No announcement yet.

No 1 Messages Are More Effective When Repeated

This is a sticky topic.
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • No 1 Messages Are More Effective When Repeated

    OK Read This. And Think About Shhhh Being Used For 100s Of Decades On A Profane Population..
    Shhhh Is The 1st Thing Youll Hear As A Baby. And More So As You Grow Up. Youll Hear Shhhh Right Up To Your Death... Think About It...

    We Shhhh To Quiet A Baby Crying. And Everyone Is Shhhhing When Your On Your Death Bed. Or Even In Your Coffin..

    But Shhhh Is Being Used By The Elite People That Will Use Human Think Tanks. Whos Only Job Is To Think On How To Control. And Manipulate YOU

    Research proves messages are more effective when repeated. Like Shhhh..
    But Shhhh Will Only Benifits Criminals

    Have you heard the following expressions?
    • Got milk? (used for 21 years, starting in 1993)
    • Just do it. (used for over 26 years, starting in 1988)
    • What happens here, stays here. (used for 10 over years, starting in 2004)
    • Help, I’ve fallen and I can’t get up.
    • Tastes great, less filling. (used since the 1970s)
    • Where’s the beef?
    • Good to the last drop. (used for over 97 years, starting in 1917)
    • Melts in your mouth, not in your hands. (used for over 60 years, since 1954)
    • Breakfast of Champions. (used for over 87 years, starting in 1927)
    • Plop, plop, fizz, fizz, oh what a relief it is. (used for over 43 years, starting in 1971)
    • The nighttime, sniffling, sneezing, coughing, aching head, fever so you can get rest medicine.
    • Head On. Apply directly to the forehead.
    • Don’t Leave Home Without It.
    • 15 minutes could save 15% or more on car insurance.
    Depending on your age, most of those advertising catchphrases should sound familiar. You can probably name the company/product associated with every slogan in the list. Some you may have heard hundreds if not thousands of times. The companies behind these marketing messages had to sustain multi-million dollar investments for years and sometimes decades to make them stick in consumers’ brains.

    In advertising, the term “effective frequency” is used to describe the number of times a consumer must be exposed to an advertising message before the marketer gets the desired response, whether that be buying a product, or something as simple as remembering a message.

    Marketing experts like to debate the “right ways” to calculate effective frequency. Some say repeating a message three times will work, while many believe the “Rule of 7” applies. There was a study from Microsoft investigating the optimal number of exposures required for audio messages. They concluded between 6 and 20 was best.

    Thomas Smith, in his book “Successful Advertising,” makes the following reflection on effective frequency:

    The 1st time people look at ad, they don’t see it.
    The 2nd time, they don’t notice it.
    The 3rd time, they are aware that it is there.
    The 4th time, they have a fleeting sense that they’ve seen it before.
    The 5th time, they actually read the ad.
    The 6th time, they thumb their nose at it.
    The 7th time, they get a little irritated with it.
    The 8th time, they think, “Here’s that confounded ad again.”
    The 9th time, they wonder if they’re missing out on something.
    The 10th time, they ask their friends or neighbors if they’ve tried it.
    The 11th time, they wonder how the company is paying for all these ads.
    The 12th time, they start to think that it must be a good product.
    The 13th time, they start to feel the product has value.
    The 14th time, they start to feel like they’ve wanted a product like this for a long time.
    The 15th time, they start to yearn for it because they can’t afford to buy it.
    The 16th time, they accept the fact that they will buy it sometime in the future.
    The 17th time, they make a commitment to buy the product.
    The 18th time, they curse their poverty because they can’t buy this terrific product.
    The 19th time, they count their money very carefully.
    The 20th time prospects see the ad, they buy what it is offering.

    Now consider this: Mr. Smith penned this witty insight back in 1885 — over 129 years ago! Advertising was still in its infancy, but savvy marketers like Smith quickly figured out that “more frequency = more effective.”

    So you still want to know how many times do you need to run your next home loan ad? The truth is: there is no single “right” answer.

    “’Effective frequency’ might mean that a single advertising exposure is able to influence the purchase of a brand,” says John Philip Jones, a noted author on advertising and marketing. “But the phrase was really coined to communicate the idea that there must be enough concentration of media weight to cross a certain threshold — that there has to be enough of it before the consumer buy a product to influence their choice.”

    There is one thing everyone generally agrees on though: messages are more effective when repeated.

    And they are more believable, too.

  • #2
    Repeat It, Believe It

    Fact: This sentence will become more and more truthful every time you read it.

