How Marketers Are Emerging From Advertising Clutter

Emerging media (Klopfenstein, 2011) and thriving digital platforms means that the issue of advertising ‘clutter’ has been reborn (Ha and McCann, 2008). Times have evolved from disciplined marketing efforts placed within structured segments of radio, television and print media, with entertainment consumption now being far more accessible (Zeiser, 2015). It is expected that average consumers come into contact with 600-625 advertising messages per day (Rojas-Méndez et al., 2009). This has largely been driven by digitisation and social media (Fill et al. 2013), resultantly advertisers have had to embrace the on-line world as much as the physical one. Clutter is simply defined by Brown and Rothschild (1993, p. 138) as “The sum of non-programming components of broadcast materials”. Essentially this refers to unexpected advertising which becomes visible when consuming any form of media. Ha and Litman (1997) build upon this proclaiming that clutter can be judged in terms of “quantity, competitiveness and intrusiveness”. Consumers are now increasingly adapting their behaviour in order to limit the advertising clutter they are subjected to, making it harder for advertisers to gain and retain attention. Consequentially, more innovative efforts are being considered, utilising product integration (Klopfenstein, 2011), consumer engagement (Jurca and Madlberger, 2014), and shock advertising (Dahl et al., 2003).

📷

Klopfenstein (2011 cited Shales, 2002) illustrates the extent of clutter in television by claiming ‘ABC’ were averaging over 15 minutes of clutter each prime-time hour back in 2002. Thus, making it almost impossible for consumers to view without seeking entertainment elsewhere. Since then, many changes in the advertising environment have led to a further increase in clutter levels. These stem from the theme of globalisation which is being driven by interconnectivity and on-line highways (De Mooij, 2011). It could also be said that advertisers are constantly being responsive to the increasing issue of consumerism (Sinclair, 2012), which is being accelerated by a ‘Westernisation’ of many markets (Scriven, 2014), in addition to increased digitisation. Evidently, digital marketing communications lead the charge of the most recent revolution in advertising. Undoubtedly social media platforms are the latest to cause a new proliferation of advertising clutter due to the mass traffic and interaction they provoke (Tiago et al. 2014). This creating a more focused attention and engagement which mass advertising methods are unable to achieve. Increasingly modern efforts such as mobile marketing and company apps are grasping advertiser’s attention, now holding around a quarter of digital marketing budgets (Shankar, 2016 cited eMarketer 2015). Thus, meaning advertising clutter is now visible across all media making it harder than ever for advertisers to convey their messages. Understandably, brands are now doing more to emerge from the clutter and stand out from the crowd.

📷

The impact of clutter can best be shown through Schramm’s (1995) linear model of communication. The model was developed to provide an understanding of the procedure consumers use to process information. Essentially communication only occurs when information received has been processed and understood by the recipient (Clow and Baack, 2016). The most relevant component of this model relates to ‘noise’. Typically, noise refers to anything which may conflict with the receiver’s ability to process a message. Relevantly, Clow and Baack (2016, pp.25) detail this by stating interference of noise such as “clutter” is often caused by multiple other companies distributing their own messages. Clearly clutter can influence a consumer’s ability to interpret and understand communication. In addition, studies also show that clutter also negatively impacts recall (Ward et al., 1988) and recognition (Angell et al., 2016). However, it could be argued that such frequency of advertising has improved consumer view’s towards branding. Thus, contributing to modern consumerism. Despite this, the negativity of clutter runs deeper as consumers are now taking action to actively avoid and tune out types of advertising as a result of overload (King, 2013).

