Essay,

Does Advertising have to be redundant to successfully communicate brand image?

“Every aspect of our daily lives is affected by our communication with others, as well as by messages from people we don’t even know – people both near and far, living and dead” (Littlejohn, 2005:2).

“When we communicate, we exchange messages;

- to warn

- to advise

- to inform

- to persuade

- to express opinions

- to amuse”

(Burton, 1998:22).

Advertising is a form of communication that informs and persuades others.

For advertising to be successful it must be able to communicate the right message. How it does this, becomes a debatable issue. With the use of analysing communication theories, the effectiveness of a message communicated through advertising can be explored. A simple representation of a communication theory derives from the Shannon and Weaver’s Mathematical Theory of Communication, (see figure six). Fiske describes the model as being, “one of the main seeds out of which Communication Studies has grown” (Fiske, 1990:6). The model is a linear sequence, that begins with an ‘information source’, and ends with its ‘destination’. A way to understand the process is by relating the model to a communication device, such as a telephone. The transmitter being someone’s mouth, the signals, sound waves which then pass through the channel of air.  The ear is then the receiver. However, there is a ‘noise source’ that interferes with the communication process.   Using the telephone example again, this could be a loss of signal causing the message, to break up or become harder to understand. In terms of Advertising, this ‘noise source’ could be anything from an unclear message, to an unclear method of communicating the message.

Communication is either redundant or entropic, if a message is entropic then it isn’t predictable, and there is room to question what the message means. Conversely, a redundant form of communication could be someone gesturing a handshake. The message being communicated is clear, and the response is quite obvious. If we were to make a handshake more entropic, perhaps elements of a prank could be included, although highly immature. If a buzzer was attached to the hand, which the opposition was about to shake, the message becomes unclear, and jolted…literally. Linking entropy with the Shannon and Weaver model seems to fit where the ‘noise source’ is situated. If a message becomes entropic then it becomes less obvious, it “limits the amount of desired information that can be sent in a given situation in a given time” (Fiske,1990:8). So surely, regarding the ‘Mathematical Theory of Communication’, an entropic form of communication could be considered as ‘noise source’, a distortion to the message trying to be communicated.

So, is redundant communication considered as better communication. Or, does entropy alongside redundancy make better communication, or is it simply a noise source that is nothing but irritation.  Should advertising be redundant to be successful?

Discussing why redundancy work so well when communicating to an audience, safety is important when advertising. If an audience can predict a message then it seems easier and more comfortable to follow it. “More importantly, it has developed brand adaptability into a system of planned cultural innovation”, (Kline,2009:27). Kline researches a case study that explores the marketing communications used by McDonald’s.  What makes the fast food chain so successful is the close relationship it has with its consumers. For communication to successfully work, a relationship between product and audience must be made.  McDonald’s, the international fast food company, has to be able to relate to everybody investing in its products: “spicier chicken” in China, and “mutton burgers” in India” (Kline,2009:27). In this sense, the McDonald’s menu is redundant, because the food the particular consumers are buying is predictable, it satisfies the appropriate consumers and after all, “The nature of the audience, always affects the treatment of the message. You don’t talk to teachers in the same way that you talk to friends” (Dimbleby, 1998:21). Satisfying an audience is what makes advertising successful, if they can relate to the message then, theoretically, they will understand it more. If you approached your friends with the methods of communication that you approached your teachers with, it is likely that your engagement with them wouldn’t be appropriate, and therefore you wouldn’t communicate effectively.

Therefore, effective advertising is that which communicates what the audience already wants to hear, an audience set out to “organise, categorise and synthesise information, seeking patterns and discovering connections” (Foss, 2005:16). “They help us clarify what we are observing, which helps us understand relationships among various parts and helps us better interpret and evaluate what is going on around us” (Foss, 2005:16). A McDonald’s advertisement reads, “Beefy Cheesy Glory”, (see figure one) three simple words that redundantly describe your typical McDonald’s burger. As receivers, stereotypes are effective, they expect the message regarding a McDonald’s burger to be it as a “Beefy Cheesy Glory” of a burger. There is nothing entropic in that small statement; there is no room for debate because the message is so simple. Reverting to Kline, the McDonald’s marketing is so successful because it relates to its customers. Providing the Chinese with “spicier chicken” is stereotyping, but in advertising rather than causing debate and disruption, it satisfies. The “spicier chicken” doesn’t interfere with the communication process because there isn’t anything ‘alien/new’ that could, ultimately, become a noise source.

