|
613 Du Buisson Crescent
Orleans, ON K4A 3A4
Canada
Tel: 613-304-5704
email: info@reticulum.ca
|
|
As we have mentioned in a previous chapter, we tend to react
initially with mild discomfort to anything or to anyone new.
But, with repeated exposure we become desensitized and our
anxiety decreases. After frequent contacts with a new stimulus,
the stimulus becomes more familiar and less threatening, which
in turn leads to habituation, and eventually to a gradually
more positive evaluation of the stimulus.
Similarly, the more times an opinion is heard, the more comfortable
the recipient will become with it. In a vacuum, where no or
few competing opinions are present, familiarity also seems
like popularity. In some instances, that can give recipients
a misplaced sense that the opinion is more widespread than
it actually is.
Although not always a panacea, repetition can act as a very
powerful persuasive tool when used properly. Certain conditions
enhance the effect of repetition on liking and persuasion,
while others act to limit its usefulness [4]. Here are some
of the points and nuances to consider about repetition and
the mere exposure theory:
- The mere exposure effect is enhanced when the stimuli
are presented for shorter periods of time. Also, repetition
works better when the message is presented in a heterogeneous,
rather than a homogeneous, exposure context. For example,
when a word like ‘afworbu’ appears with different
types of words, it is evaluated more favorably than when
it repetitively and monotonously follows itself.
- Repeated exposure is more suited for stimuli or messages
that are complex. According to psychologists, complex stimuli
gain in ‘hedonic valence’ or perceived attractiveness
over the course of a number of exposures. By contrast, simple
stimuli begin to bore people after fewer exposures. Similarly,
increasing the frequency of exposure to an already familiar
stimulus is unlikely to increase the likeability for the
stimulus much further. For example, citizens are usually
quite familiar with their country’s flag and (in most
instances) have positive attitudes toward it. Showing them
the flag a few more times would probably do little to enhance
their positive evaluations of it. Similarly, if a doctor
is already prescribing a drug and is happy with its performance,
exposing him to repetitive messages about the drug will
unlikely cause him to rate the drug any higher.
- TV ads seem to best incorporate the principles of the
exposure-affect relationship listed above: they are typically
fairly complex and interesting (albeit with relatively simple
messages), fairly brief (15 to 30 seconds), and presented
in a heterogeneous exposure context (i.e., broadcast in
various TV programs and episodes, and interspersed with
other advertisements and announcements).
- Mere exposure exerts particularly strong effects when
the stimuli are neutral or unfamiliar, rather than intrinsically
pleasant or unpleasant. This principle holds true, for instance,
in U.S. election campaigns where political newcomers and
individuals holding low-visibility states offices (e.g.,
lieutenant governor, secretary of state) competed and where
candidates who spent the most money on advertising were
most likely to win the election [5].
- When the objective of a promotional campaign is to create
short-term maximum awareness (e.g., for a seasonal product
or a limited-time offer), a burst of closely-timed exposures
would be appropriate. On the other hand, if the goal is
to create long-term awareness and enduring likeability,
spread-out exposures will usually yield better results.
- The effects of repetition vary according to the recipient’s
level of involvement in the search for information. Learning
and information search under a situation of ‘low involvement’
occur when the individual has little or no motivation to
learn about a given product (e.g., the doctor has little
interest in or use for a given drug, the product’s
use and indications fall outside the doctor’s specialty
or expertise, or the product carries very little risk).
In ‘high involvement’ learning, the consumer,
or the doctor in our case, is very motivated to carefully
search for and assess relevant information (e.g., the doctor
has many patients who are resistant to existing drugs, or
the drug has serious potential risks).
- Under conditions of low involvement, repetition alone
is unlikely to produce strong retention of learned material.
Conversely, in high-involvement situations, two or three
exposures to a stimulus (like an ad or a sales message)
may be sufficient for later recall. Among children, a single
exposure to a commercial can produce a full effort in the
direction of obtaining the advertised toy.
- According to the May 2007 issue of the Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, repeated exposure to one person’s
viewpoint (e.g., a single rep) can have almost as much influence
as exposure to the same viewpoint but coming from several
people (or different reps).
- Repetition creates familiarity. However, familiarity
might at times breed contempt. In fact, repeated exposure
to a stimulus enhances positive feelings up to a point,
but after a certain number of exposures, ratings of the
stimulus will begin to decline [6]. This is the classic
inverted U curve. Social psychologists call it tedium, advertising
researchers call it wear-out, and physicians simply call
it boredom and overkill. As evidenced by the following physician
verbatim comments, the excessive and indiscriminate repetition
of pharmaceutical sales messages is a major source of physician
complaints, aggravation, and sometimes dislike of or even
hostility toward reps:
- “ I Just get bored when some of the reps
come in so often telling me the same thing.”
- “Rep goes over the same studies over and
over again; excessive repetition of the same information
and great waste of time.”
- “I don’t appreciate a rep detailing
me on a familiar medication when there were no new indications
or studies about its effectiveness.”
- “I am tired of spending time with reps
who have nothing new to say. Often they keep talking
when you already know the product (and are informed
as such).”
- “Drug X and drug Y reps are broken records.
It seems their knowledge is limited to the product monograph.
I can read that myself.”
- “Company X reps are very aggressive; barge
into office; visits too frequent with nothing new to
say. I now refuse to see them.”
More often than not, the indiscriminate and excessive repetition
of the sales message and the quest for a larger share of voice
will translate into a higher noise volume and restricted rep
access. Furthermore, the literal repetition of the same message
erases the perception that the message is personal and tailor-made
to the individual physician. The challenge facing pharmaceutical
reps (and their managers and trainers) is how to properly
calibrate the rate of message repetition and how to keep that
message fresh…
|
