Portrayal of autonomous vehicle technology: A content analysis of American TV commercials
Lora Kirmer and Sarah Keatley
COMM726 - Seminar in Persuasion
Kansas State University
May 13, 2019
Abstract: The rise of the autonomous (driverless) vehicle is only successful if society accepts, and uses, it. In order to promote acceptance of autonomous vehicle technology available in current models, vehicle manufacturers must adopt new marketing strategies. These strategies frame the technology as safe, stylish, and normal. Normal, in this sense, means “not novel,” not new, no longer a shiny object to play with. This content analysis explores three major automotive manufacturers - Ford, GMC, and Toyota - and the portrayal of automated vehicle technology in their commercial advertisements.
Introduction
Heraclitus, a Greek Philosopher once said, “Change is the only constant,” and as we go through our lives as a full-time student, partners, full-time employee, part-time student and parent, there is never a moment that this statement is not true. Change surrounds us on a daily basis, from social policies, youth development work to technology that we use on a daily basis through computers, robots and even vehicles. The way that this technology affects us is different, partially because of the different generations, and how it has become incorporated into our lives over time. As we begin to explore the different types of technologies that are used on a regular basis, our attention is drawn to that of vehicle technology. Something that we use on a daily basis, that is part of our daily routine, but yet something that we many times overlook as being a form of advanced technology. As we began to look at the technology that surrounds vehicles and the language and rhetoric that describes automated vehicles, we discover that the words we use to describe this technology through advertising and marketing strategies begin to shape the perceptions that the general public has toward automation within vehicle technology. Advertising and marketing as an effective and efficient means of persuasive communication is something that has been of interest for decades to researchers from researchers in communication studies, marketing and advertising. While there is not one formula that is superior to others or one magic formula; depending upon product, audience, desired outcomes, price point and numerous other variables, there are studies and formulas that can show what has worked historically in various situations, for different companies during various economic times.
Persuasive advertising has made a shift, from once an informative, educational media piece to now focusing on forming a relationship between the consumer and the product (Von der Fehr and Stevik, 1998). This relationship-building allows for the consumer to become more vested in the interest that they have in a particular product, allowing the consumer to understand what makes the specific product unique and different from all of the other products of the same variety, but different brands (Von der Fehr and Stevik, 1998). This situation can also be articulated by a functional approach or Functional Theory, which can predict what makes or breaks successful attitude change and ultimately a successful advertising campaign (Spivey, Munson & Locander, 1983). Spivey, Munson and Locander (1983), in their article Improving the Effectiveness of Persuasive Communications: Matching Message with Functional Profile, articulate that successful persuasive communication (or attitude change) happens when the receivers (the consumer in this instance) attitude and value set matches up with the same value set that the message contains. Persuasive messages are most effective when a conscious effort is put forth, and the messages that the consumer receives are also registering as being part of their value set, and something that they have a passion and interest (Spivey et al., 1983). While the study was done in the early 80s, it’s fascinating to see the applicability and pertinence to marketing strategies in the late 2010s. Ultimately, changing attitudes (brands, products, etc), begins when you start to combine the content of the message (the advertisement) with the attitude and mentality of the consumer (Spivey et al., 1983). While the ultimate goal of marketing is to persuade the consumer, there is a strong use of information and fact sharing during this process. During this process, persuasive communication produces three types of results after the relationship between the product and the consumer is formed (Von der Fehr & Stevik, 1998). First, the product becomes enhanced to the consumer, therefore increasing the value of the product to the consumer; second, it allows the marketer or advertiser to help guide the consumer to form the opinions of what they do or do not want, for instance, if a consumer values safety, a vehicle could come with safety features and also some features of convenience that the consumer wasn’t aware that they valued, but now that they have the knowledge of these features, it becomes important to them (Von der Fehr & Stevik, 1998). Finally, these relationships between the consumer and the product allow the consumer to become more aware and increases the perception that the consumer has of the differences of products that are similar (Von der Fehr & Stevik, 1998).
Rationale
While the acceptance of autonomous vehicles has dropped since 2016 (Abraham et al, 2017), manufacturers have begun to use persuasive messaging in both the vehicles that have AV technology, and in the advertisements that portray the technology in use in order to normalize the integration and use of AV technology. The researchers of this content analysis are searching for the persuasive messages that exist in vehicle advertisements, particularly around vehicles that contain any level of AV technology. Furthermore, the researchers of this content analysis are looking for the message the consumer is receiving when they see the advertisement and what the AV feature is portraying.
