قراین در آرایه‌های معنوی تبلیغات چاپی (جامعه مطالعه: تبلیغات چاپی جایزه‌ کلایو در 2007- 2016)

نوع مقاله : مطالعه موردی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار گروه گرافیک- دانشکده هنر- دانشگاه الزهرا

2 دانشجوی رشته پژوهش هنر، دانشکده هنر، دانشگاه شاهد، تهران

10.22051/jtpva.2021.33863.1253

چکیده

آرایه‌های معنوی، درصورت تفسیر صحیح دریافتگر از آن‌ها، نتایج مثبتی برای تبلیغ خواهند داشت، در غیر این‌صورت در دریافتگر تمایل منفی به تبلیغ ایجاد می‌کنند. برای اجتناب از این امر، طراحان در تبلیغات‌شان سرنخ‌هایی (قراینی) به‌دست دریافتگر می‌دهند تا مقصودشان را دریابند. پژوهش‌های انجام شده تأثیر قراین در واکنش دریافتگر را مورد مطالعه قرار داده‌اند. آن‌ها قراین را بدون ذکر انواع‌شان در دو دسته کلی تصویری و نوشتاری قرار می‌دهند و قراین را صرفا مرتبط با آرایه می‌دانند و پاسخی به این سئوال نداده‌اند که «چه قراینی زیرگروه این دو دسته قراین قرار می‌گیرند و چه ارتباطی با سایر اجزای تبلیغ دارند»؟ هدف این پژوهش این است که زیرمجموعه‌های این دو گروه را شناسایی کند و ارتباط آن‌ها با سایر اجزای تبلیغ را مشخص نماید. برای این منظور، به روش تحلیل محتوا و رویکرد کیفی تبلیغات چاپی کلایو مورد بررسی قرار گرفتند تا انواع قراین در آن‌ها شناسایی شوند. سپس، فراوانی آن‌ها در گروه‌های تصویری و نوشتاری و در ارتباط با اجزای تبلیغ محاسبه شد. در این راستا هفت قرینه را شناسایی کرد که در گرو‌ه‌های تصویری یا نوشتاری قرار می‌گرفتند. نتایج نشان می دهد که فراوانی تصویری (%2/20) بیشتر از نوشتاری (%3/14) بوده است؛ زیرا تصاویر قابل‌فهم‌تر، تأثیرگذارتر، و مخیل‌ترند. همچنین فراوانی قراین مرتبط با آرایه (%7/22) بالاتر از قراین مرتبط با محصول (%5/14) بوده است؛ این امر تلاش طراحان را برای تفهیم آرایه به دریافتگر نشان می‌دهد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Anchorage in tropes of print advertisements (Case Study: Clio-award print advertisements (2007-2016))

نویسندگان [English]

  • fahimeh daneshgar 1
  • Atefeh Hosseini 2
1 Associate Professor, Department of Graphics, Faculty of Arts, Al-Zahra University
چکیده [English]