Conversely, could entropy be just effective as an advertising tool. A ‘no-nonsense’ way of making a redundant piece of advertising entropic is to deface it. “Sometimes a piece of communication actually intends to hide some of its messages. How good it is at doing this depends on how sharp the receiver is at decoding the communication” (Burton, 1998:24). A McDonald’s advertisement (see figure two), that once read “Everything it’s cracked up to be” - alongside an Egg McMuffin, now reads “Everything that cracked dad’s arteries”.  This example of defacing a piece of advertising isn’t exactly the decoding message McDonald’s was wanting to communicate, but it shows how the receiver of the message always has to be considered. Messages can be interpreted in a variety of different ways. What was once a pun on a sentence, promoting a McDonald’s Egg McMuffin, has become a dangerously serious attack on the lack of healthy ingredients in the food.  Some would say that the new advertisement, although definitely not redundant, is slightly more effective because of its unpredictability. How we interpret a message depends on our individual perspectives, the “decoded message is not identical to the one encoded by the source because each person’s symbol system is shaped by a unique set of perspections” (Wolvin, 2001:8).

When an audience is faced with something that isn’t, as it seems, there is suddenly room for debate. Although debate may be a distraction to communicating the message, does it actually draw more attention to it? Although defacing is a ruthless way of creating a piece of entropic advertising, does its assault actually make a more frank and more effective statement? The original advert promoting Egg McMuffins created this delusion.  They were seen as being delicious by using words like “cracked” and statements such as “full of goodness” and “real ingredients (eggs)”. Therefore, an analysis into the message is not needed because the consumer knows what they want and what to expect. In terms of communicating a message this redundant advert works very well, it attracts Egg McMuffin lovers. However, once the message has been defaced and communicates something very alien to the original, will this produce a wider interest in the message and a deeper analysis of it?

Of course, defacing advertisements becomes subjective to those outside the McDonald’s advertising campaigns who have stronger opinions. Referring to defacing advertisements, perhaps it doesn’t enable better advertising through entropy, but bolder and stronger communication through a subject less comfortable.

What also distinguishes entropy from redundancy is the amount of information and the complexity of the message.  For example, the faintly entropic advertisement for Saab cars (see figure 3) includes a large paragraph of text and the title ‘Saab vs. Hercules’. The advertisement isn’t as clear as a redundant message so is there better communication when a message is more detailed or when it is a lot shorter? Does the complexity of the message allow a larger amount of “choices of a signal that can be made” (Fiske,1990:12). There is room for interpretation and analysis with this particular advertisement. The Saab vs. Hercules indicates that the car is being represented as a Greek demigod; it suggests a level of creativity but also unpredictability to those who may view the message in a different way. How a message is connoted depends on its particular viewer.  If a message has a number of choices that can be drawn from it, then the message communicated isn’t definite. It could be “the randomness of the choices” (Fiske,1990:12), that becomes an unreliable communicative source.

Is this advertising campaign for Saab somewhat redundant as well? Visually it communicates as being quite entropic, the layout, the mass of creativity and the amount of text, however, the text that stands out, ‘Saab vs. Hercules’, in terms of predictability, is quite direct. Analysing this campaign, and the reasons for why choices were made, the heading, ‘Saab vs. Hercules’ is easily communicated. It pleases its audience with a well- known heroic figure, Hercules. There is little room for debate: Hercules is a powerful figure in mythical history; therefore the owner of Saab would sense his own power and protection. Common knowledge will inform most who see this advertisement, as that of, relating this car with a powerful man, ensuring protection and power with your Saab car.

Communication theories suggest that safety within advertising is the key to success, if an audience can relate to the message being portrayed then it will be communicated better. The ‘vs.’ theme that runs throughout Saab advertisements enables the creative team to be “flexible…allowing us to pick every conceivable subject and try to find the interesting stories about the vs.” (Hickey, 2002:166). ‘Saab vs. Hercules’, ‘Hercules’ is a global figure, understood by most nations as a strong, powerful god, there isn’t much that can be argued against that, or is there?

There is another theory that supports the rarity of neutral messages. Apparently, “messages rarely come on their own, there are probably other verbal and non-verbal messages around a sentence” (Dimbleby, 1998:23). This theory suggests that as redundant as a message may seem, there is always ways to explore its entropic side, reading into it further. In fact, according to Dimbleby, “even a factual list of functions in a car advertisement is not just a neutral list. It is a selected set of messages about the good points of the car” (Dimbleby, 1998:23). This almost implies that all advertising falls under the redundant title because they express what the audience wants to see/hear. However, each message given is far from neutral as other messages can be interpreted from it, or in and around it. Advertisements do aim to persuade consumers, although the list of functions for car advertisement appear neutral, when targeting a large audience it must be impossible to satisfy every customer without manipulating the “factual list of functions in a car” (Dimbleby, 1998:23).