Persuasive Advertising and Automobiles
For many Americans, owning a vehicle can be considered a luxury, but for others it can be considered a burden due to the costs of the vehicle, insurance, taxes, gas, maintenance, etc. Depending upon where the consumer falls on the spectrum of necessary to luxury, the marketing strategy for vehicles will differ. To understand successful marketing strategies towards luxury items, one must understand a bit of psychology and the personality traits of their intended audience, based upon implicit self-theory the researcher needs to determine if their intended audience is an entity theorist or an incremental theorist (Kwon, Seo, & Ko, 2016). Knowing what your audience’s belief system is will change the strategy and tactics used to persuade them to purchase one product over another. An entity theorist, as described by Kwon, Seo and Ko (2016) is an individual who believes that they are firm in their belief system, that their beliefs and systems cannot be altered in any major way. These individuals have been shown to change their personal perception of themselves based upon the public’s perception of the brand that they are using (Park & John, 2011). In contrast, an incremental theorist exhibits fluidity to their personal traits; they are willing and open to be flexible in their belief systems (Kwon et al., 2016). These individuals are shown to not change their perception of themselves based upon wearing a certain brand or using a specific product because of where it came from or who made it (Park & John, 2011). Incrementalists are influenced more by functionality and less by brand; whereas an entity theorist will be impacted more on the name or perception and less on the functionality (Kwon et al., 2016). Part of this reasoning is explained by the idea that “brand means are an opportunity to signal aspects of the self” (pg. 461) and that these individuals believe they cannot change themselves, but the way that they can improve themselves is by the brand they represent, wear or use, which ultimately ends up becoming a status symbol (Kwon et al., 2016). The opposite is, of course, true for entity theories, who believe that they can change themselves and that they are capable of defining who they are, without a brand or item representing themselves, but that products and items are there to help enhance their lives (Kwon et al., 2016). Applying this theory to the automotive industry, specifically autonomous technology equipped vehicles, we know that while brand names may influence the decision for some, and for others, they will need additional information about the functionality to meet the expectations that they have (Abraham et al., 2017b).
Automobiles can also elicit a wide array of emotions from happiness, pleasure and excitement all the way to frustration and anger (Sheller, 2004). Sheller (2004) articulates this even further in the article Automotive Emotions, when describing the different car cultures, from the interior of a vehicle all the way to the exterior, the sounds a car makes and the various curves on the body. It is evident that the investment in a vehicle is not just financial, but many times there is an emotional investment and attachment from the owner as well. These emotions are all different pieces of the puzzle that car manufacturers and marketers can use to formulate appeals to users from all walks of life. Understanding these nuances allows the automobile company to hone in on what motivates the consumer.
Knowing what drives a consumer is one of the most important facets of advertising and marketing. It is evident that knowing the consumer, their general value and their belief systems can greatly influence the level of success of a marketing campaign. If a company knows that safety is a strong value system of their target audience, they can then hone in on the features of a vehicle that will appeal to this value system, and ultimately can begin to combine several different value systems together (safety and being stylish), broadening the audience base that they are appealing too (Kwon et al., 2016; Spivey et al., 1983; Von der Fehr & Stevik, 1998). These different types of appeals allow the automobile manufacturer to normalize autonomous vehicles. By taking the different features of autonomous vehicles and spinning the rationale to the consumer to appeal to their fear, their value system or their emotional appeal, manufacturers are able to persuade the consumer to become more interested and accustomed to the features offered. These features are ultimately the beginning stages of autonomous vehicle technology, presented as safety and convenience features.
AV TechnologY
Driverless vehicle technology, or autonomous vehicle (AV) technology does not exist in an isolated vehicle make or model. Some AV technology has been around as far back as 1958, when cruise control was introduced in the Chrysler Imperial by engineer Ralph Teetor (Pflugfelder, 2018). Vehicles can be equipped with limited AV technology, like cruise control, and remain a vehicle that still requires a human individual to operate. This content analysis focuses on AV technology equipped in today’s commercially available automobiles.
