Download Lost in Translation: Consumer Reactions to Advertising in a Foreign

Lost in Translation: Consumer Reactions to Advertising in a Foreign Language
Emine Mavi and Zeynep Gürhan-Canlı
ABSTRACT
Is it possible that advertising slogans in foreign languages have an impact on
consumers who don’t speak that language? For example, when Ford says ‘Feel the difference’
in English at the end of the ad, do consumers who don’t speak English really feel the
difference, do they ignore the message, or do they just infer that the axle gear (differential) of
the car is better just because it sounds like it? Or when they hear ‘Best snack’, do they ignore
the message or do they infer that it is a bad product just because the word ‘snack’ sounds
similar to the word ‘fly’ in their native language?
The aim of this research is to contribute to our understanding on how consumers
evaluate an advertising message in a foreign language that they do not understand. The results
suggest that the liking of an advertising message in an unknown language is driven by the
existence of a similar word in native language and the results are moderated by elaboration
and involvement. Importantly, our results further demonstrate that consumers make inferences
about product attributes in relation to the similarity of the words in their native language.
These new findings (e.g., inference making based on foreign language messages) extend
previous research on global advertising and branding.
Globalization and integration of markets have resulted in an expansion of brands
across borders. As companies expand across borders, they have the strategic options of
standardization, fully tailored models, or a combination of both in their communication (Boyd
et al., 2002, p. 368). In parallel, the information revolution has resulted in an expansion of
communication and media, with internet becoming a significant medium. These two factors in
action resulted in the emergence of a ‘global consumer’, who can make meaning out of
foreign brand names, can search and communicate on the internet.
A study by Weber (1997) identifies top 3 most influential languages as English,
French and Spanish, after considering 6 major factors (number of primary speakers, number
of secondary speakers, number and population of countries where used, number of major
fields using the language internationally, economic power of countries using the languages,
and socio-literary prestige). We also see more standardized messages in media and these
messages usually appear in these dominant languages. A content analysis (Harris and Attour,
2003) made on 51 brands in 4 product categories and in 9 countries including 3 in the Middle
East revealed an average standardization score of 77.6%, with 45% of the brands in 80-99%
range. However, even if we take the most influential language English, the maximum estimate
for the number of English speakers in the world is 1.8 billion, including native and secondary
language
speakers
(http://www.ehistling-pub.meotod.de/01_lec06.php
02/06/2004).
Therefore, even with the most optimistic estimates, the majority of the world’s population
does not speak and understand even the most influential language. Consequently, it is
important to investigate how these consumers respond to messages in a language they do not
understand.
There have been some cases in international marketing pointing to the mistakes that
marketers made when they used brand names that had undesirable meanings in the local
language (e.g., Nova as a car brand, which means it does not go in Spanish). When
international companies use messages in languages that are foreign to native speakers and
when such exact pronunciation misfortunes are avoided, the assumption is that some
consumers will understand these messages and those who do not understand them will not
process and infer any meaning at all. However, our research shows that it is not enough to
avoid an undesirable exact pronunciation in the local language. Under certain conditions, even
mere similarities to words in local language may have implications. Consumers may try to
draw a meaning from foreign words that sound similar to another word in their own language.
Furthermore, they may make inferences about product attributes. Such mechanisms may be in
effect especially under conditions where elaboration is high and when the context is relevant.
Currently there are two streams of research analyzing the effects of language on
consumers and their preferences on brands. One stream analyzes the phonetic and semantic
processing in relation to brand names and words (Jacobson and Waugh, 1987; Klink, 2001;
Klink, 2003; Schmitt, Pan and Tavassoli, 1994; Yorkston and Menon, 2004). The other
stream of research analyzes syntax and processing of bilinguals (Tavassoli and Han 2001;
Zhang et al., 2004; Koslow, Shamdasani and Touchstone, 1994; Luna and Peracchio 2005a,
2005b; Krishna and Ahluwalia, 2008). This research combines both lines of research,
analyzing how consumers would process an advertising message which is conveyed in a
language unknown to them.
