Can you tell without the brand name?Some brands are known worldwide to be “it” labels. Brands like Hermès, Céline and Givenchy are regularly sought after by both fashion icons and more regular people, like you and me. The question is: why do these names so intensely affect how these products are viewed? Truly enough, many designer label products are well made and durable. This doesn’t answer the question, however, of why such highly priced and sometimes frankly gaudy merchandise is continuously bought off the shelves.While designer brands continue to do runway shows directed towards a certain clientele, much information and “hype” is now also being translated through other forms such as social media and brand ambassadors. One of Robert Cialdini’s Six Principles of Persuasion outlines why this type of marketing works. The Principle of Consensus suggests that, as social creatures, we tend to want to do what other people are doing. People want to do what the group is doing. Another way of looking at this is that people want to do what influential and desirable people are doing. This might be why designer brands work. People see celebrities and important people carrying a particular handbag from a designer brand and want that handbag too. On a wider scale, people want to embody the persona of the rich and famous. Radha and Jija (2013) found that people were more likely to remember a brand when a celebrity has endorsed it. While not being able to speak for everyone, at least a good number of people desire to be rich and live a lavish lifestyle like the celebrities that they admire. Cialdini (2005) suggested that people are more likely to adhere to a request when social proofing is in action. He conducted an experiment within a hotel room setting, which showed that people are more likely to reuse their towels when the environmental information card compared their use to that of other guests. People were more likely to reuse their towels when the card said that 75% of other guests did, rather than when a request only was made. Though this seems far removed from the realm of designer handbags and clothing, it runs on the same principle. People want to be as good as or better than the people before them. Lastly, designer brand products are scarce and scarcity makes people want that item more. Parker (2011) found that people are more likely to select an item in a store that is shown to be scarce. The logic behind this is that regardless of what the item is, if there isn’t much of it, it’s because everyone else has already bought it. This means that item is worth buying, according to the rest of the shoppers. Further to this, designer brands are made of expensive materials and aimed at a small group of people, making them a limited-quantity and limited-edition product. Limited-edition products create a sense of exclusivity, with consumers finding them to be more ‘special, unique and valuable’  (Aggarwal, Jun & Huh, 2011; Cialdini, 2008). Jan, Ko, Morris and Chang (2015) investigated limited edition products created by luxury brands and found that a limited-quantity message regarding the luxury product is most effective in increasing response. The less there is known to be, the more people want it.In the end, people want to be like or be better than the rest, and they might actually believe that having something with a fancy name makes them this way. Aggarwal, P., Jun, S. Y., & Huh, J. H. (2011). Scarcity messages. Journal of Advertising, 40, 19-30.Cialdini, R. B. (2005). Don’t throw in the towel: Use social influence research. American Psychological Society Observer, 18, 33-34.Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N., & Martin, S. J. (2008). Yes: 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to be Persuasive.Jang, W. E., Ko, Y. J., Morris, J. D., & Chang, Y. (2015). Scarcity Message Effects on Consumption Behavior: Limited Edition Product Considerations. Psychology & Marketing, 32, 989-1001.Parker, J. R., & Lehmann, D. R. (2011). When shelf-based scarcity impacts consumer preferences. Journal of Retailing, 87, 142-155. Radha, G. & Jija, P. (2013). Influence of celebrity endorsement on the consumer’s purchase decision. International journal of scientific and research publications, 3, 1-28. 