Literary devices are widely used in advertisements. Ad designers use schemes to give external beauty to images and words, and use tropes to embellish the meanings and message of a picture or text. Based on the literary definition, tropes are more difficult to comprehend than schemes. Marketing researchers adopt this classification. According to them, tropes will lead to positive results such as ad liking, increased persuasion, and ad memorability, provided that the audience comprehends them successfully. Failure to interpret tropes results in negative attitudes towards the ad. Graphic designers, such as poets and writers who use tropes in their works, provide their audience clues to help them interpret. So, they can benefit from tropes’ positive effects on ad receivers and skip the negative effects of miscomprehension. These clues, called anchors, are classified into two general categories of written and visual without determining their subgroups. Furthermore, anchors have been studied in relation to tropes to assess the target audiences’ response. Whereas, in everyday ads, anchors are not only related to tropes. The unanswered question is, what are the subgroups of written and visual anchors? And to which ad components are they related? This study aims to identify the subgroups of written and visual anchors used in trope print advertisements and specify their relation to other advertisement components. The necessity of this research is to provide a ground for studying anchorage with more precision and attention in print advertisement tropes so that generalization will be limited in the results, and consequently designers can use the results of such research with greater assurance.
     In this research, we used content analysis method through a qualitative approach. Sampling was done through a purposive or judgmental technique. The sample size includes 783 Clive Award print ads from 2007-2016, downloaded from the official Clio Award website (http://clios.com/awards). These ads were selected as samples, because participating ads in this award have an acceptable level of creativity and the application of literary devices in ads is one of their common methods. The content analysis method identified tropes of this collection and the methods to reduce their difficulty/complexity (anchors). These anchors, commonly divided into two categories of visual and written anchors, are of seven types: 1. descriptive text, 2. logo, 3. product image, 4. slogan, 5. brand name, 6. descriptive image, and 7. product description. The frequency of each seven types of anchors and the average of both written and visual categories were calculated.
     Structurally, four out of the seven identified anchors were written, and three were visual. All anchors were related to the brand except descriptive text and descriptive image (related to trope). The descriptive text had the highest frequency (40.9%). After that, the logo (39.6%) and the product image (16.3%) had the highest frequency. The lowest frequency belonged to brand name (4.5%) and product image (3.3%). The average frequency of visual anchors (20.2%) was higher than that of written anchors (14.3%). The average frequency of ad component related anchors was also calculated. Anchors related to tropes (22.7%) had a higher average frequency than anchors related to the product/brand (14.5%).
     To answer the question, what the subcategories of written and visual anchors are, this paper aims to identify subgroups of written and visual anchors and determines their relation to ad components. Results identified four subgroups for written anchors (descriptive text, slogan, brand name, and product description), and three subgroups for visual anchors (logo, product image, and descriptive image). Therefore, there are seven types of anchors. However, the previous research has put them into two generic categories of written and visual, without specifying them, or they only studied one subgroup of written anchors (descriptive text). The average frequency of visual anchors (%20.2) was higher than written ones (%14.3). Although the text can lead the audience to the intended meaning of an ad, ad designers have served this purpose by using visual anchors, perhaps due to their triple advantages of comprehensibility, effectiveness, and imaginativeness.
