Sex Doesn’t Sell (Neither Does Violence)
People think sex sells. Advertisers know it, TV and film producers believe it and the internet was built on it. But does sex really help sell products, or is it just one of those expressions ad execs use so they can wile away an afternoon choosing models?
Parker and Furnham (in press) decided to test whether sex really does sell using an experiment with a total of four conditions. In the first two conditions participants watched an episode of 'Sex in the City' specially chosen for its even higher than normal sexual content. Apparently it's the one where:
"Charlotte panics about her 'bed-manner' when her lover Dr. Bram Walker dozes off in bed once after a gruelling day of surgery, so she takes a tantric class - signing up all four girls; it's given by hands-on demonstration by a couple of psychologists."
In one of these two conditions participants were shown ads with high sexual content (e.g. an ad for Budweiser). In the other the ads had low sexual content (e.g. one for Fosters lager).
Then in the second two conditions the TV programme chosen was Malcolm in the Middle, also a comedy drama, but one that is suitable for the whole family. The ads embedded in this again either had high or low sexual content.
After watching the programmes participants were tested for their recall of the ads. The results are a blow for our budding ad execs.
There was no significant difference in 'brand recall' between the adverts that used sexual content and those that didn't. Worse (for our beloved ad execs) the sexual content of 'Sex in the City' actually reduced the recall of the embedded adverts.
Actually, surprising and counter-intuitive as this finding may seem, the researchers had been expecting it. Previous work by Bushman (2005), using a similar experimental design also suggested sex doesn't sell.
Not only that but Bushman (2005) also tested how violence in the television programme affected ad recall. Again, they found it had no beneficial effect on selling products.
There was, however, one finding from Parker and Furnham's study that was absolutely in line with expectations. They found men were more likely to remember ads with sexual content than women.
Well, at least there are some intuitions we can rely on.
References - Click here to toggle visibility
Join 21955 readers
- No related posts.
I think a more appropriate test would have been to have two people try to sell something. One being attractive and the other being not attractive. My guess is that the attractive person (the "sexier" one) is going to sell more.
I am dubious about whether sex and or violence ultimately sell a product. Rather, I think sex and violence are used to get our attention.
Anonymous, that would be an interesting alternative - although I'm not sure it would be any more 'appropriate'. You'd then be testing whether people are more inclined to buy a product based on the attractiveness of an individual rather than generally whether sex and violence sells.
Shelly, in some ways this research implies that actually sex and violence don't get our attention when considering advertising.
@ Anonymous -
I think you may be right simply because the attractive stereotype may be used by a customer and thus creating a more positive relationship between the customer and the salesperson. A more poisitive relationship may result in more sales. At the same time, as customers treat the attractive salesperson better, he or she may become a better salesperson and thus increasing his or her sales.
Are you sure sex doesn't sell? You seem to be contradicting that by repeating the studies' titles which are, from what you've described, inaccurate. Selling a product based on sex wasn't measured once - only brand recall, and brand recall doesn't necessarily equate to sales. Surely that's obvious!
Centreoftheworld, true, brand recall doesn't necessarily equate to sales. But you would have thought it would have an impact wouldn't you?
Why is brand recall judged to be a determinant of effective advertising, when the aim of the advert is to sell the product rather than create a memory of the brand ? Advertising works subconsciously, no one says "I bought that car/beer/aftershave because I liked the fit woman in the advert". They aren't aware of their volition, that's the whole point.
Matt - it's a good point and I'd like to see an unconscious measure of some kind used in a study like this.
I wouldn't agree, however, that advertising solely works on an unconscious level. So I think the measures used here still have some validity.
Advertising is based on selling products based on its ability to instill some measure of brand recall in the audience. If the advertising does not solicit some measure of brand recall then it would not be very effective at selling the product. You are not seeing the ad when you are making your purchases (unless we are talking about point-of-sale ads) and, in order for the advertisement to have an effect on a person's purchasing decisions, it must be memorable (and companying would much rather have the audience remember their products instead of the competing products) and gaging a person's brand recall effectively measures how effective the advertisement was at being memorable for both its product offering(s) and the company that placed the ad.
I recall that in political science name recognition plays a huge part in voter decisions (particularly last minute ones). There are studies on this (Abromawitz 1980, Hinckley 1980 among many others) that noted it is not simply the ability of people to recall the name of a candidate running for office (or in office) when quizzed, but to recognize their name on a ballot. Now, not only is there name recognition, but there may be a vague mood memory connected to the name too. While I cannot site business or psychology research on this point, I cannot help but wonder whether someone will recognize a beer bottle or logo and re-experience a sexual rush, or approval in relation to the memory because the merchandise is connected to sex in their mind.
The reason I am thinking of this is that there is a shampoo that sells in America whose name I cannot think of just now where the commericals show a woman experiencing orgasmic pleasure when she uses it. Now while I do not know the name of the shampoo, I know it when I see it.
So it may not be the ability to remember the commerical, or even the name when prompted, but to walk through the market and spy a candy bar that triggers or makes you smirk [because the commericals are always 'funny'], beer that promises to pique one's sexual interest [because the commerical did], or perfume that inspires arrogance because thats what the people in the magazines look look like when they are supposedly wearing it.
Just a thought.
Lilly, I think you make a very strong point - interesting.
As someone who makes a living in the ad industry, the whole "does sex sell" question is actually pretty simple. The answer is "yes, it does." However, only to a point.
For example, weight loss products promise to make you look better and the benefit of that is being more attractive to others, especially to the opposite sex. Often good looking models are used to show before and after. In this case sex is involved in selling. It's not too overt and it's relevant to the product.
However, if you up the sexual content to the point that people are thinking about the sex rather than the product, then the sex overwhelms the product message.
It's not really about sex, it's about focus and relevance. You can see the same thing in "funny" TV commercials...the kind where you remember the joke but can't remember the product or where the message is confusing.
You know those weird Wendy's ads with guys wearing the red pigtailed wig and people doing odd things? The company loved them. The public said they were funny. And the ads tested well for likability and recall. Now the company is scrapping the concept because they aren't making people buy burgers.
Too much sex. Too much funny. Same thing. And why do advertisers do this? Because they think everyone else is as bored with their product as they are.