2016 has been a memorable year across the globe, from Brexit to Protest against South Korean President, and from the Turkish coup d’état attempt to the Nice attack. Somehow Trump became the President of the US by winning 278 electoral votes, but how come Hilary Clinton did not win the election despite having so many celebrity endorsements?Figure 1. Michelle Obama, Barack Obama, ex-competitor Bernie Sanders, Katy Perry supporting Hilary Clinton.Figure 2. Leonardo DiCaprio, Beyonce, Lady Gaga, George Clooney supporting Hilary Clinton. Figure 3. Kendall Jenner, Miley Cyrus, Kim Kardashian, Kanye West, Oprah supporting Hilary Clinton.As shown above, Hilary Clinton was able to get support from both celebrities and famous politicians. Research indicates that celebrity endorsements have positive and effective impact on preference from the audience (Dean and Biswas, 2001; Silvera, & Austad, 2004), and celebrities are viewed as highly trustworthy, believable, and persuasive in terms of endorsing the targets (Freiden, 1984). Curiously, with all the celebrity supporting Clinton, why didn’t she win? Well, the reason is partly due to the ‘Just-Plain-Folks’ propaganda and peripheral route in the elaboration likelihood model.1.     ‘Just-Plain-Folks’ propagandaPoliticians often act as plain folks rather than a posh and wealthy congressman, in order to communicate the message of ‘I am just like you and I understand you’ across to the audience that they want the votes from. When presidential candidates act ordinarily, down-to-earth and participate in normal activities, it gives the voters a sense of trust and comfort, believing that the candidate and the voters share common grounds and they therefore should agree with the candidate. People vote for political candidates that they feel empathic towards (McCue & Gopoian, 2000), and people are more likely to show empathic concerns and helping behaviour to someone who they believe are similar to them (Batson, Duncan, Ackerman, Buckley & Birch, 1981). In the experiment, when the participants are told that the sufferer had similarities in attitudes, they chose to offer help and replace the confederate that was given electric shocks, even in situations where participants could easily leave without being irritated and stressed by observing the sufferer’s painful appearance. If people felt that they are similar to Clinton, they would have been more empathic towards her, and hence potentially helped her by voting for Clinton in the election.Figure 4. Results from Batson, Duncan, Ackerman, Buckley & Birch (1981).However, seeing celebrities posting pictures with Hilary Clinton on multiple social media sites, voters tend to gain the impression that Hilary Clinton is another one of those wealthy politicians instead of a more practical plain folk comparable to voters, therefore the empathy/similarity votes that could’ve belonged to Clinton went to Trump (or maybe not).2.     Elaboration likelihood model plays a big part in the election Campaigns fundamentally change voters’ decisions and propaganda techniques prime people’s view on candidates (Iyengar & Simon, 2000; Druckman, 2004). To determine candidate liking and vote choice, voters’ perceptions of character and personal attributes have large impact on the vote (Aylor, 1999). Also, voters evaluate presidential candidates on the basis of a set of general criteria, which they use to judge the candidates’ personal attributes before voting (Miller et al., 1986). Stokes (1966) argued that personality best explains for shifts in the vote from one presidential election to the next, which is an example of voters utilizing peripheral route of persuasion in the elaboration likelihood model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). When voters go down the peripheral route of persuasion, they use cues such as characteristics and attractiveness of the candidate to make the voting decision, and decisions are generally unrelated to the logics of the presidential speech or partisan quality. Figure 5. Results from Aylor (1999). Figure 6. Two distinct routes in the Elaboration Likelihood Model.Surprisingly, research has shown that highly educated individuals are more prone to use the peripheral route by focusing more on personal attributes of the candidate and using personality categories rather than the candidate quality to make the decision, compared to less educated individuals (Glass, 1985; Miller et al., 1986). The reason might be because educated individuals view political elections sceptically, as policy making depends not only on the president. Hence, educated individuals would pay more attention to the candidates’ personal attributes as they give a true and clear picture of the potential president. Figure 7. Results from Glass (1985).Therefore, Trump’s very ‘strong’ personality attracts voters’ attention, and those who were using the peripheral route of persuasion would ignore the candidate quality of Trump, despite some of his messages and opinions on multiple issues were disrespectful and outrageous. In other words, if voters were attracted by Trump’s personal attributes and his unique enthusiasm, they would have forgotten about Clinton and supported Trump instead, and it seems like they have. Although Hilary Clinton did a good job getting support from all of her celebrity friends, these factors might have prevented her from becoming the president. Next time she runs for presidency, it is best to remind her of taking a Behaviour Change course before any campaign begins.Sijia Zhou (Katie)ReferencesAylor, B. (1999). Source credibility and presidential candidates in 1996: The changing nature of character and empathy evaluations. Communication Research Reports, 16(3), 296-304.Batson, C. D., Duncan, B. D., Ackerman, P., Buckley, T., & Birch, K. (1981). Is empathic emotion a source of altruistic motivation?. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 40(2), 290.Dean, D. H., & Biswas, A. (2001). Third-party organization endorsement of products: An advertising cue affecting consumer prepurchase evaluation of goods and services. Journal of Advertising, 30(4), 41-57.Druckman, J. N. (2004). Priming the vote: Campaign effects in a US Senate election. Political Psychology, 25(4), 577-594.Freiden, J. B. (1984). Advertising spokesperson effects-An examination of endorser type and gender on 2 audiences. Journal of advertising research, 24(5), 33-41.Glass, D. P. (1985). Evaluating presidential candidates: Who focuses on their personal attributes?. Public Opinion Quarterly, 49(4), 517-534.Iyengar, S., & Simon, A. F. (2000). New perspectives and evidence on political communication and campaign effects. Annual review of psychology, 51(1), 149-169.McCue, C. P., & Gopoian, J. D. (2000). Dispositional empathy and the political gender gap. Women & Politics, 21(2), 1-20.Miller, A. H., Wattenberg, M. P., & Malanchuk, O. (1986). Schematic assessments of presidential candidates. American Political Science Review, 80(02), 521-540.Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Communication and persuasion (pp. 1-24). Springer New York.Silvera, D. H., & Austad, B. (2004). Factors predicting the effectiveness of celebrity endorsement advertisements. European Journal of marketing, 38(11/12), 1509-1526.Stokes, D. E. (1966). Some dynamic elements of contests for the presidency. American Political Science Review, 60(01), 19-28.

Framing effect  is one of the significant components in the marketing field. The L’Oréal advertisement is one of the best examples of framing effect.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n43sPhVL1uMFraming effect is considered to occur when equivalent description of a decision problem lead to systematically different decisions. (Shafir & LeBoeuf 2002.)  In other words, it means that customer’s decisions can be affected by any phrases in the advertisement. The Loreal campaign for marketing its brand of women’s cosmetics is very popular for its phrase “Because you are worth it”. This phrase affect issues that women may have about self-esteem and beauty. It also addresses the issue of a woman’s independence. Why does a woman buy the cosmetics form Loreal? It is because they are worth it !.There are some empirical evidences for the framing effect. Levin, Schneider, and Gaeth’s (1998) found a valence- consistent shift. This means that objects described in terms of a positively valenced proportion are generally evaluated more favorably than objects described in terms of the corresponding negatively valenced porption.For example, when the participants were exposed to those phrases,A; If this program is adopted, 200 people will be savedB: If this program is adopted, there is a one-third probability that 600 people will be saved and a two-thirds probability that no people will be saved.they tend to prefer the sure thing when given options A and B.On the other hand, when the subjects were exposed  to phrases likeC; If this program is adopted, 400 people will dieD: If this program is adopted, there is a one- third probability that nobody will die and a two-thirds probability that 6000 people will diethe participants tend to choose more risky one for this negative phrases containing the word “die”.This empirical evidence clearly supports how important it is to have a positive or a negative phrase in the advertisement. Depending on the phrases, the customer’s behaviour can be changed.ReferencesShafir, E. & R. A. LeBoeuf. 2002. “Rationality.” Annual Review of Psychology 53: 491- 517.Levin, I. P., & G. J. Gaeth. 1988. “How Consumers are Affected by the Framing of Attribute Information Before and After Consuming the Product.” Journal of Consumer Research 15: 374-378