     The other question was, to what ad components these anchors are related? Among all identified anchors, only descriptive text (written) and descriptive image (visual) were related to the product/brand. Although the number of product-related anchors was higher, their average frequency (14.5%) was lower than the trope-related anchors (22.7%). This indicates the designers' emphasis on making the tropes more comprehensible to avoid the adverse effects on the ad's attitudes. These ads were selected as samples, because participating ads in this award have an acceptable level of creativity and the application of literary devices in ads is one of their common methods. The content analysis method identified tropes of this collection and the methods to reduce their difficulty/complexity (anchors). These anchors, commonly divided into two categories of visual and written anchors, are of seven types: 1. descriptive text, 2. logo, 3. product image, 4. slogan, 5. brand name, 6. descriptive image, and 7. product description. The frequency of each seven types of anchors and the average of both written and visual categories were calculated.
     Structurally, four out of the seven identified anchors were written, and three were visual. All anchors were related to the brand except descriptive text and descriptive image (related to trope). The descriptive text had the highest frequency (40.9%). After that, the logo (39.6%) and the product image (16.3%) had the highest frequency. The lowest frequency belonged to brand name (4.5%) and product image (3.3%). The average frequency of visual anchors (20.2%) was higher than that of written anchors (14.3%). The average frequency of ad component related anchors was also calculated. Anchors related to tropes (22.7%) had a higher average frequency than anchors related to the product/brand (14.5%).
     To answer the question, what the subcategories of written and visual anchors are, this paper aims to identify subgroups of written and visual anchors and determines their relation to ad components. Results identified four subgroups for written anchors (descriptive text, slogan, brand name, and product description), and three subgroups for visual anchors (logo, product image, and descriptive image). Therefore, there are seven types of anchors. However, the previous research has put them into two generic categories of written and visual, without specifying them, or they only studied one subgroup of written anchors (descriptive text). The average frequency of visual anchors (%20.2) was higher than written ones (%14.3). Although the text can lead the audience to the intended meaning of an ad, ad designers have served this purpose by using visual anchors, perhaps due to their triple advantages of comprehensibility, effectiveness, and imaginativeness.
     The other question was, to what ad components these anchors are related? Among all identified anchors, only descriptive text (written) and descriptive image (visual) were related to the product/brand. Although the number of product-related anchors was higher, their average frequency (14.5%) was lower than the trope-related anchors (22.7%). This indicates the designers' emphasis on making the tropes more comprehensible to avoid the adverse effects on the ad's attitudes.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Advertisements
  • tropes
  • Anchorage
  • Clues/ Anchor
  • آقامحمدی، بهزاد (1390). کاربرد استعاره در تصویرسازی تبلیغات، پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد ارتباط تصویری، تهران: دانشکده هنر و معماری، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد تهران مرکزی.
  • افضل‌طوسی، عفت‌السادات، و طاهری، محبوبه (1391).« استعاره تصویری, تجلی خلاقیت در تبلیغات تجاری»، نامه هنرهای تجسمی و کاربردی، دوره 10، شماره 5، 107-121.
  • پورابراهیم, شیرین (1393). «بررسی استعاره‌های کلامی-تصویری در چند پوستر مناسبتی زبان فارسی»، پژوهش‌های زبان شناسی، دوره 11، شماره 6، 19- 35.
  • خداداد حسینی، سید حمید؛ خلیلی شجاعی، وهاب و روستا، احمد (1389). تبلیغات از تئوری تا عمل، تهران: حروفیه.
  • دانشگر، فهیمه و حسینی، عاطفه (1397). «سطح دشواری آرایه‌های ادبی و میزان استفاده از آنها در تبلیغات چاپی (مطالعه موردی: تبلیغات چاپی برگزیده و نامزد جایزه کلایو، (2007-2016)»، پژوهشنامه گرافیک و نقاشی، دوره 1، شماره 1، 4-16.
  • دانشگر، فهیمه و طاهری، مونا (1399). «بررسی ترکیب­بندی در بیلبوردها و عرشه­های پل شهر تهران (1396-1394)»، پژوهشنامه گرافیک و نقاشی، دوره 3، شماره 5.
  • شمیسا، سیروس (1392). معانی و بیان، تهران: میترا.
  • صالحی مازندرانی، محمدرضا و زکی نژادیان، سید محسن (1396). « نقش کارکرد‌های بلاغی و زبانی در تبلیغات بازرگانی»، مطالعات زبانی و بلاغی،  دوره 8، شماره 16، 223-250.
  • عظیمی­فرد، فاطمه (1392). فرهنگ توصیفی نشانه­شناسی، تهران: علمی.
  • کاشانی‌زاده، زهرا؛ اسفیدانی، محمدرحیم؛ کیماسی، مسعود و معنوی راد، میترا (1398). «طراحی نوع‌شناسی آرایه‌های تصویری با تمرکز بر رابطة تعاملی استعاره و مجاز در تبلیغات چاپی»،  تحقیقات بازاریابی نوین، دوره 9، شماره 1، 144-125.
  • محمدی، محمد حسین (1390). ویژگی‌های جمله‌های تجاری (نگاهی به نقش زبان ادبی در آفرینش جمله‌های تبلیغاتی)، سبک شناسی نظم و نثر فارسی (بهار ادب)، دوره 4، شماره 3، 83-95.