📷

Clutter is heavily impacting the effect of advertising as consumers are consciously and unconsciously employing ‘ad-avoidance’ strategies (Rumbo, 2002). Rojas-Méndez et al. (2009, p.3) considered both mechanical issues such as “zapping” and behavioural factors such as leaving a room during advertisements as two high impactors. Correspondingly, Klopfenstein (2011) finds that ‘channel surfing’ or ‘zapping’ is the most engaged avoidance tactic, followed by conversing with others, and mentally zoning-out. Rotfeld (2006) also acknowledges that ad breaks had always been a time for finding a distraction, adding that the introduction of digital recording has only made avoidance stronger. Whereas these strategies are suitable for television consumption, Rumbo (2002) finds that avoidance is much lower for print advertising. Contrastingly, avoidance levels are likely to be higher for on-line media as consumers actively pay premiums to avoid ads on applications such as Netflix and Spotify. Kim and Sundar (2010, p.346) provide reasoning to this claiming those using internet media are more “goal-orientated”, making on-line ads especially intrusive. On the contrary, on-line platforms allow for tailored advertising. Thus, beneficial as ads which are seen as relevant to the user tend to be viewed as less intrusive (Kim and Sundar, 2010).

📷

Understandably advertisers are trying to emerge from the clutter. A common method of counteracting is through product integration or ‘product placement’ (Klopfenstein, 2011 cited Shrum, 2004). In essence, a product is embedded, and to an extent camouflaged, within a host media. Rotfeld, (2006) claims that advertising’s future lies upon hiding the sales pitch within the content. Thus, making the product visible to a more captive audience (Redondo and Bernal, 2016), in a less cluttered environment (Redondo and Bernal, 2016). Interestingly, a Coca-Cola experiment found that using a product placement enticed the same consumer response as traditional television advertising (Redondo and Bernal, 2016). However, over-prominence of the product can negatively impact both the advertiser and host media. This was visible within hit film ‘Casino Royale’ where a placement of an ‘Omega’ watch was seen to be unfitting of the scene, thus, attracting a negative response from viewers (Marchand et al., 2015). Common product placement simply advertises the name and logo of a product, perhaps making it less influential than advertising. Building the product into story lines may be more effective but risks suffering from the over-prominence experienced by Omega.

📷

Similar to product integration is a method known as ‘subtlety’. Like product integration this is a method which does not provide detailed information as seen within traditional advertising. As Jurca and Madlberger (2014) state, it is the emission of information which makes this method effective. Subsequently, it is left to the viewer to decode the situation. Thus, generating a more cognitive response in their mind, hopefully capturing attention and memorability. Subtlety can be displayed through the example of ‘KitKat’s bench campaign. The company painted benches in parks and shopping areas in a quirky way which represented their product (Jurca and Madlberger, 2014). Where it is unlikely subtlety will develop long term relations with customers, creative quirks such as this are becoming much more apparent.

Creativity and innovation are at the forefront of postmodern advertising. Jurca and Madlberger (2014 cited Burnett, 1968) define advertising creativity as something which displays a product in a previously unforeseen way through the use of new associations. ‘Ambient advertising’ is a method which falls under this category and could relate to the example of KitKat. This is a creative type of outdoor advertising where message positioning is more likely to capture attention (Jurca and Madlberger, 2014). Arora and Arora (2016) present the idea that digitisation means consumers view most advertising on digital platforms. Therefore, viewing an unordinary message in an unusual place makes the consumer more likely to be attentive. An example of this would be H&M using flash mobs in San Francisco. Thus, creating a buzz around the brand and sparking viral publicity (Arora and Arora, 2016). In critique, a concern of this type of advertising is that the promotional message may be missed. It may be hard for passers-by to understand the message behind the act, meaning strong branding support is required. However, in the cases where events go ‘viral’, it can provide low cost and exciting publicity.

