What Do Australian Consumers Think about Current Advertising Standards - Article Example

dvеrtising Standards Survey Name Institution Tutor What do Australian consumers think about current advertising standards? Introduction The public or community perception regarding present advertising standards undoubtedly forms the basis of advertising self-regulation within Australia. On the other hand, despite consumers’ perception towards advertising being extensively studied as early as the 1930s in the U.S, the case has not been the same with Australia. Jones and Eagleton (2012) confirm that there is a scarcity of research or studies regarding present attitudes towards advertising standards. However, there is as well a near lack of data within an Australian context. Furthermore, according to Jones and Eagleton (2012), it is also troubling to observe that Advertising Standards Board (ASB) has neither clearly defined advertising standards nor communicated empirical studies to establish the rules. As well, data relating to grievances to the board reveal a continuous rise, signifying that an increasing number of the Australian consumers are increasingly concerned with the present advertising standards. It is, therefore, imperative to analyze Jones and Eagleton article on perceptions and thought of the Australian consumers about current advertising standards. For effective analysis, this paper addresses on how the researchers collected data, the type of data collected and the time of receiving it. In addition, this paper explains reasons for data collection and narrows down to evaluate the methodological approach used. However, the paper lays significant focus on analyzing the content of Jones and Eagleton article while discussing its strengths, weaknesses, and limitations. Data Collection According to Jones and Eagleton (2012) data collection exercise started officially in April, 2008. The process began with strengthened use of mixed methods involving both qualitative and quantitative methods in collaboration with primary and secondary sources to establish reliant finds. Primary data collection techniques included the use of observation, questionnaires and interviews. The researcher's administered questionnaires on their own to develop more knowledge and findings during the research program. For instance, the surveys were mainly designed to evaluate consumers’ perception towards advertising as a whole as well as the employment of particular appeals and imageries in promoting messages. The questionnaires aimed at establishing the extent to which respondents believed each advertisement was personally (in) offensive. In addition, the surveys also assessed the social acceptability to determine whether respondents felt in the successful marketing of the desired products. Most of the questions that ventured in the questionnaire were in relation to the AANA Code of Ethics. On the other hand, the researchers used secondary methods where they made a range of comparisons between the existing knowledge and the findings generated from their study. In addition, researchers utilized knowledge from prior qualitative studies designed to identify messages and imagery of concern to Australian consumers. Sampling Technique According to Jones and Eagleton (2012), the research utilized random sampling method where participants/respondents came from an automated database. The database contained not only names, but also addresses within Illawarra (an area within New South Wales State of Australia), procured from a commercial research agency. For instance, the database comprised of about 6097 addresses where approximately 4000 addresses were randomly picked to take part in the survey. The researchers considered this particular sampling frame as more symbolic of the broad population, given the falling rates of landline telephone ownership. Preliminary mailing resulted in the return of about 656 finished surveys. Alternatively, the non-respondents were reminded through letters, resulting in additional 216 completed surveys. According to Jones and Eagleton (2012), the design of various items meant for the research questionnaire was informed or guided by consumer-based empirical research. That is to say that, even though it incorporation decision fails to correspond to the clauses of the Australian self-regulatory advertising code. Its role was to ensure well integration of all issues that stemmed from previous qualitative studies that were intended to discern not only messages, but also the imagery of great concern to the Australian consumers. In the research conducted, a sum of 20 focus groups was used to investigate not only in-depth consumer perceptions towards advertising, but also attitudes towards the present advertising standards. The researchers conducted a series of two focus groups during the process of data collection. Each focus group comprised of 10 units of adult participants coming from Illawarra community. The initial series of the focus group investigated respondents’ perceptions and feelings about advertising messages and subject matter as a whole. The succeeding series had respondents who watched six latest advertisements from those precipitously identified by respondents within the initial set and then each one rated on a 13-item questionnaire employing a five-point Likert scale. The research questionnaires contained items including the degree to which they deem each advertisement was in their view inoffensive/offensive