Exploring Guilt Appeals

Exploring Guilt Appeals

Mridhula Ravi

2015

Guilt appeals are commonly used in charity advertising as a means of persuading a consumer to donate. This qualitative study uses an Indian sample to understand if there exists any differences in how they are perceived by individuals in a society that is not guilt based. Participants were exposed to 5 advertising campaigns in a focus group interview. The research also seeks to understand other factors that persuade a consumer to donate. It was found that guilt was only a supplementary factor in persuasion and factors of personal relevance and focus of action played a larger role in persuading with the sample used in this research. Guilt was effective in changing the attitude and beliefs of a consumer, but it was the factors of personal relevance and ease and convenience that were influential in changing donation intention into charitable behaviour. However, the small sample is also a limitation in generalising the responses to an entire culture.

None

The purpose of this research was to understand the effectiveness of charity advertisements using guilt appeals in an Indian sample. Content analysis was then used to find patterns and themes in the responses of the participants.

Research Design

Focus Group Interviews

Since the research aimed to create a narrative of the participants opinions and views, focus groups were employed. Focus groups also enable for understanding and exploring a topic in depth and understanding the nuances of the thoughts and opinions of the participants and thus understand how they respond to guilt appeals.

Interviewer

The primary researcher was used as the interviewer on the basis of being well versed with the material and thus the quality of establishing rapport and guiding the focus group discussion.

Discussion Guide

The primary aim of this research was to understand the perception of guilt appeals in charity adverts and the factors used in the adverts that contribute to donation intention. A discussion guide was formulated in line with the aim of the research and to provide a structure to the direction of the interview. Some of the questions included: ‘How do you feel when you look at this advertisement’, ‘The advertisements intend to use guilt. Do you think that was effective’ and ‘Did you feel guilty when you were exposed to the advertisements?’ (See Appendix A). However the questions were not asked in order and were chosen based on the responses chosen by the participants.

Participants

A focus group with 7 participants was organised. All the participants were Indian by nationality and graduate students of Lancaster University. Of the 7 participants. There were 5 males and 2 females. The only criteria for choosing the sample was that they had to have lived in India for at least 10 years or identify as an Indian national The age of the participants ranged from 20 to 25 years old. There was no difference by gender and gender was not considered as a variable in this research.

Materials

Five advertisements were used in this research to understand guilt appeals.

The advertisements chosen for this study were for causes ranging from child labour, poverty and housing for the poor. To bring some diversity into the advertisements, both online and billboard poster advertisements were used. The people in the advertisements also belonged to different race and age groups to understand if these factors played a role in the effectiveness of the advertisements to both groups. The last advertisement (Shelter) also alluded to shame and I was interested in understanding how this added variable would influence the participants evaluation.

The advertisements were chosen from the internet and have been used as part of ad campaigns. The basis for choosing the advertisements was the framework used by Huhmann and Brotherton (1997):
• The presence of comparison between the well-being of the consumer and the other
• Placement of responsibility in the consumer
• A call to action to the consumer which will aid the cause, failing which the affected group’s misfortune will prolong
• Existence of violation of personal moral standards of the consumer
The five advertisements below were used in the research can be found in Appendix A, B, C, D and E.


Procedure

Participants were recruited for the interviews through messages on Social Networking Sites such as Facebook and WhatsApp. A remuneration of 7 pounds was promised for participation and the interview was conducted in the library of Lancaster University. Participants then signed consent forms and were shown the adverts.

The advertisements were shown consecutively, with participants providing their opinion on each advertisement before proceeding to the next. Questions were then asked regarding the advertisements and discussed. Finally, participants were debriefed about the nature of the research and paid.

Ethical Standards

The research conformed to the Market Research Society’s guidelines. Participation was voluntary and participants were asked to sign consent forms prior the interview. Participants were made aware that their voice would be recorded prior to the start of the interviews. However, for the purpose of anonymity, their names were not used in the study. The participants were also provided with the choice to opt out of the interviews at any given point should they wish to.

Results Section:

This research sought to understand the effectiveness of guilt appeal adverts in Indians and to understand their perceptions of the advertisements and campaigns. The factors in guilt appeals that contribute to a successful advert was also studied. The following results section has been organised in order of the five adverts shown in the interviews to participants and the responses are accounted. Some common themes found in the responses are also discussed following the responses.

Responses to the first advert by People in Need (Appendix A) ranged from a participant feeling that the advert was a “sarcastic attempt” and trying to “make a parody of the poor living situation” of the model and his surroundings to claiming that “They are trying to sell the aftershave” “They are trying to show that the product is efficient and works well”. A participant also said that the advert was trying to “enter larger markets” and thus make the product more approachable. Most participants except two misinterpreted the advert into viewing it as an advert for the aftershave and not as a charity advertisement. Even after explanation for the advert was provided, the participants maintained that they felt no sense of guilt.

