nice things I want right now. I’m beginning to loathe the way marketing executives influence people to buy things. Advertisements with the intended purpose to influence people to buy things they cannot afford with the hopes of fulfilling a need that is actually a want in disguise should be put on the same cable channel as the Home Shopping Network. It is an unfortunate fact that marketing campaigns specifically choose music, sounds and words with an earworm nature to arouse an emotional response from consumers with the intent to increase brand profitability. It is even more unfortunate that society does not have any laws set up to protect the well-being of consumers. I think advertising needs to take a more responsible and respectable approach toward consumers. They can do this by creating more commercials that invoke a positive actual image. In the same Journal of Marketing article (Malar et al., 2011), a conclusion of the research was that “In general, brands with actual self-congruence generated higher levels of emotional brand attachment” meaning that contrary to popular belief, consumers respond more positively to advertisements that appeal to the way they actually see themselves. If marketing companies produced advertisements that reflected a more realistic view of the world; and they were presented with music that is more emotionally neutral, it would allow consumers to decide for themselves how they feel about a certain product or label. By allowing this freedom of unbiased choice, people have a greater chance of discovering who they really are, in essence developing their actual self. If the influence of brain branding was reduced, I think people would grasp the potential to develop a more honest and longer lasting emotional connection to their actual self thus enhancing the ability to develop a lifetime devotion to brands that cater to their lifestyle. Positive self-image for the consumer and increased brand loyalty for the companies sounds like a win-win situation. ReferencesFulburg, P. (2003). Using sonic branding in the retail environment – An easy and effective way to create consumer brand loyalty while enhancing the in-store experience. Journal of consumer behaviour, 3(2), 193-198.Jackson, D. (2006). Orchestrating a sound strategy. (cover story). Brand strategy (199), 38-40.Klein, N. (2011). The brand expands. In. M. Petracca & M. Sorapure. (Eds.) Reading popculture (pp. 157-171). New York, NY: Prentice HallLens, I., Pandelaere, M., & Warlop, L. (2010). Effects of advertising exposure onmaterialism and self-esteem: Advertised luxuries as a feel-good strategy? Advances in consumer research – North American conference proceedings, 37, 850-852.Luhrmann, B. (Director). (2004). Chanel No.5 [Commercial] Available December 25, 2005 from , L., Krohmer, H., Hoyer, W., & Nyffenegger, B. (2011). Emotional brand attachment and brand personality: The relative importance of the actual and theideal self. Journal of marketing, 75(4), 35-52. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.75.4.35Milliman, R. E. (1982). Using background music to affect the behavior of supermarket shoppers. Journal of marketing, 46(3), 86-91.Oakes, S., Brownlie D., & Dennis, N. (2011) Ubiquitous music. Marketing theory, 11(1), 93-95. doi: 10.1177/1470593111403222Otter, C. (2010). Name that tune. Music Week, (36), 15.Sacks, O. (2011). Brainworms, sticky music, and catchy tunes. In M. Petracca & M. Sorapure. (Eds.) Reading pop culture (pp. 99-104). New York, NY: Prentice HallSacks, O. (2006) The power of music. The brain, 129(10), 2528-32. Why songs get “stuck” in people’s heads. (2010, May) Harvard mental health letter, 26(11), 7. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download