On cognitive dissonance and consonance in advertising
Meet Vasya. Vasya is a simple guy and your potential client. Look at Vasya, and rhetorically ask yourself why he is driving an old "kopeck", and not a new "Boomer"? Why?
And here is Marusya, “a simple Soviet woman,” and your potential client. Look at her and ask yourself: why is she wearing a rabbit coat and not a mink coat? Why?
I think the answer is obvious: because Vasya cannot afford a Boomer, and Marusya cannot afford a mink coat.
Very well. But let me formulate the question differently: look at Vasya again, and think if Vasya wants to drive a brand new Boomer? Or Marusya? Try on if she wants to show off in a mink coat?
Of course you do! Both Vasya "boomer" and Marusya have a mink coat. I want so much that my cheekbones are reduced and my breath caught. I want to, really want to, do you agree?
If you agree, answer the last question: What is the point of making an ad that tries to make the consumer want to buy? After all, he already wants it.
Agree, it makes no sense to tell a person that your chocolate bar is sweet, he already knows it. Perhaps the person is asleep and sees him eating your chocolate. But he doesn’t buy because he is “on a diet”.
Promotional video:
Yes, of course, you can say and tell him that the chocolate is delicious, yum-yum, and it sometimes helps. But if you tell him that "to hell with the diet", it will be much more true.
Because "yum-yum" in advertising does not help to resolve the internal conflict between "I want" and "I can't afford it." In order for the consumer to decide on "yum-yum", the contradiction in his ideas about what is desired (I want) and what is possible (I cannot) must disappear. In psychology, this contradiction is called cognitive dissonance.
The cognitive dissonance
The theory of "cognitive dissonance" was proposed by the American psychologist Leon Festinger back in 1957. Using the example of advertising, this means something like this: if a consumer wants to buy a product, but “cannot afford it” (he is on a diet, as in the case of a chocolate bar), then he has an internal conflict that motivates him to look for a solution that can eliminate the contradiction between the cognitions "I want" and "I can not afford it."
In order to reduce (that is, reduce) the conflict, the consumer seeks to find some kind of justification for his “want”, or, accordingly, an explanation of why “I cannot afford it”.
For example, in order to "resolve" a chocolate bar, the consumer must find additional evidence in favor of immediately eating chocolate, and contrary to his great theory of weight loss:
- Chocolate is essential for mental performance;
- Chocolate is good for dealing with stress;
- Chocolate contains healthy proteins, glucins, and fiber;
- Henry Kissinger, US Secretary of State, is very fond of chocolate;
- I eat a chocolate bar, and tomorrow I will start a new life.
And if the consumer makes a choice in favor of “I cannot afford a chocolate bar,” he can reduce the internal conflict with the following statements:
- You get fat from chocolate;
- Chocolate is very harmful to teeth;
- I'd rather buy a kilogram of potatoes.
It is important to understand that a consumer cannot just take and buy a chocolate bar, nor can he pass by it.
Before that, he must weaken or nullify his “Buridan” contradiction between “I want” and “I cannot afford it." Remember Krylov's fable "Fox and Grapes"?
This is exactly what the consumer does to convince himself ("grapes are green") why he bought not an expensive product (which he wants), but a cheap one (which he can):
- "Anyway they pour from one barrel" (perfumery);
- Expensive drugs are most often counterfeit (drugs);
- The quality of the pirated disc is just as good (movies);
- This is only France on the tag, but in fact China (clothes).
A remarkable example of cognitive dissonance is the dispute between Kolya and Liza about the dangers of meat in the novel by Ilf and Petrov "The Twelve Chairs". Reread at your leisure.
According to the theory of Festinger (and his many followers), a person seeks to eliminate internal conflict either by adding new knowledge (thereby strengthening one of the sides of his conflict), or by changing his knowledge in such a way that the contradiction between cognitive elements weakens or disappears.
For example, the fable "Fox and Grapes". In order to reduce the contradiction between "I want" and "I can not", the fox convinces himself that the grapes are "green": and, therefore, she has no need to try to get it.
Thus, instead of a painful cognitive contradiction ("I want, but I can not"), the fox finds cognitive balance ("I can, but I do not want") and the internal conflict disappears. In psychology, this "consonance" of cognitive elements is called cognitive consonance.
Cognitive dissonance and consonance in advertising
The modern consumer always wants more - and much more! - than he can afford.
The main conflict unfolds between his cognitions "I want" (in the novel "The Twelve Chairs" it is Liza, who wants meat) and "I cannot" (Lizin's husband Kolya, who understands that meat dishes are completely impossible for the family budget).
Now you know that in such conflicts, the consumer seeks either to find new knowledge, or to change existing ones in order to reduce cognitive dissonance.