In 2014, the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) International outlined six levels of autonomous vehicle categorizations in an industry guideline titled “Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles” (Hyatt & Paukert, 2018; SAE.org, 2018). SAE’s guidelines have since been revised, with the most recent iteration published on June 6, 2018 (SAE.org, 2018). The levels start at 0, no automation, to 5, completely autonomous. Level 0 is just that: zero AV technology. At Level 0, the driver is completely in control and responsible for the vehicle. Level 1 AV technology is referred to as “driver assistance technology” because the driver must remain alert and capable of taking over but can delegate vehicle speed to the vehicle, and the vehicle can alert the driver to situations that require human intervention (Beard, 2017; Hyatt & Paukert, 2018). Examples of Level 1 AV tech include cruise control and lane alert technology. Level 2 AV technology is considered partial automation. In Level 2 advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS), the driver must still monitor the road and be ready to intervene, but the technology can control steering, braking, or acceleration (Hyatt & Paukert, 2018). Examples of Level 2 AV technology include automatic emergency braking and active lane-keep assist. Level 3 conditional automation is less nuanced than Level 1 and Level 2 categories. At Level 3, the AV technology can be in complete control at of the vehicle during certain parts of the commute when operational conditions allow, thus becoming “self-driving” (Hyatt & Paukert, 2018). The driver must still remain capable of taking over, but the vehicle is able to guide itself in a defined geographical area (Beard, 2017; Hyatt & Paukert, 2018). The Level 4 category is considered high automation, and vehicles that reach this level are capable of being completely driverless but has limiting conditions such as remaining in an allocated area or limit to speed (Hyatt & Paukert, 2018), or the vehicle may only be able to be driverless on highways and interstates but not on surface streets (Beard, 2017). Lastly, Level 5 AV technology is full automation. This is the level when vehicles become truly autonomous, and parts like a steering wheel are removed - thus the driver no longer exists in human form and the vehicle is its own driver (Hyatt & Paukert, 2018). Currently, vehicles have only been created up to Level 3, with Level 4 technology in the making, and Level 5 vehicle is currently an unattainable concept (Hyatt & Paukert, 2018).
Though a vehicle may be equipped with AV technology, it does not mean it is capable of being completely driverless. Completely autonomous vehicles rely on an updated infrastructure, maps, and monitoring. Vehicles with AV technology have one of the aforementioned technologies equipped. Most importantly, AV technology needs to be accepted and adapted by the average vehicle consumer before the technology can be advanced on the road.
Current research in attitudes towards AV technology
Recent research on driverless technology acceptance focuses on specific nationalities, genders, and age groups (Abraham et al., 2017a; Anania et al., 2018; Nordhoff et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2018). Research on AV technology acceptance reveals that the media portrayal of driverless vehicles affects the willingness to use AV technology when it is beyond Level 2 driver assistance. The recent news coverage of a driverless vehicle striking a pedestrian in a fatal accident has lowered the trust in AV technology (Abraham et al., 2017; Lee et al., 2018). This mistrust and technology setbacks have led to a regression in the public's acceptance of autonomous vehicles within the United States, changing the timeline for Level 3 and above predicted vehicle releases from 2018 to 2020, 2022, and even 2030.
Journalist Malcolm Gladwell (2017) notably argues that the autonomous vehicle is not autonomous at all but relies on a system of trust in the technology. He states:
“Once a car belongs to a network, you have to worry about whether the network is safe. Once an algorithm is in command, you have to worry about how the algorithm thinks. We are surrendering control as surely as the first car owners of a century ago did, and when you surrender control, you could end up with a chauffeur problem” (Gladwell, 2017).
The ‘chauffeur’ problem Gladwell references dates back to the early days of automobile use. Chauffeurs were hired to maintain the notoriously finicky early vehicles - weekly oil changes, a toolkit needed if any travel were to be completed, hand-cranked engines - and soon the chauffeurs became the gatekeeper to automobile technology (Gladwell, 2017). To alleviate this problem, private vehicle consumers asked for new technology that would give them the control, and thus the private vehicle owner no longer needed a chauffeur because they could drive themselves. Gladwell (2017) argues that the rise of the autonomous vehicle is asking drivers to once again give up that control and trust a third party to harbor the knowledge of the vehicle, and that it is unlikely that people who fear lack of control will trust AV technology. This argument is consistent with findings from Howard and Dai’s 2014 study that found that people who value cars, and enjoy driving, are less likely to give up control of the vehicle. These findings are consistent with recent studies in which participants cite a lack of control and safety concerns as a main fear of AV technology (Abraham et al, 2017a; Lee et al, 2018).
Gladwell (2017) also notes that autonomous vehicles and self-driving technology is not created for the average Car and Driver reader, or vehicle enthusiast; rather, it is aimed at the millennials and Generation Z (or iGen) teenagers who “[...] are the kids lying passively on the couch with their smartphones.” Dr. Jean M. Twenge, Professor of Psychology (2017) reports that only one in four teenagers in 2017 obtained their driver’s license by the end of their senior year of high school, and even then, most waited until their parents told them they needed to get their license because the parents could no longer continue to taxi them. Twenge (2017) believes this is due to the aforementioned generation being more interested in technology than in the act of driving. While previous generations have perceived driving as adolescent freedom and considered the physical social life that driving can offer, younger generations do not.
