Who Influences You?

I was sitting here trying to think about something to blog about that as far as I know hasn't been discussed yet, so I was surfing the the internet and came across this study on BizReport.com called "Do Female voice-overs influence more purchases?" and you know it really got me thinking about all the thought that goes into all the voice over decisions companies make. What type of product do they consider to be a females job or a males job to voice over? I remember in my persuasion class learning that people tend to find that men are more persuasive, so if that's justified why do company's even get women to do voice overs? But you know, come to think of it I can only think of one instance where a woman's voice is advertising a product (obviously, there are more I just can only think of one). The commercial I am thinking of is a Cadillac commercial, with Kate Walsh doing the voice over.

There are hundreds of different advertisements out there and most of them are done by men's voices because according to BizReport "48% of US adults find male voices to be more forceful, 46% of adults found female voices to be more soothing and 19% found female voices to be more persuasive." That means that out of 100, 81% believe that a males voice is more persuasive than a woman's. I guess I can see where this comes from because some people may believe that men know what they are talking about, especially when it comes to something they are unfamiliar with like cars or technology.

Personally, I have to agree with the part of the article that says that "Some consumers don't care what type of voice is used - they listen only for the message and not the male or female tones." To me, I don't care who is promoting it, or advertising the product, because I either want it or I do not want it, and no male or female will all of a sudden make me crave a product I didn't want before.

http://www.bizreport.com/2010/03/study_do_female_voice-overs_influence_more_purchases.html#

Different Strokes for Different Folks

Recently, I read an article in AdvertisingAge on how Tiger Woods is getting back the majority of his sponsors back, and I think that it was ridiculous in the first place that he lost them. I understand that he is supposed to be considered a role model because hes this great golf player, but what I don't understand is how him wearing Nike has anything to do with him being a good, faithful husband?

For those of you living under a rock, I'll give you a short summary of what has been happening in Tiger Woods' life. On Thanksgiving this past year, he was involved in a single car accident, which we later found out was caused due from an argument he had with his wife. Tiger reportedly cheated on his wife (Elin Nordegren) with a ridiculous number of women throughout their marriage. Once word got out that this happened a whole lot of Tiger Woods' endorsement deals were dropped, and until recently, some were just reinstated. Last month Tiger publicly apologized for his transgressions on a televised news conference, and said he was going to take a break from his sport of golf.

I basically blame the tabloids for this whole, ridiculous debacle. If we didn't have the media crazy soicety we live in today, I would think that regular people wouldn't get so involed in these celebrities personal lives. They are around for a purpose, whether its acting, singing, or playing a sport. I think we should just let them live. This situation about these big named companies thinking that we would discontinue with buying their products because someone who endorsed for them was unfaithful got me thinking ... What if your dentist cheated on his wife would you stop going to him? I think not. Simply because the decisions he made doesn't reflect on his ability to clean my teeth.

I understand that Tiger Woods is considered to be a role model because he is an incredible golfer, so obviously companies like Nike and Gatorade would see dollar signs in him, but since when does his personal life reflect in his ability to play golf? I do not understand why Nike (or any other company) would even consider pulling out in their contract with him, because no matter how you look at him, he is still the best golfer around.

http://nobosh.com/sr/video-chat-is-where-its-at-but-how-do-brands-fit-in/326842/

Mobile Advertising = Useful or Annoying?

I came across someones blog about the future of advertising and it consists of advertising through your cell phone. How does this work, you ask? Well, say your texting your friend about wanting to go to go see a movie with her and somehow through the semantic SMS device it finds and recognizes key words, and in this case it would recognize "cinema" or "movies" and it would come up with theaters near where you are. This could get pretty useful or rather annoying. Normally, at least in my case I see a movie from time to time, therefore I am aware of where the movie theaters are in my area, so having an "Ad" pop up would most likely annoy me. However, if I were in an unfamiliar area and were trying to find a theater near my friends house, I think it would be pretty useful and save me time.

After thinking about this a little more I thought about how people use words that don't necessarily mean what it actually means. For example a lot of people use the word "chill" instead of "hanging out" or "nothing". So if I were to text my friend and he or she said "let's chill tonight", will the semantic SMS word recognizer be up to date with the current lingo? Or will they send me the weather for the upcoming week or send me the address of popular clothing store, with the hopes of me buying a sweater?

What I don't want happening is pop up advertisements for useless junk popping up on my cell phone, and will people come up with virus' that will negatively affect my cell phone? My guess is, most likely. Another question I have, is not for the cell phone users, but for the people investing money in these cell phone advertisements...how do you know that your money will be well spent? How do you know that when a person gets a suggestion to go to your store from one of your pop ups, that it will inspire them to go to that store, because it could do the exact opposite and inspire them NOT to go, because of that annoying little ad.

I think that the concept is good, but my question is will the end result be as successful or helpful as the main idea?

http://mobileinc.co.uk/2010/03/concept-the-future-of-mobile-advertising-on-handset-semantic-sms-advertising/

Fast Food Ads = Childhood Obesity??

After reading an abstract from Chicago Journals- The Journal of Law and Economics on an article that was published about how fast-food on television creates childhood obesity, really got me thinking about if it would really work. I have a mixed feelings about this because I don't completely know how much hold television advertisements have on a children, and if it does carry a hold then I really do believe it's the parents responsibility to not cave in and be the boss. I know that in this fast paced world people want things quick and easily, but in order to be a good, successful parent you have to do what is best for your child and that goes beyond keeping them safe, because without good health, how safe are they?

The article states that "a ban on these advertisements would reduce the number of overweight children ages 3–11 in a fixed population by 18 percent and would reduce the number of overweight adolescents ages 12–18 by 14 percent". This is an interesting study and thought. Obviously childhood obesity is a serious issue, but since fast food places such as McDonald's, Burger King, and Taco Bell aren't going anywhere maybe they should focus their advertisements on foods that are healthier and better for you that way children would see it and think that's what they sell, and eventually that's all that they could order. Wendy's is taking this advice and have recently been advertising "better for you, real products" where most others advertise their cheap costs, which to one person is a hit, while others may want better quality, because how good for you could something be and how good could the quality be when an entire meal costs you less than $4? My thoughts are that people will continue to eat at fast food restaurants regardless of what is advertised, parents just need to monitor their kids and people need to stop blaming and start fixing themselves.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/590132