Animated Characters in Advertising: Benefits and Limitations

Introduction

Unlike the early days of animation and mass advertising, when animated characters were still novel and largely unknown quantities, the choice of whether or not to use an animated character in a contemporary advertisement must be informed by the ample research and analysis regarding the benefits and limitations of these characters that has emerged over the intervening years. However, determining these benefits and limitations is not so simple as drawing up a list of positives and negatives, because the utility of animated characters depends upon a number of subjective details one must consider — to the point that what might be considered a limitation in one instance could actually be a benefit in another. This is not to suggest that one cannot effectively determine the benefits and limitations of animated characters in contemporary advertising, but rather that one must recognize that answering this question first requires a determination of the standards by which benefits, limitations, and utility are judged.

Like nearly any facet of an advertising campaign, the decision to deploy animated characters must first depend on the target audience, whether it be adults, children, men ages 18–25, or any other combination of demographics. A look at the history of some of the most iconic animated advertising mascots will help one appreciate how different characters influence different demographics, as well as provide a context for the use of animated characters in contemporary advertising. After determining the target demographic, one must then consider how much animated characters actually influence the purchasing behavior of that demographic, and what kind of animated character might be most effective. This step is particularly important because extensive research has shown that advertising affects children and adults differently, producing different kinds of associations between characters and products. Furthermore, animated characters — and indeed all advertising — are not nearly as effective as advertising and marketing textbooks would have their students believe. Understanding this allows one to consider what animated characters are particularly adept at, which is assigning certain unspoken qualities to a brand or product and generating positive or negative associations.

Recognizing what animated characters can and cannot do allows one to ultimately define the two qualities of animated characters that function as the axes around which any other benefits or limitations rotate: control and longevity. Animated characters grant unprecedented control over the expression of meaning, and their fictional existence means they can persist long after their originators. However, this control and longevity may also function as a limitation, because the cultural meanings that animated characters express are not static, and particular characters may not be popular enough to sustain themselves in the long run. In the end, the choice to use an animated character is always highly subjective, but this study can at least begin to dispel some of the unhelpful assumptions surrounding the use of animated characters in contemporary advertising, as well as reveal some of the particular strengths and weaknesses of the medium.

The History of Animated Characters in Advertising

Animated characters in advertising first took off with the widespread dissemination of the television. Although newsreels and movie theaters may have featured animated advertisements, many of the most famous animated characters did not arrive until the 1950s, when more and more people were able to afford their own television sets. However, like animation in general, their emergence can be traced back to the illustrated mascots of the nineteenth century, such as the Quaker Oats man, who has been around since 1887.

Again, like animation in general, the animated characters of the 1950s were not aimed exclusively at children, but rather represented a novel approach toward consumers in general. While today there is a widespread association of animation with children — to the point that one textbook claims that "animation is obviously a particularly good medium for advertising aimed at children" without offering any evidence — when the Leo Burnett advertising agency first developed famous characters like Tony the Tiger, the Jolly Green Giant, and the Pillsbury Doughboy in the 1950s and 60s, the campaigns were aimed at adults and children alike. The continuing centrality of these characters to the marketing of their respective products reveals the utility of animated characters in general, but also serves as a jumping-off point for a discussion of animated characters as they relate to different demographics.

The animated characters mentioned above have remained largely unchanged throughout their history, with the exception of Tony the Tiger, whose advertising materials have gradually shifted away from a general audience and have more recently focused much more heavily on children. This is because, for many products, a character that appeals to a broad audience is most effective, since a variety of people often influence buying decisions. For example, the products produced by Pillsbury and Green Giant are general household foodstuffs, and as such a character that can appeal to everyone in the household is most desirable. In the case of Tony the Tiger, as sugary cereals became associated almost exclusively with children, the character design and themes changed accordingly.