Some advertisements for brand image mis-spell and manipulate words in order to mould them accordingly to their particular brand. A new advertising campaign for ‘Aero Caramel’ has done this, (see figure five). They have manipulated the word ‘Irresistible’ to ‘Irresistibubble’, as a direct connection to the bubbly chocolate bar. The effectiveness of this manipulated language within advertising is disputable; does it create a more entropic atmosphere? Or does the moulding of more then one word, to create another language, to fit a brand, seem redundant and connected, and thus, easily understood?

Is it the context that these words exist in essential when maintaining understanding and purpose? If they sat alone without any of their brand image to compliment their meaning, then they could become entropic. Of course, it can’t be decided whether they are entropic of redundant on the basis of how much they rely on their surroundings, “the context might help…so far as it did, the context would be a source of redundancy” (Fiske, Introduction to communication studies, 1990:11). The accuracy of the message and its clarity is a way of determining whether it is redundant or entropic. ‘Aero Caramel’ using the slogan, “made irresistibubble’, could easily be redundant; the context in which the slogan sits, (a chocolate bar known for it’s bubble texture), and the word, ‘irresistible’ which hasn’t necessarily lost it’s legibility after being transformed. Pronunciation of the miss- spelt word speaks similarly too, if it hadn’t been changed.  The message derived from it couldn’t be easily mistaken.

There is also security within the slogan, keeping the advertisement fully related throughout. This enables a strong understanding, and the connection between the chocolate bar and the words alongside it, could ensure maximum potential when communicating the fact it is ‘irresistible’. In this case, does this particular advertisement have to be redundant to be successful? Does this advertisement communicate as fully as it would, if the words hadn’t been moulded, or if they didn’t sit in context? In terms of accuracy, has this advertisement worked? This particular use of the word ‘irresistibubble’, in a way, has become independent. It could be that the reliance it has on its context (Aero caramel chocolate bar), has also limited its meaning and definition. Will the word ‘irresistible’ be hard to grasp after the new moulded version has been introduced?  It could be that this advertisement claims redundancy, (creating a bubbly bond between the chocolate and the slogans to create simplicity and effectiveness), but has, in fact, limited its accuracy due to too much branding.

Another example of word manipulation is an advertisement for ‘Air Asia’ (see figure four). Technically no words have been manipulated; it is the meaning of the word that has been changed to ensure understanding and communication of the sentence, “Cheap enough to say, Phuket I’ll go”. A clever use of a main attraction in Thailand, ‘Phuket’, but does it communicate well? And has it become entropic or redundant?

Mis-spelling of words can create friction when trying to communicate smoothly, however, as with the Aero caramel advertisement, when these words are in context, they can communicate effectively.  ‘Air Asia’, on the other hand, isn’t a case of misspelling, but a replacement word, which would definitely be considered inappropriate. Replacing a word completely could be seen as entropic, the immediate understanding of the message is lowered, allowing room for the reader to make sense of it. Without the security of a definite meaning of the word, debate and curiosity can take over, which ultimately, makes an advertisement entropic. Intelligence is also introduced when regarding the strength of the message. If a word is manipulated then the meaning becomes clear when read, however, for some readers, “Phuket” could be just as effective as a blank space.

Conversely, does the use of a new word entirely, actually make more sense, when labelling a language as entropic, “changing a letter would mean changing the word” (Fiske,1990:11). Word manipulation relies on merging two words together, which theoretically, only communicate as a singular. However, although the sentence, ‘Cheap enough to say, Phuket I’ll go”, may rely on its context, does the message, in a way, communicate better even though much more entropic.

This style of advertising could relate to the ‘defacing’ subject that was discussed earlier. Does entropy actually create a larger, more interested, involved audience? The entropic methods of communication involve factors like, friction, insecurity, and multiple answers/resolutions. Does this debatable atmosphere also encourage interaction and further insight to what is being advertised? There are arguments stating “Redundancy also helps us overcome the deficiencies of a noisy channel. We repeat ourselves on a bad telephone line” (Fiske, 1990:11). Is it the repetition that enables a more in depth interaction with the conversation? If someone is struggling to make sense of the message being communicated over the telephone, then having to engage further to understand what is being said, automatically introduces more effort, more involvement, resulting in a better receiver.  The Shannon and Weaver model suggests it is not only the ‘Information source’ that is important, but also the ‘Receiver’. Does noise source (entropy) actually strengthen messages due to the amount of attention that is required? Redundant advertising is successful in the sense, that it communicates a particular brand image well. Safety within the message secures and ensures a satisfied audience, with little noise source; little interruption can cause any debate or misunderstanding. Although, redundant advertising could simply be creating a clone-like, dull audience, the advertising itself becomes plain and repetitive. Is it the case that redundancy is successful when communicating, but could it be that entropic advertising advertise better as the rise of debate and questionable sources trigger a more engaged audience.