Mere Exposure and Advertising
Home Definition Background Zajonc's Research Subliminal Mere Exposure
Other Research Subliminal Advertising Limitations and Future Research
How does mere exposure relate to brand choice?
According to William E. Baker, professor of marketing at the University of Vermont, the ultimate purpose of advertising is to influence the brand choice process. Mere exposure to a brand can directly influence a person's ability to choose that brand in a purchasing situation.
Mere exposure is believed to cause a basic habituation response that makes a stimulus less threatening, and thus more approachable. From a marketing point of view, mere exposure may decrease the perceived risk associated with brands. Consequently, all things being equal, consumers may be more willing to approach and select a brand that has an exposure advantage. This means that in certain instances, heavy brand name exposure without any associated information content about the brand might be sufficient to give the brand a relative advantage over its competitors. This is because exposure to the brand makes consumers feel more comfortable about approaching the brand compared to its non-exposed competitor brands (Baker, 1999).
Baker says that there are three factors that are likely to influence the ability of mere exposure generated affect to directly influence brand choice decisions. These three factors are brand familiarity, quality differentiation, and the motivation of deliberation at the time of brand choice.
Brand Familiarity
Brand familiarity is more than just recognizing a brand name; it refers to the "affective residue" that is created by advertising, packaging, and all prior usage experiences with the brand (Baker, 33). For example, if a person sees a particular brand of cola soda and remembers enjoying the taste of that soda brand, he or she will have a positive brand familiarity with the soda. This brand familiarity goes beyond merely recognizing the brand. The person is able to relate a positive personal experience with the soda brand, causing a positive "affective residue" with the soda to lead to a positive brand familiarity.
The implication is that mere exposure can be an effective means for relatively unknown brands to compete against other relatively unknown brands or for well-known brands to compete against other well-known brands. However, mere exposure is not effective for relatively unknown brands when competing against well-known brands (Baker, 1999).
This means that a new cola soda brand cannot expect to use mere exposure to help it compete against well-known brands as Coca-Cola or Pepsi. Despite the power of mere exposure to help one's attitude favor a product, mere exposure is not strong enough to help a new brand become more familiar to consumers than already well-established brands.
Quality Differentiation
Quality differentiation is another factor that can alter the influence of mere exposure. It is based upon the availability of information to help determine performance differences among brand alternatives. The type of information needed for quality differentiation may be obtained within one's memory or at the point of purchase of the brands (Baker, 1999).
The use of mere exposure in a weak brand is not strong enough to offset the superior brand differentiation of a stronger brand. Thus, the application of mere exposure is expected to be an effective means for a brand to compete against another when the other brand is not seen as having superior quality (Baker, 1999). For example, mere exposure of Cleaning Product A will not make it superior to Cleaning Product B, in the perception of the consumer, if Cleaning Product B cleans better than Cleaning Product A.
This may also explain the power of market leaders in certain industries. Even if a smaller brand has a higher quality than a larger brand, the smaller brand may not overcome the larger brand's familiarity. This is because the feeling of familiarity is so powerful for consumers (Baker, 1999).
Motivation to Deliberate at the Time of Brand Choice
When the motivation to deliberate at the time of purchase is low, mere exposure is expected to be able to influence brand choice because its effects are automatic and do not require deliberation (Baker, 1999).
Low motivation at the time of brand choice likely comes from the belief that any product benefit gained by the deliberate consideration of brand information is not worth the time and/or effort (Baker, 1999).
High motivation at the time of brand choice occurs when as the perceived differentiation among brand alternatives increases, the perceived risk of of the consumer making a "wrong" brand choice also increases. This increases the motivation for a consumer to seek and use reliable performance information to distinguish among brand alternatives (Baker, 1999).
Baker found that when motivation to deliberate at the time of brand choice is high, if performance differences among brand alternatives are not found, then the effects of mere exposure may act as distinguishing factors. This occurs despite the subtlety of mere exposure (Baker, 1999). For example, if a person is highly motivated to buy a bottle of home air freshener, but does not perceive any differences in quality among the brands, he or she may just buy a particular brand if he or she remembers seeing its advertisement.
Mere exposure is also a big part of the controversial subject of subliminal advertising. The effects of mere exposure are so powerful that a person may not know he or she is being exposed to a particular message.
to find out about the credibility of subliminal advertising.
to go back