 

Barthes, R. (1977). Rhetoric of the Image, In Image Music Text (32-51). London: Fontana.

Burgers, Christian, Konijn, Elly A. Steen, Gerard J. & Iepsma, Marlies A.R. (2015). Making ads less complex, yet more creative and persuasive: the effects of conventional metaphors and irony in print advertisingInternational Journal of Advertising, 34(3), 515-532, DOI: 10.1080/02650487.2014.996200.

Chandler, Daniel & Munday, Rod (2011). Oxford Dictionary of Media and Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Corbett, E. P. J. (1966), Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student, New York: Oxford University Press.

Dyer, Gillian. (1982). Advertising as communication, London: Routledge.

Hoeken, H., Swanepoel, P., Saal, E., Jansen, C. (2009). Communication Theory, 19(1). Pages 49–65, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.01332.x.

Lee, Yih Hwai, Mason, Charlotte. (1999). Responses to Information Incongruency in Advertising: The Role of Expectancy, Relevancy, and Humor, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 26, No. 2: 156–169, https://doi.org/10.1086/209557.

Mc Quarrie, E. F. and Mick, D. G. (1996), Figures of Rhetoric in Advertising Language, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 22, No. 4: 424–438, https://academic.oup.com/Jcr/Article-Abstract/22/4/424/1790513.

McQuarrie, E. F., & Phillips, B. J. (2005). Indirect Persuasion in Advertising: How Consumers Process Metaphors Presented in Pictures and Words, Journal of Advertising, 34(2), 7-20, https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2005.10639188.

McQuarrie, E. F., & Mick, D. G. (2003). Visual and Verbal Rhetorical Figures under Directed Processing versus Incidental Exposure to Advertising, Journal of Consumer Research, 29(4), 579–587, https://doi.org/10.1086/346252.

McQuarrie, E. F., & Mick, D. G. (1999). Visual Rhetoric in Advertising: Text-Interpretive, Experimental, and Reader-Response Analyses, Journal of Consumer Research,26(1), https://doi.org/10.1086/20954.

Mothersbaugh, D. L., Huhmann, B. A., Franke, G. R. (2002). Combinatory and Separative Effects of Rhetorical Figures on Consumers' Effort and Focus in Ad Processing, Journal of Consumer Research, 28(4), 589–602, https://doi.org/10.1086/338211.

Pérez- Sobrino, P., Littlemore, J., & Houghton, D. (2018). The Role of Figurative Complexity in the Comprehension and Appreciation of Advertisements, Applied Linguistics, 40(6), 957–991, https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amy039.

Peterson, M., Wise, K., Ren, Y., Wang, Z., & Yao, J. (2017). Memorable Metaphor: How Different Elements of Visual Rhetoric Affect Resource Allocation and Memory for Advertisements, Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 38(1), 65-74, https://doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2016.1233155.

Phillips, B. J. (2000). The Impact of Verbal Anchoring on Consumer Response to Image Ads, Journal of Advertising, 29(1), 15-24, https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2000.10673600.

Tom, G. and Eves, A. (1999), The Use of Rhetorical Devices in Advertising, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 39, No. 4: 39–43, http://www.gandrllc.com/Reprints/Useofrhetoricaldevicesinadvertising.Pdf.

Toncar, Mark F. & Munch, James M. (2003). The Influence of Simple and Complex Tropes on Believability, Importance and Memory, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 11, No. 4: 39-53, DOI: 10.1080/10696679.2003.11658507.

Toncar, M. & Munch, J. (2001). Consumer Responses to Tropes in Print Advertising, Journal of Advertising, 30:1, 55-65, DOI: 10.1080/00913367.2001.10673631.

van Enschot, R., & Hoeken, H. (2015). The Occurrence and Effects of Verbal and Visual Anchoring of Tropes on the Perceived Comprehensibility and Liking of TV Commercials, Journal of Advertising, 44(1), 25-36, DOI: 10.1080/00913367.2014.933688.

Van Enschot, R., Hoeken, H., and Van Mulken, M. (2008), Rhetoric in Advertising: Attitudes Towards Verbo-Pictorial Rhetorical Figures, Information Design Journal, 16(1), 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1075/idj.16.1.05ens.

Van Enschot, R., Hoeken, H., & Van Mulken, M. (2006). Rhetoric in advertising: attitudes towards schemes and tropes in text and image. In S. Diehl & R. Terlutter (Eds.), International Advertising and Communication (pp. 141–162). Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitنts Verlag Gabler Edition Wissenschaft.

Van Mulken, M., Van Enschot-Van Dijk, R., Hoeken, H. (2005), Puns, Relevance and Appreciation in Advertisements, Journal of Pragmatics, Vol. 37, No. 5: 707–721, http:// sciencedirect.com/Science/Article/Pii/S0378216604002255.

URLs:

URL1- clios.com (access date: 11/10/2016)

URL2- clios.com/awards/winner/2878 (access date: 08/10/2016)

URL3- clios.com/awards/winner/print/f-2722 (access date: 08/10/2016)

URL4- clios.com/awards/winner/print/kfc/burger-163 (access date: 08/10/2016)

URL5- clios.com/awards/winner/print/porcelain-10477 (access date: 10/10/2016)

URL6- clios.com/awards/winner/print/vaesa/boy-21(access date: 08/10/2016)

URL7- dictionary.cambridge.org (access date: 21/10/2019)