The case of Tony the Tiger reveals a general trend in the use of animated characters in advertising from their initial emergence to today. Although the initial wave of animated characters in the 1950s and early 60s appealed to general audiences, as time went on they began to differentiate themselves according to specific demographics. Characters like Tony the Tiger and the Keebler Elves were increasingly marketed toward children, while characters like the Pillsbury Doughboy, the Jolly Green Giant, and the Brawny paper towel man were directed toward women — and to a lesser extent men — above other members of the household, based on the assumption that women would be responsible for the majority of household purchases. This assumption was reinforced through the programming during which these advertisements aired, as evidenced by the fact that, until very recently, "men engaged in twice as many occupations as women, who dominated the commercial airwaves as housewives."

While recognizing this gender disparity will become important later when considering the limitations of animated characters, for now it is only necessary to recognize that these animated characters were gradually aimed at increasingly specific audiences.

Thus, while characters from the first wave of animated advertising went from targeting a general audience to more specific demographics, subsequent characters were designed from the start to target specific groups, and the "reinvention" of older characters in order to attract a new audience is now a relatively common occurrence. For example, when the king character representing Burger King was first created in the 1970s, he "was a cheery cartoon character who performed magic tricks with cheesy sidekicks like Sir Shakes-A-Lot and the Wizard of Fries," but "in 2004 Crispin Porter + Bogusky reintroduced the BK King as a quirky, and some say creepy, character that appeals to young men." The reinvention of the BK King represented a shift away from fast food advertising geared toward children and toward advertising geared toward young adults, as a variety of social and economic changes meant that more young people had disposable income and made their own decisions when it came to purchasing fast food.

Of course, this trend is merely a single symptom of the overall tendency toward more and more precise demographic targeting, but it is worth highlighting in the specific case of animated characters because it factors so heavily into determining their benefits and limitations. When determining whether or not to use an animated character, one must consider the product, the target demographic, and the character itself. Deciding to use the Pillsbury Doughboy to market a new product, for example, brings with it wildly different considerations than deciding to create an entirely new character — especially because a new character will likely need to focus on a clearly defined demographic, whereas older characters can still appeal to a much larger audience simply due to their age and ubiquity. However, just because the use of any particular animated character carries with it a nearly insurmountable number of specific, subjective considerations, this does not mean that one cannot provide some general guidelines for what works and what does not. The first place to find such guidelines is in the academic research regarding the effect of animated advertisements on audiences, especially as it relates to purchasing behavior and brand identification.

The Efficacy of Animated Characters in Advertising

In order to effectively address the benefits and limitations of animated characters, one must first do away with some lingering assumptions regarding animated characters in advertisements that have thus far prevented a reasonable discussion of the subject. These assumptions are born out of two ideological extremes, but essentially make the same case: that advertising, and animated characters in particular, are able to meaningfully influence product preference and purchasing habits. On the one side are those who argue against advertisements aimed at children, based on a belief that children are uniquely susceptible; on the other are those who sell advertising and advertising services — such as ad agencies and business school textbook authors — out of a belief that advertising is able to affect product preference in a meaningful way. In short, both of these groups are incorrect, because advertising, and animated characters in particular, actually have fairly little influence on product preference and purchasing decisions. They can generate recognition and positive emotional connections between the audience and the product, but these connections do not necessarily translate into actual purchases. In order to demonstrate why this is the case, one must examine some relevant scientific research on the subject and apply reasonable skepticism to the hyperbolic claims of parents' groups and advertising cheerleaders alike.

Aside from market research concerning the success or failure of certain advertising campaigns, over the course of the last thirty years there has been substantial academic research into the perception of animated characters and their effect on purchasing and brand identification, especially as they relate to children. Though the majority of the research focuses on children, by implication this reveals useful information about adults as well. The first thing to note is that children as young as kindergarten age are able to meaningfully distinguish between human and animated characters in advertising, suggesting "that children may not be as easily exploited as detractors of children's advertising assert." While the goal of this study is not to defend children's advertising, recognizing that children are not as susceptible to animated advertisements as is commonly believed is important, because it demonstrates that far from being "tricked" into liking a product by an animated character, children regard these characters from a relatively critical perspective. Thus, while animated characters can be "successful promotion strategies that reinforce brand recognition and positive associations," it cannot be assumed that any animated character aimed at children will be able to accomplish this — or that these positive associations will necessarily correlate with actual product preference.