Millennials have repeatedly shown to be more trusting of AV technology and more willing to ride in a driverless vehicle than their parents and grandparents (Abraham et al., 2017a; Lee et al. 2018). Findings from Woldeamanuel and Nguyen’s 2018 study on millennial sentiments towards AV technology shows that non-millennials are more concerned about AV technology failure than millennials, which is somewhat contradictory to millennials high level of concerns for completely autonomous vehicles (Woldeamanuel & Nguyen, 2018). One possible explanation for a trust in the technology, but not a trust in the vehicle piloting itself, is that millennials are considered “digital natives” (Balda & Mora, 2011 as cited in Woldemanuel & Nguyen, 2018), therefore they are less concerned with the introduction of Level 1-3 AV technology in current vehicles, but do not trust the lack of total human control in Level 4-5 AV technology equipped vehicles. Twenge (2017) attributes trust in smart technology to the immersion young millennials experience in their phones and other smart devices, and a desire to stay home could drive the lack of willingness to get in a driverless vehicle. Young millennials do not want to get in any vehicle if it means leaving the comfort of their technological confines (Gladwell, 2017; Twenge, 2017). The lack of trust in a completely driverless car is not just limited to millennials; nearly every recent study reveals a similar level of distrust in completely driverless vehicles across generations (Abraham et al., 2017a; Lee et al., 2018). The studies reveal that older generations are more concerned with learning the AV technology at Level 2 and above than millennials (Lee et al., 2018; Woldeamanuel & Nguyen, 2018).
Another possible influence on the acceptance of AV technology is the familiarity of the names of the technology and understanding the level of driver involvement required with each AV technology level. Participants in a 2016 survey had various degrees of understanding when asked who was in control of the vehicle (the human driver or nonhuman driving system) in driver assistance technologies (Abraham et al., 2017b). Abraham et al. (2017b) suggest familiarity with lower levels of AV technology and increased education about higher automation systems could positively influence the level of comfort drivers have when operating the vehicle. Comfort with the system also relies on knowing the driver’s role in the situation when AV technology is “in control,” thus tying it back to the concerns about safety in higher automated vehicle systems.
As the above research shows, current attitudes towards higher-level AV technology lean towards non-acceptance and exclusion. This attitude prompts response from manufacturers to ease the technology into consumer’s good graces. One way to ease consumers into the knowledge about the latest level of AV technology vehicle manufacturers include in model releases is by portraying the use of the technology in advertisements, and by framing that use as “hassle-free,” “futuristic,” “stylish,” and, perhaps most importantly, “safe.” These categories all speak to the ES-IF theory of function versus brand name.
Are vehicle manufacturers framing their technology-integrated vehicles in these ways? That is what the authors of this essay are interested in discovering. Based on previous research on driverless vehicle technology acceptance and persuasive advertising messages, the authors propose the following guiding research questions:
RQ1: How are vehicle manufacturers visually portraying AV technology in video advertisements?
RQ2: How are vehicle manufacturers describing AV technology in video advertisements?
Methods
Video commercial advertisements that ran in the United States between January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2018 were selected for the content analysis. These are the most recent complete years that show an up-to-date standardization of automated technology in most vehicles. Additionally, the dates were chosen because of the rise in autonomous vehicle technology since 2017 and the media coverage of the technology increase during the time period (Abraham et al., 2017a). The content analysis is limited to the United States because US citizens often rank lowest on willing to ride in a driverless vehicle, and integration of AV technology acceptance at all levels is needed to further advance the end goal of a completely driverless vehicle (Anania et al., 2018; Nordhoff et al., 2018). Advertisements were gathered through Google and Youtube searches. Search terms included “2017 Ford ad,” “2017 Ford commercials,” “2017 Ford TV commercials,” “2017 Ford ad campaign,” with the year and brand switched out for each company. For example, “2017 Ford ad,” “2018 Ford ad,” “2017 GMC ad,” “2018 GMC ad,” “2017 Toyota ad,” and “2018 Toyota ad.” The website iSpot.tv was also used frequently because it hosts a majority of video advertisements along with analytics of the advertisements such as when they first aired, last aired, and the actors/actresses portrayed in the advertisements. In the limited time the researchers had to complete this assignment, they made the executive decision to limit the type of advertisements for the sake of time. Video advertisements were chosen over other mediums because they are used on a variety of media platforms; television, social media and internet, thus reaching consumers multiple times. An estimated 119.9 million U.S. households, or 93.9% of total U.S. households, had television in 2018 (Nielson, 2018), and an estimated 237.6 million smartphone users in the U.S. in 2018 (IIA, 2018). Thus, much of the U.S. population is exposed to a screen. They were also selected because they provide the consumer the ability to see the different types of technologies in action and how they work in a variety of scenarios. Other forms of media and marketing show only a still shot or use words to describe vehicles and technology. Videos allow for the consumer to be engaged through visual, auditory and arguably kinesthetic types of information sharing.