The current digital environment means that ‘going viral’ is a priceless method for advertisers. Digital media platforms have re-created the value of word-of-mouth, leading to many marketing campaigns being designed to spark this type of conversation (Cakim, 2010). Groeger and Buttle (2014) feel the most appropriate way of generating discussion is to distribute a product to those who will then promote or recommend it to their friends or on-line followers starting a chain like effect. Many brands – fashion and retail outlets in particular – are now focusing on blogs and social media accounts as a method of generating word-of-mouth (Loureiro, 2018). Similarly, ‘online influencers’ on social media – particularly Instagram – are also seen to create a word-of-mouth that is seen to be 92% more trustworthy than any other form of marketing (The Fashion Law, 2018). Men’s fashion brand ‘Gym King’ are an example of a brand who provide products to certain Instagram personalities, subsequently pictured bearing the brand. This method could be argued to be a form of celebrity endorsement or even product integration. What is clear is that it creates on-line discussion. However, it is worth noting that word-of-mouth is not always positive.

Modern advertisers are also paying considerable attention to engagement through advertising to create discussion. It has been found high participation from consumers results in higher advertising effectiveness (Jurca and Madlberger, 2014). For example, Coca-Cola’s ‘share a coke’ campaign personalised bottles, encouraging consumers to find the product bearing the names of themselves, family and friends (Sinclair, 2012). This sparking a buzz around the campaign. As mentioned previously, social media provides the opportunity for engagement unlike mass advertising. In illustration, Audi’s ‘#TractionTuesday’ Instagram campaign encouraged the brand’s customers to post pictures of their own experiences with their car (Wander, 2016). Thus, using the customer to promote their brand to their own personal followers whilst deepening relationships with the company. Therefore, it is no surprise that brand engagement leads to a more positive attitude being held towards the advertiser (Jurca and Madlberger, 2014).

📷

Shock advertising is a method of capturing attention by disregarding social norms, especially visible with not-for-profit advertisers (Dahl et al., 2003). Shock advertising covers topics which can be classed as offensive to the viewer. Sex and taboo, threatening/harmful imagery and indecent products are commonly seen to fall under this tactic (Parry et al., 2013). Brewdog are seen as a company who utilise shock advertising, fitting in with their brand image to essentially ‘break the rules’. Brewdog founders have the belief that if you can be creative and cunning with advertising it can be done for free (Smith et al.,2010). In other words, creating shock can attract widespread publicity and interest. Where this worked for a previously small brand like Brewdog, it may be a harmful method for advertisers to handle due to the risk of mass offense. Similarly, ‘fear’ advertising would appear to draw similar consumer emotion. Like shock advertising, this technique is aimed at capturing a lasting attention through the emotion or feeling it creates within the consumer (Henthorne at al., 1993). This is a more common technique with social advertising such as speed awareness (Arthur and Quester, 2004) but is becoming increasingly visible when advertising everyday products. It is shown that when used correctly, creative advertising techniques such as this can be very noticeable.

Klopfenstein (2011) only partly disagrees with most academics that creative advertising emerges from clutter. Sensibly, if most advertisers used creative advertising it would not be possible for all to stand out. Klopfenstein (2011) expands on this believing that less cluttered environments held the key to advertising success. Simply, an environment with fewer messages would result in each particular message being more comprehensively processed. This supports Stilson’s (2009) statement that clutter had nudged some advertisers away from television towards on-line methods. In retrospect, it could be argued that on-line advertising has become just as – if not more – saturated with advertising.

In summary, there are many tactics which brands can utilise to potentially emerge from the clutter. As mentioned by Jurca and Madlberger (2014), creativity is a large contributor to this, with engagement becoming a more modern requirement. Digital platforms such as social media are providing opportunities for smaller companies to have a larger voice as shown by Brewdog. The idea of product integration is likely to grow with the rise of on-line blogging and social media influencers. As acknowledged by Klopfenstein (2011), value lies within the un-cluttered environments which likely explains the rise of these types of strategies. A simultaneous rise of entertainment consumption is also increasing the possibilities for product placement which is suggested by Rotfeld (2006) to have an important role in advertising’s future. As shown, consumers actively avoid clutter, which ultimately relies upon the cognitive realisation that they are being advertised to. Therefore, the thought of advertisers could be placed upon utilising more creative techniques which disguise product embedment.