Visual+Rhetoric+in+Advertising

=McQuarrie, Edward. Mick, David. Visual Rhetoric in Advertising: Text- Interpretative, Experimental, and Reader-Response Analyses = ====//Journal of Consumer Research: // Volume 26, Number 1. Pg. 37-54 ====

Abstract:
Text interpretations, two experiments, and a set of reader-response interviews examine the impact of stylistic elements in advertising that form visual rhetorical figures parallel to those found in language. The visual figures examined here—rhyme, antithesis, metaphor, and pun—produced more elaboration and led to a more favorable attitude toward the ad, without being any more difficult to comprehend. Interviews confirmed that several of the meanings generated by informants corresponded to those produced by an a priori text-interpretive analysis of the ads. However, all of these effects diminished or disappeared for the visual tropes (metaphor and pun) in the case of individuals who lacked the cultural competency required to adequately appreciate the contemporary American ads on which the studies are based. Results are discussed in terms of the power of rhetorical theory and cultural competency theory (Scott 1994a) for illuminating the role played by visual elements in advertising. Overall, the project demonstrates the advantages of investigating visual persuasion via an integration of multiple research traditions.

Argument:
In advertisement the visual elements are an important component to utilize. Many consumers have recognized how the role of imagery shapes their response as a buyer but only recently the visual elements have begun to receive the same degree of attention from researchers as the linguistic element in advertisement. The rhetorical figures in advertising has become an artful deviation which is relative to an audiences expectation. As consumers approach advertisements, they are confronted with text that they must interpret but the visual cues implemented within the advertisement often give consumers a push towards what is being sold without them realizing it

 Key Passages:
“The reader-response approach emphasizes the meanings that consumers draw from ads (e.g., Mick and Buhl 1992; Mick and Politi 1989; Scott 1994b). Extended depth interviews are sometimes used to show the rich and complex interplay between elements of the ad and consumer responses. Weaknesses include a limited ability to conduct causal analysis and a relatively vague specification of how specific types of ad elements can be linked to particular kinds of consumer meanings.” (37)

“As a reader the consumer approaches advertisements as complex texts to be interpreted (Scott 1994b). Approached as texts, ads may be ignored or engaged, disdained or enjoyed, critiqued or endorsed. Of course, these consumer readings will be shaped by idiosyncratic factors as well as text structure (Eco 1979)” (38)