What are the possible mechanisms that underlie how consumers process messages in a
language unknown to them? First of all, it has been shown that processing fluency increases
likeability, even if there is no conscious perception (e.g. Bonnano and Stillings, 1986;
Whitlessea, 1993; Reber, Winkielman and Schwarz 1998). Similarly, we expect respondents
to evaluate foreign words more positively if there is a similar sounding word in native
language. Secondly, Revised Hierarchical Model or RHM (Dufour and Kroll, 1995; Kroll and
de Groot, 1997) provides an understanding of how the languages are represented in
bilinguals’ minds. This model builds on previous findings (Durgunoglu and Roediger, 1987;
Snodgrass, 1984) suggesting that there are two levels of representation in the bilingual’s
mind: the lexical (word) level and the conceptual (meaning) level. This representation has
three connections: First learned language (L1) to concepts, second learned language (L2) to
concepts, and another connection between L1 and L2. In a monolinguals mind, a stimulus is
presented in L2, but the L2-concepts relationship is void. Then a mechanism might work that
is similar to making meaning out of words that do not have a representation to concepts,
possibly through L1.
By combining these two streams of research, we hypothesize that when consumers
encounter a message in an unknown language, some consumers may try to make sense out of
the message presented. Since there is no link between L2 and concept, this meaning can only
be achieved through L1. Hence we hypothesize that it may be possible to get a meaning out of
a message in an unknown language if the words in the message have a resemblance to other
words in L1. However, such connections require effort since semantic processing is the most
intense and elaborate processing (Lerman et al. 2002). Therefore, consumers must be
motivated to go through such processing. This motivation can stem from many possible
reasons. For example, a research study by Luna and Peracchio (2002) shows that the effect of
first language (L1) versus a second language (L2) on product evaluations is moderated by
need for cognition. By the same token, a relevant construct, high elaboration can also activate
the need for semantic processing. Another alternative which might influence processing
motivation may be involvement level. We hypothesize that such constructs may predict
whether the consumer will make an effort at semantic processing or not. Therefore,
elaboration may play an effect in the liking of an advertising message depending on the
context. That is, consumers’ evaluations should depend on whether the target word resembles
a positive or negative word in the local language in a given context. We also suggest that
elaboration should not lead to any differential effects when foreign words are highly familiar
to consumers because familiar words will be processed fluently regardless of elaboration.
H1a:
Under high elaboration or involvement, consumers will evaluate an advertisement with
a foreign word that sounds unpleasant in L1 in a particular context less favorably than
an advertisement with a foreign word that sounds neutral or positive in L1 in that
particular context.
H1b:
Under low elaboration or involvement, evaluations of advertisements with foreign
words will not differ regardless of how they sound in L1.
H1c:
Elaboration does not moderate the effect of a foreign word on evaluations of an ad if
the foreign word is highly familiar.
H2a:
Under high (vs. low) elaboration, evaluations of an advertisement with a foreign word
will be more favorable if the foreign word (L2) sounds like a product attribute in L1
regardless of its meaning in L2.
H 2b:
The effect of a foreign word that sounds like a product attribute in L1 on evaluations
of an advertisement will be mediated by the rating on the related product attribute.
In testing these hypotheses, we conducted 3 pretests and 2 experimental studies to
explain how non speakers of a foreign language process the messages if an advertising
message is given in this language. In pretests, we identified similar sounding words, tested
their likeability and investigated whether similarity of a word in native language has effects
on overall evaluation and if these effects are moderated by elaboration and involvement (H1a
and H1b). In Study 1, we test words in different contexts and rule out accessibility as an
alternative explanation. In Study 2, we analyze whether familiarity makes any difference in
high vs. low elaboration (H1c), if consumers make inferences about product attributes if there
is a similar sounding word related to a product attribute (H2a) and whether these results are
driven by the ratings on that specific attribute (H2b). The results are generally consistent with
expectations.