and socially unacceptable/acceptable. Data analysis The researchers entered the data into a statistical package SPSS Version 17.0 for analysis. Recognizing the diversified number of variables studied, the researcher completed basic frequency analysis for all variables. For instance, the variables considered before analysis ranged from differences between demographic characteristics such as the level of education of participants, gender, and the parental status. For effective analysis, the researchers decided to conduct chi-square tests to examine variations in demographic characteristics. However, the study not only analyzed demographic characteristics but also utilized comparisons between personal attitude, views, beliefs and choices over different forms of advertisements. For that reason, the researchers recorded a similar but smaller number of variables all demographic characteristics with multiple categories and small numbers of respondents. Strength and Weaknesses Most of the studies were inconsistent with findings of previous studies. Most of the findings established a strong association between differences in perceived acceptability and execution elements such as gender, age, and parental status differences observed across a range of message appeals and images. Nevertheless, women, the aged, those having religious affiliations, and those with children showed more concern with controversial requests within advertisements. Contrariwise, those with higher educational status showed less opposition to the majority of messages and images served. The research findings, though, done for a small population, is a direct representation of a large Australian population. Solving the challenges and issues identified could result in many benefits for the whole country. Contrary, some citizens may develop negative attitude and assumptions towards the same study and interventions adopted to solve advertisement issues as opposed by to (Jones and Eagleton, 2012). This research provides the best negotiation and attitude-shaping insights to the general community over advertisement. For instance, Jones and Eagleton (2012) affirmed that an advertisement should not use violence or violent the 20 images, show illegal behavior, unsafe behavior and showing of distressing or frightening. For instance, an advertisement should serve the role of empowering the community members with sufficient and reliable information required for mutual coexistence. Ironically most of the community members have ended up ignoring the positive role of advertisement and see it as a show of nudity. That is, the advertisement has the effect of portraying both men and women as sex objects, it makes people look like stereotype while making fun of groups of people. Most of the ignorant members view the act of advertisement as a tool that utilizes celebrities to introduce and endorse junk food products into the market, target children directly while conveying messages undermining parental authority. Limitations There are a number of limitations that undermined efficient delivery and realization of the targeted goals by the researchers. The sampling technique displayed a number of weaknesses with the use of a mail-out survey. The technique could not account for the broader Australian population. There were biases with over-representation of those without a religion and female correspondents. Despite the efforts in mounting an active comparison of 22 major factors, the researchers failed to generalize the findings to a broader population. In addition, most of the terms included in the questionnaire were much open to subjective interpretation. A good example is whereby the researchers failed to give a definition of corresponding words such as ‘unhealthy’ or ‘healthy’ food which resulted in biases concerning respondent’s response to the results. In addition neither did the researchers define standard nor did it involve citizens in the definition. Such assumptions resulted in confusion and biases. However, the set description failed to provide guidance for both the consumers and researchers. The research did not, however, collect data on the response of computers to specific advertisements nor testing the acceptability of different implementations. Improvements in future research could help in the provision of more detailed guidance for advertisers and regulators via the collection of data on responses to actual advertisements. Conclusion It is evident from the article that concerns regarding advertising standards are homogeneous and widely spread within Australia. Such homogeneity and diversification all over the country is more related to variations in demographics as opposed to a community with different study attributes. Such incidence may occur in regard to perceptions of the acceptability of the current Australian advertising. In addition, such results are an outcome of the views, perceptions generated from a whole population survey as opposed to post-hoc analysis of the demographic characteristics of a limited sample. Further, the researchers might have suspiciously gained perceptions of a very limited group not enough to relate with the whole population. For instance, research in the area of advertisement is more involving and provides a variety of results on more differences. References Jones, S.C & Eagleton, K. (2012).What do Australian Consumers think about Current Advertising Standards? Journal of Public Affairs, Vol.12 No.4, Pp.315-325 Read More