The brands selected for the content analysis are Ford, GMC, and Toyota. These brands were chosen because they first existed as manual vehicle companies that are currently in the process of transitioning to autonomous vehicle technology companies. Ford is the best-selling brand in America and therefore pertinent to the research since it is centered on American advertisements. Toyota was selected because of the brand’s mission as “the future of mobility” (Toyota-Global.com). GMC was selected because it is mainly a truck company, under the umbrella of General Motors brands, and its target audience is different from Ford and Toyota vehicles. Where Ford and Toyota are integrating AV technology into passenger cars, GMC is integrating the technology in large trucks and SUVs. Some of the advertisements looked at also seeped into 2016 and 2019, since they also aired during the time in which the same advertisements were shown in 2017 or 2018. There were a total of 99 advertisements identified, of this total, 28 advertisements were not used in the study because they were either duplicate advertisements, sales events or part of the Ford Performance Racing series. This leaves 71 advertisements to evaluate for this study. Since this is such a small sample size, it should be noted that generalizations should not be made from this analysis, but that it can set up future studies for further research.
Variables for the content analysis were narrowed to the level of AV technology being shown (Levels 1-5), the setting of the scene (“urban,” “rural”), the description of the AV technology (“safe”, “hassle-free,” or the language describing the AV technology was deemed “futuristic”) in addition to the vehicle being considered stylish by contemporary standards. “Safe” and “hassle-free” descriptors of AV technology were chosen because of the concerns the majority of previous study participants expressed, with safety often the highest concern and fearing the complicatedness of learning new technology high among non-millennials (Lee et al., 2018; Woldeamanuel & Nguyen, 2018). The terms “futuristic” and “stylish” were selected because they are both words that conjure up pictures and mental imagery, making them more effective in advertising (Rossiter, 1982). “Urban” and “rural” settings portray the capability and possible functions of the vehicle, as well as appealing to specific audiences, some would assume that those who live in a rural setting would be focused more so on the practicality and functionality of a vehicle for instance, a truck over a sports car. Others would also assume that those living in an urban setting would be more interested in a specific brand, whereas functionality is not as important to those living in the urban setting. While we are aware that the opposite argument could also be true, and that there are many individuals who live in a rural setting who still place a significant amount of importance on a brand (John Deere, Case IH, New Holand, etc.), these brands still serve a larger purpose, ultimately for functionality. It could be assumed that urban individuals could be identified as entity theorists and those who live in a rural setting would be more entity theorists. The terms were also chosen in their relation to matching the value set of the consumer, back to the messages and values of the advertisement. “Safety” and “hassle free” appeal more to the consumer who would be swayed by functionality or the incrementalist theorist; whereas, terms such as “stylish” and “futuristic” would be more appealing to a consumer who identifies as an entity theorist (Park & John, 2011). By matching these value sets together (between consumer and advertisement/product), the chances of a successful marketing campaign vastly increases. These variables were chosen to represent the factors vehicle manufacturers are promoting in order to drive AV technology acceptance.
Process
The researchers gathered 99 different ads between the three manufacturers for the two-year time period. Advertisements for specific selling events (ex., Toyotathon, Ford Performance Racing, etc.) were excluded. 20% of the advertisements were selected based on a random generated formula and each of the researchers watched the advertisements independently, recording interpretations in the codebook (Appendix A) indicating which level of AV technology was highlighted and how that AV technology was portrayed to the consumer. The researcher’s report a cohen’s kappa coefficient (κ) of .588 after dual coding.
The advertisements were rated either a 1 or 0 on each code, with 1 meaning “code is visibly or audibly present” and 0 representing “code not present.” Advertisements could have multiple yes codes in seemingly contradictory categories, such as a 1 for both “rural” and “urban” because the advertisement contained multiple scene settings. Additionally, advertisements coded with 1 for “AV level 2” may not have a 1 for “AV level 1” because it was not explicitly shown. Although we can infer that a vehicle with a higher level of technology must also contain the lower levels in order to reach the higher levels, the content analysis only counted explicitly visual or audible codes.