There are two important studies, one from 1986 and another from 2004, which have served to challenge some of the assumptions surrounding animated characters in advertising. It will be useful to examine these studies because they demonstrate what one might call the unacknowledged truth of animated characters in advertising — and advertising in general — which is that animated characters, while particularly effective at generating positive associations with a brand or product, have far less influence on actual product preference and purchasing decisions. This fact is not frequently recognized in discussions of the benefits and limitations of animated characters in advertising, likely because it reveals that advertisers have far less control over consumer choice than they would like to believe. Of the five different marketing and advertising books consulted for this study, only two hint at this fact, and only one mentions it explicitly, noting that "just because people love your character, it won't necessarily mean they love your brand." One other book includes an anecdote about the meteoric rise and subsequent fall of the Taco Bell Chihuahua, but does not speculate as to the reasons behind its fall.

However, even in these two cases, the possibility that an animated character has little direct influence on product preference is viewed as an afterthought, rather than the foundation from which any consideration of animated characters should begin. It is crucial to recognize that animated characters can only go so far, because "although public opinion suggests that spokes-characters influence product desires, academic research has generally failed to demonstrate this effect." This should not be taken as a claim that animated characters are useless in contemporary advertising, but rather that they have not been approached with the sobriety and attention to evidence required to accurately determine their benefits and limitations. Examining animated characters' inability to directly affect product preference will therefore offer a robust, scientifically sound basis from which to assess the actual benefits and limitations of animated characters in contemporary advertising. (While the inability to directly influence product preference might be considered a "limitation," it is less a limitation than a fact about the medium, since this limitation is shared by all advertising, regardless of the particular tactic used.)

The two studies under consideration here concern themselves with the effect of animated characters on product preferences, and in both cases the studies found that while animated characters are particularly good at generating recognition, association, and positive emotions, these do not necessarily translate into preference and choice. This is seen most clearly in the 1986 study, which showed that host-selling advertisements — in which a product was advertised via the use of a character from the show on which the commercial aired — actually generated less of a change in preference toward the product than when the advertisement included a different character.

The later study attempted to pinpoint why phenomena such as this occur, and found that "while research findings show that young children can exhibit high levels of character/product recognition, association, and affect, the challenge arises when we assume that these early responses lead to product preference, intention, and choice." The researchers propose that this disconnect stems from the fact that attention, recognition, and emotional response are relatively simple cognitive processes that can be induced fairly easily, whereas preference and choice are by definition dependent upon more complex cognitive processes and are thus influenced far less by animated characters in advertisements. Recognizing this offers an ideal point from which to begin an actual accounting of the benefits and limitations of animated characters in contemporary advertising, because understanding what animated characters simply cannot do allows one to focus on what they can do — and how well they can do it.

Conclusion and Areas for Further Investigation

Determining the benefits and limitations of animated characters in contemporary advertising depends first and foremost upon disregarding unverified assumptions regarding the power of advertising to influence purchasing behavior. While it may be tempting to believe that children are particularly susceptible to animated advertising, or that a good character is all that is needed to sell a product, actual research into the matter has shown that animated characters have little to no impact on actual purchasing decisions. Instead, they serve to raise brand and product awareness and to precipitate positive emotional connections with that brand or product. These connections will make little difference to someone looking for the best quality at the best price, but if the question is between two otherwise identical products, these emotional connections will likely play a part.

This does not mean that animated characters are useless, or that these emotional connections are only narrowly applicable. Instead, this is merely a recognition of what animated characters in advertisements can and cannot do, based upon the available evidence. If one concedes that animated characters do not have a substantial influence on purchasing decisions, then one may begin to determine how an animated character might best be used, and what its actual benefits and limitations are. Many of the benefits are almost self-evident: because an animated character is entirely invented, it can be controlled and mediated so as to generate only the kinds of associations the advertiser wants. Furthermore, it can last into perpetuity, since the character is not dependent upon any individual human, making this method of advertisement more in line with the perpetual nature of a corporation than with the lifespan of a human being.