Only one participant understood the mechanism of the guilt appeal used in the advertisement, identifying the underlying message of disparity the advertisement was trying to highlight, saying that the advert showed that “You are spending so much on yourself, (but) with a very little amount, you can help improve the lives of others and make an impact for those people” and said that the advert was simply asking the consumer to care about others. Participants also mentioned that the sparse and bare background “shows poverty and amplifies the situation of the person”.

However, the themes the participants identified related to the efficiency of the product as the opinion was that the product worked well because it could be used by different people and the brand’s intention to show people across different nationalities and income levels. Participants were also provided the background of the campaign and a participant then said that she felt a deeper sense of guilt with this knowledge as she was not using her purchasing power to help others and instead for her own self. The impact of the advert on the participants was also varied with one claiming it had no impact and having a great impact on another.

When presented with the second advert by Unicef against child labour (Appendix B), participants pointed out that the advert targeted Nike, saying that “It mocks Nike by making a direct comparison” and also that “Use of Nike makes it easy to understand to target the industry as a whole”. A participant also claimed that the obvious dig at Nike left him unable to focus on the intention of the advert that many brands are contributing to child labour because “All I am seeing is Nike and child labour”. Participants who had knowledge about the background about the advert said that they were able to understand the advert better since they could understand why the advert used Nike. The boy in the picture seemed to evoke some emotion, as participants said that the advertisement was basically the fight by “A small boy against a big corporation” and that he is “Helpless and poor” because he cannot fight the situation. They also maintained that the advert sends the message of “restriction and no freedom” as well as “children forced to do it” and children who need money being misused”. The participants also claimed that while they did feel bad for the child, their attention is drawn more towards Nike than cause of child labour. The participants also felt that the campaign should use more brands as the advertisement sends the message of targeting only Nike and not the overall problem with a participant even saying that “Maybe it would have been better not to mention Nike at all”

With regard to the third advert by Feed SA (Appendix C), participants felt that the “language is strong”, “message is crisp and clear” and that it was “powerful because it shows an African child”. Conversation centred around the race of the child with participants saying that the advertisement would not have been as effective had the child not been Black and that “I would not have taken the advert seriously if it was an Asian kid”. The participants also said that had the advert emphasised on the race of the child and not the cause, they would have felt offended. Participants however said that they would donate if they saw this advert because the ad, which was stuck on shopping trolleys explicitly shows he process thereby making the job easier for the consumers. The participants said that the advert is effective in “making people aware of the ease of helping people” as it targets the ease of donation. The advert was seen as “direct, easy, fast, convenient”.

On showing the fourth advert by Shelter (Appendix D), participants said that they would most likely not pause to read the entire advert due to it being word heavy. “That’s a big ad” said a participant, continuing that the advert “could have funnelled it down”. However, other participants disagreed saying that one could just read the highlighted text and understand the ad and that it does not demand too much attention. Some participants claimed that despite the size of the advertisement, the process of helping the cause was unclear and ambiguous. Others said that the advert would be effective should they want to donate because the problem is clearly highlighted, and the crux is conveyed with details of what they can do to help and the opinions on the effectiveness of the advert seemed divided. There appeared to be consensus with regard to the child in the picture as participants said that “emotion is instant when you see the girl” and the child would make them pause and read the advert.

For the last advert by Amnesty (Appendix E), participants said that the advert makes a strong and powerful statement, immediately catching one’s eyes but felt directionless. A participant said that the advert “hits the emotions but I do not know what to do about it”. Another participant commented that their eyes were immediately drawn towards the word “deserve”. The advert, while impactful, was stated to be vague because it does not inform the viewer what they might be able to do except go on a website, which the participants said was forgettable. A participant said that “Other ads are more about the action; this ad asks for interest and energy” and that one would not bother to do so unless they had time or was personally invested in the cause. Discussion of race again came to the forefront as participants said that the advert resonated more with them given the ethnic unambiguity of the child in that the child could have belonged to an Indian or even Latino background just as easily as American and that “crying face, torn clothes, messy hair make an impact to which race is second”. Not clearly defining the child’s ethnicity was seen as a clever marketing strategy but participants said that they had difficulty relating to a cause from a developed nation. A participant also said that “I would rather pick an Indian child and help that child” in response to helping a cause in America.

Participants were then told that all the adverts worked by using guilt appeals and were asked if they did feel guilty when they viewed the adverts. Some participants identified the Shelter and Amnesty advertisements to evoke emotion in them, whereas others maintained that
while they did feel bad and also sad when they viewed the adverts, they could not identify their emotions specifically to say that it was guilt and a couple also admitted that the adverts did not evoke much feelings of guilt.