Selected Works Cited:
1. Abed, Farough (1994), “Visual Puns as Interactive Illustrations: Their Effects on Recognition Memory,” Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 9 (1), 45–60. 2. Assael, Henry, John Kofron, and Walter Burgi (1967), “Advertising Performance as a Function of Print Ad Characteristics,” Journal of Advertising Research, 7 (June), 20–26. 3. Barthes, Roland (1985), “The Rhetoric of the Image,” in his The Responsibility of Forms, New York: Hill & Wang, 21–40. 4. Berlyne, Daniel E. (1971), Aesthetics and Psychobiology, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. 5. Burton, Philip Ward and Scott C. Purvis (1996), Which Ad Pulled Best? Chicago: NTC. 6. Childers, Jerry L. and Michael J. Houston (1984), “Conditions for a Picture Superiority Effect on Consumer Memory,” Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (September), 643–654., Michael J. Houston, and Susan E. Heckler (1985), “Measurement of Individual Differences in Visual versus Verbal Information Processing,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (September), 125–134. 7. Chomsky, Noam (1968), Language and Mind, New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. 8. Corbett, Edward P. J. (1990), Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student, New York: Oxford University Press. 9. Culler, Jonathan (1975), Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics, and the Study of Literature, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 10. Dubois, J., F. Edeline, J. M. Klinkenberg, P. Minguet, F. Pire, and H. Trinon (1970), A General Rhetoric, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 11. Durand, Jacques (1987), “Rhetorical Figures in the Advertising Image,” in Marketing and Semiotics: New Directions in the Study of Signs for Sale, ed. Jean Umiker-Sebeok, New York: 12. Mouton, 295–318. 13. Eco, Umberto (1979), The Role of the Reader, Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 14. Edell, Julie A. and Richard Staelin (1983), “The Information Processing of Pictures in Print Advertisements,” Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (June), 45–61. 15. Finn, Adam (1988), “Print Ad Recognition Readership Scores: An Information Processing Perspective,” Journal of Marketing Research, 25 (May), 168–177. 16. Forceville, Charles (1995), “IBM Is a Tuning Fork: Degrees of Freedom in the Interpretation of Pictorial Metaphors,” Poetics, 23 (3), 189–218. 17. Gombrich, Ernst H. (1960), Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 18. Greenberg, Allan and Norton Garfinkle (1963), “Visual Material and Recall of Magazine Articles,” Journal of Advertising Research, 3 (June), 30–34. 19. Heckler, Susan E. and Terry L. Childers (1992), “The Role of Expectancy and Relevancy in Memory for Verbal and Visual Information: What Is Incongruency?” Journal of Consumer 20. Research, 18 (March), 475–492. 21. Holbrook, Morris B. and Donald R. Lehman (1980), “Form versus Content in Predicting Starch Scores,” Journal of Advertising Research, 20 (August), 53–62.22. Hunt, Shelby D. (1991), “Positivism and Paradigm Dominance in Consumer Research: Toward Critical Pluralism and Rapprochement,” Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (June), 32–44. 23. Jakobson, Roman (1971), “Language in Relation to Other Communication Systems,” in Selected Writings, Vol. 2, ed. R. Jakobson, The Hague: Mouton, 570–579. 24. Kaplan, Stuart J. (1992), “A Conceptual Analysis of Form and Content in Visual Metaphors,” Communication, 13 (3), 197–209. 25. Kardes, Frank R. (1988), “Spontaneous Inference Processes in Advertising: The Effects of Conclusion Omission and Involvement on Persuasion,” Journal of Consumer Research, 26. 15 (September), 225–233. 27. Kennedy, John M., Christopher D. Green, and John Vervaeke (1993), “Metaphoric Thought and Devices in Pictures,” Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 8 (3), 243–255. 28. Leigh, James H. (1994), “The Use of Figures of Speech in Print Ad Headlines,” Journal of Advertising, 23 (June), 17–34. 29. MacInnis, Deborah J. and Linda L. Price (1987), “The Role of Imagery in Information Processing: Review and Extensions, ”Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (March), 473–491. 30. Marchand, Roland (1985), Advertising the American Dream: Making Way for Modernity, 1920–1940, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. 31. McQuarrie, Edward F. (1989), “Advertising Resonance: A Semiological Perspective,” in Interpretive Consumer Research, ed. Elizabeth C. Hirschman, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 97–114. and David Glen Mick (1992), “On Resonance: A Critical 32. Pluralistic Inquiry into Advertising Rhetoric,” Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (September), 180–197.and David Glen Mick (1996), “Figures of Rhetoric in Advertising Language,” Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (March), 424–437. 33. Messaris, Paul (1992), “Visual ‘Manipulation’: Visual Means of Affecting Responses to Images,” Communication, 13 (3), 181–195. 34. Meyers-Levy, Joan and Laura A. Peracchio (1992), “Getting an Angle in Advertising: The Effect of Camera Angle on Product Evaluations,” Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (October), 35. 454–461. and Laura A. Peracchio (1995), “Understanding the Effects of Color: How the Correspondence between Available and Required Resources Affects Attitudes,” Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (September), 121–138. and Laura A. Peracchio (1996), “Moderators of the Impact of Self-Reference on Persuasion,” Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (March), 408–423. 36. Mick, David Glen (1986), “Consumer Research and Semiotics: Exploring the Morphology of Signs, Symbols and Significance,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (September), 196–214. (1992), “Levels of Subjective Comprehension in Advertising Processing and Their Relations to Ad Perceptions, Attitudes, and Memory,” Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (March), 411–424. 37. and Claus Buhl (1992), “A Meaning-Based Model of Advertising Experiences,” Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (December), 317–338. and Laura G. Politi (1989), “Consumers’ Interpretations of Advertising Imagery: A Visit to the Hell of Connotation,” in Interpretive Consumer Research, ed. Elizabeth C. Hirschman, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 85–96. 38. Miniard, Paul W., Sunil Bhatla, Kenneth R. Lord, Peter R. Dickson, and H. Rao Unnava (1991), “Picture-Based Persuasion Processes and the Moderating Role of Involvement,” Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (June), 92–107. 39. Mitchell, Andrew A. and Jerry C. Olson (1981), “Are Product Attribute Beliefs the Only Mediator of Advertising Effects on Brand Attitude?” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (August), 318–322. 40. Mukarovsky, Jan (1964), “Standard Language and Poetic Language,” in A Prague School Reader on Esthetics, Literary Structure, and Style, ed. Paul L. Garvin, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 17–30. Peracchio, Laura and Joan Meyers-Levy (1994), “How Ambiguous 41. Cropped Objects in Ad Photos Can Affect Product Evaluations,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (June), 190–204. 42. Phillips, Barbara J. (1997), “Thinking into It: Consumer Interpretations of Complex Advertising Images,” Journal of Advertising, 26 (Summer), 77–86. Rossiter, John R. (1981), “Predicting Starch Scores,” Journal of Advertising Research, 21 (October), 63–68. and Larry Percy (1980), “Attitude Change through Visual Imagery in Advertising,” Journal of Advertising, 9(2), 10 –16. 43. Scott, Linda M. (1994a), “Images in Advertising: The Need for a Theory of Visual Rhetoric,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (September), 252–273. (1994b), “The Bridge from Text to Mind: Adapting Reader Response Theory to Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (December), 461–480. 44. Sonesson, Goran (1996), “An Essay concerning Images: From Rhetoric to Semiotics by Way of Ecological Physics,” Semiotica, 109 (1/2), 41–140. 45. Sperber, Dan and Deidre Wilson (1986), Relevance: Communication and Cognition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. and Deidre Wilson (1990), “Rhetoric and Relevance,” in The Ends of Rhetoric: History, Theory, Practice, ed. John Bender and David E. Wellbery, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 140–155. 46. Stern, Barbara (1989), “Literary Criticism and Consumer Research: Overview and Illustrative Analysis,” Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (December), 322–334. (1992), “‘Crafty Advertisers’: Literal versus Literary Deceptiveness,” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 11 47. (Spring), 72–81. 48. Unnava, H. Rao and Robert E. Burnkrant (1991), “An Imagery Processing View of the Role of Pictures in Print Advertising, ”Journal of Marketing Research, 28 (May), 226–231. 49. Williamson, Judith (1978), Decoding Advertisements: Ideologyand Meaning in Advertising, Boston: Marion.