Thus, advertising should strive to reduce the cognition “I can’t”, thereby not only weakening the main consumer contradiction (“I want, but I cannot afford it”), but also automatically strengthening the cognition “I want”.
In other words, there is no need to try to make the consumer want, but you need to convince him that he can or should afford it.
Agree, there is no point in convincing you that you want a car. It's a no brainer what you want. It is expensive? Unbearable ?! Can't afford it? Who told you that? Why can't you? You can!
Or our "twelve-legged" Liza could tell her husband that she had clients who made her several orders for sewing clothes. Of course, this is not true. But whoever says that advertising speaks the truth (the truth and only the truth), let the first one throw a stone at me.
The task of advertising is to find consonant cognition (justification) for the consumer's desire (I want) and to reduce dissonant cognition as much as possible (but I cannot afford it).
For example, in the case when a person wants to smoke, but tries to quit, he can be cited as an example of Winston Churchill, who smoked cigars all his life, and at the same time lived for almost 90 years.
Or you can quote (attributed to Churchill) the dictum that if you want to live happily ever after, "you have to drink, smoke and wipe yourself with medical tests."
I'm not sure exactly whether Sir Churchill actually said this or not, but it doesn't matter at all for the resolution of an internal conflict.
A person wants to smoke, and in order to "allow" himself to finally do it, he really does not need an excuse, but an excuse.
In other words, proof that he can do it (I smoke only light cigarettes, they have less nicotine), he must do it (I have stress), or his refusal from the cigarette makes no sense (Churchill smoked his whole life, and that's okay).
And it is the same in many other cases: for example, to afford a sweet (and tomorrow I am starting a new life), or to make another (very last) bet in a casino, or to buy something (because there is absolutely nothing to wear).
By and large, any cognitive dissonance in advertising communication is reduced by answering the question: "Why?"
Why should you insure your car with Rosgosstrakh? And because in one place it is twice as expensive, in another place it is “suspiciously cheap”, and, therefore, “Rosgosstrakh”.
And the more convincing the answer to the “why” question, the more likely it is that advertising will be effective.
Advertisers usually believe that if you evoke a strong enough desire in a person, then he will certainly buy the offered product.
It is possible that this belief is based on the AIDA formula, where the desire (Desire), if it is formed, is surely followed by the action (Action).
But in reality, our desire, our “want” inevitably collides with the dissonant cognition “I can’t” (for me this is dear, this is an impermissible waste, and so on). And the higher the “price of the issue”, the sharper the internal conflict is, and the stronger the motivation for its early resolution.
With that said, let me bring to your attention a modified version of the classic AIDA formula:
| Attention (attention) | |
| Interest (interest) | |
| Desire (desire) | |
| Dissonance (controversy) | Consonance (coordination) |
| Inaction (omission) | Action (operation) |
As can be seen from the table, the consumer's Desire (desire) can grow into an Action (action) only if the advertising message contains some kind of consonant information (justification or proof), which reduces the internal conflict between "I want" and "I cannot imagine this. allow ".
But if advertising does not weaken this contradiction, the desire (Desire) of the consumer is likely to fade away (Inaction). He will tell himself that the "grapes are green", and that will calm down.
To do this, by the way, is much easier than to follow the lead of your desires, since the consumer automatically measures all his desires with his capabilities.
And, as a rule, not in favor of their desires, which are limitless, but in favor of the possibilities, which are strictly limited.
Let's sum up
The consumer always craves to buy much more goods than he can afford, and this contradiction forces him to constantly reduce his desires (Inaction).
Consumer desires are mediated not so much by advertising as by the capabilities of the wallet. In other words, the more a person admits the idea of the possibility of buying a car, the more he is interested in car advertising.
Thus, the fundamental reason for consumer interest in advertising is not so much the content of the ad itself as the “content” of the buyer's wallet.
Except in rare cases (such as the mathematician Perelman or wise Zen teachers), the motivation to buy a product from the consumer is always much stronger than the motivation to deny oneself a purchase.
The point is that a purchase brings an immediate direct benefit to the consumer, and refusal to purchase gives, at best, some indirect (and distant in time) benefits.
For example, if a person is on a diet, chocolate promises him immediate pleasure, but giving it up is only one hope that it will somehow help him lose weight.
As a consequence, it is much easier to reduce the “I cannot afford it” cognition than to reduce the “I want” cognition.
This means, for example, that tobacco advertising will always be more effective than anti-smoking advertising: at least as long as the campaigns are on a level playing field.
Cognitive dissonance motivates a person to seek new knowledge that will help him resolve internal conflict. Considering that the consumer is more motivated to buy than to refuse to buy, it can be assumed that advertising should not only sell, but also justify the purchase of goods.
Vit Tsenev