“Unless I feel strongly about a cause, I would not donate to the cause regardless of how much the ad tries to guilt me or how powerful an ad is” maintained a participant who said that he would donate to the advert for poverty not only because the advert caught his attention, but also because he was more sensitive towards poverty, having grown up in a poor household. Another participant was of the opinion that he was more likely to donate to causes with adverts with a call for action. Participants also viewed adverts as a “reminder” or “trigger” to take action and that they were most likely to participate in a cause that is the easiest or most convenient to them. A different view was provided by another participant who said that unless he was personally invested to a cause, he would not feel guilt towards an advert for other causes due to the neutral perspective he maintained. Thus, there would be no response in any form towards the advert.

A participant was also of the view that she would rather help other developing nations than a developed nation. She maintained that because she had seen so much poverty on the streets of India and that because of frequent donations to beggars, the child poverty advert did not evoke any guilt. Another participant revealed that his support only for causes that provided individuals with skills, regardless of the guilt the advert evoked, saying that “I will participate if I think the ad could solve the problem.”

The participants were also asked if pictures or words had a greater impact on them and while the consensus was that pictures evoked more emotion, having only pictures could be detrimental and lead to not understanding the purpose of the advert and the greater risk of misinterpretation.

Participants were finally asked if them being Indian or their culture had an effect on how they viewed the adverts. Growing up in a country with lots of poverty seemed to have had a great impact on the participants who said that they were more likely to help children in poverty. Religion also played a role for a participant who practised Islam who was of the opinion that he would have donated to any of the causes in the adverts had he seen them in the month of Ramzan.

There were several themes that were identified through the analysis of the responses from the interviews. Firstly, while the adverts did elicit negative emotions in participants that persuaded donation intention and to undertake advocated behaviour, that emotion was not immediately identified as guilt by the participants. The general responses to the adverts were that they made one feel “bad” or that they were “hard hitting” and “powerful”. Verbal enunciation of guilty feelings was difficult and indirect. Additionally, while some advertisements did elicit feelings of guilt, the factors that persuaded an individual to support were different from those discussed below.

“Unless I feel strongly about a cause, I would not donate to the cause regardless of how much the ad tries to guilt me or how powerful an ad is”

An important factor that persuaded charitable behaviour was the personal relevance of the cause for the individual. Personal relevance is largely influenced by life experiences of an individual. Prior knowledge and circumstances had a significant impact on the perception of adverts. The Unicef campaign appealing against child poverty through Nike had a greater impact on individuals who were aware of the case against Nike in reinforcing their perception of the brand than it did on those who were unaware. In such cases where a brand is targeted, the inclusion of facts and background might have resulted in an increase of interest.

Individuals who did not have an opinion on a particular cause or had a neutral perspective did experience negative emotions upon exposure to an advertisement, however, the strength of the emotions were not enough for them to consider acting on them.

Religion also seemed to play a role in charity behaviour. Religions practises such as ‘zakat’ in Islam which requires one to donate a small share of their wealth to the poor and needy with the belief that such donation frees one from excessive greed and desires influenced those who practised the religion to donate during the time of Ramzan.


“An advertisement to me is only a reminder”

The role of an advertisement was seen as a trigger or a reminder of the cause an individual supports and did not create a new belief or attitude towards a cause. Rather, they seemed to reinforce prevailing ideas and strengthened them. For instance, a participant felt more strongly about the Unicef child labour advertisement because he was informed about the cause and aware of the controversy Nike found itself embroiled it. The advert remined the participant about the cause and his interest in the advert was more a product of personal research than because of the guilt appeal used. However, advertisements time and again seem to be very persuasive in shaping attitudes as well as changing behaviour and it is to be further researched if the opinions in this research are because of the advertisements used or due to individual differences in beliefs of participants.

“I would rather support an African child than an American child”

The willingness to help a cause also depended on the country the cause was addressed towards. There was a greater hesitancy and reluctance in supporting a cause from a “developed” country such America in comparison to developing countries or countries that had the same or lower level of economic growth as India. However, this seemed to be a key factor only when the country the advertisement originated from was explicitly stated. The Shelter advert was an advertising campaign from the United Kingdom, however, it was very persuasive and one of the most effective advertisements according to the participants. The advertisement made no mention of any location. There is a strong commitment in Indians to help extended family and friends or members of the same community, owing to the collectivistic nature of the society (Cantegreil, Chanana, & Kattumuri, 2013) and this is reflected in the responses from participants. This is an important factor to account for with an Indian population, where consumers might be reluctant to support causes from another state of India that is not their own.

Lancaster University

None

Ravi2015

Rebecca James

Open

None

English

None

LA1 4YF

Leslie Hallam

MSc

None

7 participants

None