Vance Packard characterized children as ‘consumer trainees’. Eager minds could be moulded to want your products. The potency of television in conditioning youngsters to be loyal enthusiasts of a product began in the 1950. Ads aimed at children not only, as future consumers, but as ones who lead their parents into the salesroom.
Motivational analysts were called by ad men to provide insights on the most effective way to achieve as assured strong impact with children. Guide posts given by social research was that a show can appeal to a child without offering the child amusement or pleasure. It will appeal is it helps him express his inner tensions and fantasies in a manageable way, if it offers the child a way to get rid of his fear, anger or befuddlement, the basic pattern of good guys versus bad men. The good guys were all young men and villains were old men who might be ‘symbolic or father figures.’ To children adults are a ruling class against which they cannot successfully revolt.
The Question of Validity
Probing and manipulating of consumers is based on the findings of motivation analysts. How valid are their methods? Alfred Politz said depth probing is okay but what is more important is to interpret the findings.
Critics feel that motivation research use interviews not trained in scientific methods. The motivation researchers oversell themselves. Other feel that those who attacked motivation research as fake were just as wrong as those who claimed it worked miracles. Motivation research must be approached with care. Critics say:
• It is not correct to assume there is any single or major reason why people buy or not buy. A lot of other factors enter into decision making. Motivation researchers point out that the intensity of our subconscious motivational influences has a clear bearing on the usefulness of a subconscious factor to a manipulator.
• Motivation research is not the whole answer.
• It is still not an exact science.
• Motivation research is still far from an exact science.
• Motivation analysts have taken tools from clinical psychiatry and applied them to mass behavior.
• Conclusions drawn about mass behavior on the basis of a small sampling of test results is likely to be erroneous.
• The results depend too much on the intuitiveness and brilliance of the practitioner.
• Projective tests are not subject to statistical proof.
• Each research expert can look at the same projective test result and come up with different interpretations.
However believers in motivation research say it is most useful as a starting point. It has an important place at idea-gathering or hypothesis stage. Even if it sparks one good idea it is worth it.
Motivational analysts were called by ad men to provide insights on the most effective way to achieve as assured strong impact with children. Guide posts given by social research was that a show can appeal to a child without offering the child amusement or pleasure. It will appeal is it helps him express his inner tensions and fantasies in a manageable way, if it offers the child a way to get rid of his fear, anger or befuddlement, the basic pattern of good guys versus bad men. The good guys were all young men and villains were old men who might be ‘symbolic or father figures.’ To children adults are a ruling class against which they cannot successfully revolt.
The Question of Validity
Probing and manipulating of consumers is based on the findings of motivation analysts. How valid are their methods? Alfred Politz said depth probing is okay but what is more important is to interpret the findings.
Critics feel that motivation research use interviews not trained in scientific methods. The motivation researchers oversell themselves. Other feel that those who attacked motivation research as fake were just as wrong as those who claimed it worked miracles. Motivation research must be approached with care. Critics say:
• It is not correct to assume there is any single or major reason why people buy or not buy. A lot of other factors enter into decision making. Motivation researchers point out that the intensity of our subconscious motivational influences has a clear bearing on the usefulness of a subconscious factor to a manipulator.
• Motivation research is not the whole answer.
• It is still not an exact science.
• Motivation research is still far from an exact science.
• Motivation analysts have taken tools from clinical psychiatry and applied them to mass behavior.
• Conclusions drawn about mass behavior on the basis of a small sampling of test results is likely to be erroneous.
• The results depend too much on the intuitiveness and brilliance of the practitioner.
• Projective tests are not subject to statistical proof.
• Each research expert can look at the same projective test result and come up with different interpretations.
However believers in motivation research say it is most useful as a starting point. It has an important place at idea-gathering or hypothesis stage. Even if it sparks one good idea it is worth it.