REFERENCES
Bonanno, G.A., Stillings, N.A., 1986. Preference, Familiarity, and Recognition after Repeated
Brief Exposures to Random Geometric Shapes. The American Journal of
Psychology, Vol. 99, No. 3 (Autumn, 1986), pp. 403-415
Boyd, H.W., Walker, O.C., Mullins, J., Larreche, J-C., 2002. Marketing Management, A
Strategic Decision-Making Approach. McGraw-Hill/Irwin, Columbus, OH.
Dufour, R., Kroll J.F., 1995. Matching words to concepts in two languages: A test of the
concept mediation model of bilingual representation. Memory & Cognition 23,
no. 2: 166-180.
Durgunoglu, A.Y., Roediger H.L., 1987. Test differences in accessing bilingual memory.
Journal of Memory and Language 26, no. 4: 377-391.
Harris, G., Attour, S., 2003. The international advertising practices of multinational
companies: A content analysis study. European Journal of Marketing 37, no. 1/2:
154-168.
http://www.ehistling-pub.meotod.de/01_lec06.php 02/06/2004
Jacobson, R., Waugh L.R,. (1987). The Sound Shape of Language. 2nd edition. New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Klink, R.R., 2001. Creating Meaningful New Brand Names: A Study of Semantics and
Symbolism. Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice 9, no. 2: 27.
Klink, R.R., 2003. Creating Meaningful Brands: The Relationship Between Brand Name and
Brand Mark. Marketing Letters 14, no. 3: 143-157.
Krishna, A., Ahluwalia R. 2008. Language Choice in Advertising to Bilinguals: Asymmetric
Effects for Multinationals versus Local Firms. Journal of Consumer Research
35, no. 4: 692-705.
Kroll, J.F., de Groot A.M.B., 1997. Lexical and conceptual memory in the bilingual: Mapping
form to meaning in two languages. In Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic
perspectives, 169-199. Mahwah, NJ US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Publishers, 1997.
Koslow, S., Shamdasani P.N., Touchstone.E.E., 1994. Exploring language effects in ethnic
advertising: A sociolinguistic perspective. Journal of Consumer Research 20, no.
4: 575-585.
Lerman, D., Garbarino E., 2002. Recall and recognition of brand names: A comparison of
word and nonword name types. Psychology & Marketing 19, no. 7: 621-639.
Luna, D., Peracchio L.A. 2005. Sociolinguistic Effects on Code-Switched Ads Targeting
Bilingual Consumers. Journal of Advertising 34, no. 2: 43-56.
Luna, D., Peracchio L.A. 2005. Advertising to Bilingual Consumers: The Impact of CodeSwitching on Persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research 31, no. 4: 760-765.
Luna, D., Peracchio L.A. 2002. “Where There Is a Will...”: Motivation as a Moderator of
Language Processing by Bilingual Consumers. Psychology & Marketing 19, no.
7/8: 573-593.
Reber, R., Winkielman P., Schwarz N., 1998. Effects of perceptual fluency on affective
judgments. Psychological Science 9, no. 1: 45-48.
Schmitt, B. H., Pan Y., Tavassoli N.T., 1994. Language and consumer memory: The impact
of linguistic differences between Chinese and English. Journal of Consumer
Research 21, no. 3: 419-431.
Snodgrass, J.G., 1984. Concepts and their surface representations. Journal of Verbal Learning
& Verbal Behavior 23, no. 1: 3-22.
Tavassoli, N.T., Han J.K.. 2001. Scripted thought: Processing Korean Hancha and Hangul in
a multimedia context. Journal of Consumer Research 28, no. 3: 482-493.
Whittlesea, B.W.A., 1993. Illusions of familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition 19, no. 6: 1235-1253.
Yorkston, E., Menon G., 2004. A Sound Idea: Phonetic Effects of Brand Names on Consumer
Judgments. Journal of Consumer Research 31, no. 1: 43-51.
Zhang, S., Schmitt B.H., Iacobucci D., Mick D.G., Hoyer W., 2004. Activating sound and
meaning: The role of language proficiency in bilingual consumer environments.
Journal of Consumer Research 31, no. 1: 220-228.