    Studies suggest that repeated statements are perceived as more truthful than statements made less frequently, “presumably because repetition imbues the statement with familiarity.” In simple terms: frequency breeds familiarity, and familiarity breed trust.

    Similarly studies show that repeated exposure to an opinion makes people believe the opinion is more prevalent, even if the source of that opinion is only a single person.

    So not only do consumers remember a statement that gets repeated, they are more likely to believe it, and think it is the popular opinon.

    Fewer messages, more often. You should limit the number of messages you try to communicate. If repetition fosters both awareness and trust, you’ll do better working with a shorter list of messages communicated more frequently than the long laundry list of messages. Don’t fool yourself. It takes years for some messages to connect with consumers, and even longer if you’re trying to reshape perceptions consumers have held for years.

    Would you rather get your marketing message in front of 30,000 people one time, or 10,000 people three times? Instead of targeting your entire customer/member base with the same message all at once, you’ll find greater success if you segment your audience. The process of segmentation will, in turn, force you to use better data/analytics when choosing the right groups to target (i.e., which 10,000 consumers should you hit three times?), which also allows you to tailor messages with greater relevancy/specificity for your audience.


    • #3
      When False Claims Are Repeated, We Start To Believe They Are True — Here’s How Behaving Like A Fact-Checker Can Help
      If you hear an unfounded statement often enough, you might just start believing that it’s true. This phenomenon, known as the “illusory truth effect”, is exploited by politicians and advertisers — and if you think you are immune to it, you’re probably wrong. In fact, earlier this year we reported on a study that found people are prone to the effect regardless of their particular cognitive profile.

      But that doesn’t mean there’s nothing we can do to protect ourselves against the illusion. A study in Cognition has found that using our own knowledge to fact-check a false claim can prevent us from believing it is true when it is later repeated. But we might need a bit of a nudge to get there.

      The illusory truth effect stems from the fact that we process repeated statements more fluently: we mistake that feeling of fluency for a signal that the statement is true. And the effect occurs even when we should know better — when we repeatedly hear a statement that we know is wrong, for instance, like “The fastest land animal is the leopard”. But Nadia Brashier at Harvard University and colleagues wondered whether asking people to focus on the accuracy of a statement could encourage them to use their knowledge instead, and avoid relying on feelings of fluency.

      In the initial study, the team first asked 103 participants to read 60 widely-known facts, some of which were true (e.g. “The Italian city known for its canals is Venice”), and some of which were false (e.g. “The planet closest to the sun is Venus”). One group rated how interesting each statement was, while the other rated how true it was. Then in the second part of the study, both groups saw the same 60 statements along with 60 new ones — again a mixture of true and false — and rated their truthfulness.

      The researchers found that participants who had focussed on how interesting the statements were in the first part of the study showed the illusory truth effect: they subsequently rated false statements which they had already seen as more true than false statements which were new. But the group that had initially focused on the accuracy of the statements didn’t show this effect, rating new and repeated false statements as equally true.

      This finding suggests that using our own knowledge to critically analyse a statement when we originally encounter it may inoculate us against the illusory truth effect. And this seems to have fairly long-lasting effects: in another experiment, the team found that participants who had initially focussed on the accuracy of the statements still showed no sign of succumbing to the illusory truth effect two days later.

      But considering the accuracy of a statement is only useful if we already have appropriate knowledge (e.g. that the closest planet to the sun is Mercury and not Venus). In further studies, the team found that rating the truthfulness of more obscure false statements which participants didn’t know much about, such as “The twenty-first U.S. president was Garfield,” didn’t later protect against the illusory truth effect. It would be interesting to know whether fact-checking against external sources like the internet or reference books — which requires more effort than simply using our own knowledge — is effective at combating the illusion in these cases.

      Still, simply having the background knowledge needed to counter false claims is not always enough, say the authors — their results suggest people may need to be “nudged” into actually using that knowledge. “Education only offers part of the solution to the misinformation crisis; we must also prompt people to carefully compare incoming claims to what they already know,” they write


      • #4
        Much of what you believe to be true probably isn’t, thanks to a mental shortcut your brain takes without you realizing it.

        The illusory truth effect (also known as the illusion of truth effect, validity effect, truth effect, or the reiteration effect) is the tendency to believe false information to be correct after repeated exposure. This phenomenon was first identified in a 1977 study at Villanova University and Temple University.
        Much of what you believe to be true probably isn’t, thanks to a mental shortcut your brain takes without you realizing it.