These benefits also bring limitations, as this control is always dependent on the larger cultural meaning of certain symbols and ideas, such that every instance of the character must take into account not only every previous instance of its use, but also the changing cultural norms of society. This becomes even more of a problem when one considers the fact that advertising spokes-characters are used until they are no longer perceived as effective, and that the initial expense of creating and producing these animated characters is justified based on the assumption that the character will pay for itself over time. The advertising world is rife with new characters on which millions of dollars have been spent only for them to be discarded once it became clear they were not working, and old characters that have been kept in the spotlight long after they were no longer relevant, out of an aversion to generating a new character.

While this study has attempted to insert some reasonable skepticism into the discussion of animated characters in advertising, there is still much to be done in terms of truly understanding the dynamic connections between different forms of advertising and actual purchasing decisions. One particular area that demands further study is the intersection between animation and real life. This study focused on animated characters rendered in fictional, animated worlds, but many contemporary characters and advertisements feature a blend of the real and unreal — as in the case of the revamped BK King, who is a clearly stylized character interacting with regular humans. While many texts make passing reference to the 1988 film Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, which included cartoon and human characters interacting in a seamless world, computer-generated imagery and post-processing tools have blurred the lines between animation and reality far beyond anything that could have been imagined in 1988. Future research may even question whether at this point the dichotomy between animated and human spokes-characters is even relevant, considering the increasing interaction between the two.

Bibliography

Altstie, T., and J. Grow. Advertising Strategy: Creative Tactics from the Outside/In. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, 2006.

Barfoot, C., K. Burtenshaw, and N. Mahon. The Fundamentals of Creative Advertising. Ingram, Lavergne, 2006.

Callcott, M. F., and W. Lee. "A Content Analysis of Animation and Animated Spokes-Characters." Journal of Advertising, vol. 23, no. 4, 1994, pp. 1–12.

Cone, S. Steal These Ideas! 2nd edn. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, 2012.

Drewniany, B., and A. Jewler. Creative Strategy in Advertising. 10th edn. Wadsworth, Boston, 2011.

Heiser, R. S., J. J. Sierra, and I. M. Torres. "Creativity Via Cartoon Spokespeople in Print Ads." Journal of Advertising, vol. 37, no. 4, 2008, pp. 75–84.

Hofmeister-Toth, A., and P. Nagey. "The Content Analysis of Advergames in Hungary." Qualitative Market Research, vol. 14, no. 3, 2011, pp. 289–303.

Hoy, M. G., C. E. Young, and J. C. Mowen. "Animated Host-Selling Advertisements: Their Impact on Young Children's Recognition, Attitudes, and Behavior." Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, vol. 5, 1986, p. 171.

Mehra, A. Advertising Management: Media Approach for Market Research. Global India Publications, New Delhi, 2009.

Misselhorn, C. "Empathy with Inanimate Objects and the Uncanny Valley." Minds and Machines: Journal for Artificial Intelligence, Philosophy, and Cognitive Science, vol. 19, no. 3, 2009, pp. 345–359.

Neeley, S. M., and D. W. Schumann. "Using Animated Spokes-Characters in Advertising to Young Children: Does Increasing Attention to Advertising Necessarily Lead to Product Preference?" Journal of Advertising, vol. 33, no. 3, 2004, pp. 7–23.

Peirce, K., and M. McBride. "Aunt Jemima Isn't Keeping Up with the Energizer Bunny: Stereotyping of Animated Spokes-Characters in Advertising." Sex Roles, vol. 40, no. 11, 1999, pp. 959–968.

Phillips, B. J. "Advertising and the Cultural Meaning of Animals." Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 23, 1996, pp. 354–360.

Tinwell, A., M. Grimshaw, and A. Williams. "The Uncanny Wall." International Journal of Arts and Technology, vol. 4, no. 3, 2011, pp. 326–341.

Van Auken, S., and S. C. Lonial. "Children's Perceptions of Characters: Human vs. Animate — Assessing Implications for Children's Advertising." Journal of Advertising, vol. 14, no. 2, 1985, p. 13.