Results
In 2017, all three companies that were evaluated showed advertisements that incorporated AV technology, as shown in Figure 1. This chart shows the number of advertisements in each year evaluated, broken down by year. Compared to 2017, the number of 2018 advertisements that featured AV technology drastically decreased when looking at all three companies combined. It should be pointed out that Ford advertisements continued to stay consistent from 2017 to 2018, while both GMC and Toyota show a decrease between the two years. In 2017, 47.22% of the advertisements featured Level 1 AV technology and 19.44% featured Level 2 technology. In 2018, 22.86% of the advertisements featured Level 1 AV technology and 5.71% show Level 2 technology. While we cannot make a generalization based upon this data, these results certainly call for additional research to be done in the field of automated vehicle technology advertising.
Figure 1
Displayed in Figure 2 are the descriptors used in advertising AV technology. 11.11% of advertisements used the term “stylish” in 2017 and 5.71% of 2018 ads used the same term. What Fig. 2 does not show is that Toyota is the only company to use the term “stylish” to describe a vehicle, and only in one of those times it the term “safety” used in conjunction with “stylish.” 100% of advertisements that used the term “stylish” were depicted in an urban setting. The term “stylish” is appealing to those individuals who identify as entity theorists. Using the term “hassle-free,” while only used in 8.45% of the total amount of advertisements, is only used by Ford, once in 2017 and twice in 2018. This is a term that also appeals to entity theorists. 5.63% of advertisements deemed the vehicle and/or technology as “futuristic.” A term that is appealing to entity theorists rather than an incremental theorist.
Further research about campaign advertisements and who their intended audiences are would be able to flush out additional strategies for successful persuasive marketing in the automobile industry.
Figure 2
Of the 71 advertisements evaluated, 73.24% of them were considered happening in an urban setting and 47.89% were depicted in a rural area. Of those advertisements that showed urban and rural settings, 18 of these were coded in both settings. Only 2.81% of the total amount of advertisements were not able to be categorized as urban or rural due to obscure scene settings. Figure 3 shows the breakdown of using an urban and/or rural setting, compared with the different levels of automated vehicle technology.
Figure 3
Discussion
While the results of this content analysis are not generalizable, they can lead to a larger discussion. The current data shows that the majority of vehicle advertisements were set in an urban scene, and that 100% of the advertisements that used the descriptor “stylish” for the vehicle were displayed in an urban area. This is not true in the reverse, not all urban advertisements use the term stylish. Speculation could be made that marketers view urban dwellers as entity theorist rather than incremental theorists.
A key difference between 2017 and 2018 advertisements is the percentage of AV technology levels. There was a drop from 47.22% of AV Level 1 technology in 2017 to only 22.86% in 2018, and a drop from 19.44% to 5.71% of AV Level 2 technology depiction. One possible explanation is that the novelty of the technology wore off after the introduction of it in 2017, thus normalizing it by 2018. Other depictions of the technology in news media, usually depicting the technology in a negative light due to injuries and deaths related to AV technology-equipped vehicles, may have played a part in this drop. Since this is a content analysis and not a qualitative study on the reaction of advertising agencies to news media, only speculation can be made about this possibility.
The low percentage for “safety” surprised the researchers, given the previously stated consumer concern of mistrust in AV technology. As noted, Toyota was the only brand to lean into safety marketing. This may be due to brand ideals, or that the years chosen for this content analysis were too early, since studies showing concern for safety of AV technology-equipped vehicles were not published until 2017 and 2018, thus the companies may not have had the chance to respond to the data.
The limited and low percentages of “hassle-free” are not enough to draw many interesting conclusions from. Perhaps it was the wrong code to use, or it was simply not a large enough data set. “Hassle-free” appeals to consumers who fear the usability of technology, and, as stated above, research shows that education and integration of AV technology in gradual steps can ease the consumer into acceptance of the technology (Abraham et al., 2017b).
As for the term futuristic, this term is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as “having or involving very modern technology or design” (2019). Features on a vehicle that are futuristic are not designed to be functional, they are designed to be appealing to a consumer because they are the extra ‘bells and whistles’ that other vehicles with functionality may not have. These features again appeal to those who are entity theorists, focusing more on the name/brand/feature and less on the function. Perhaps it is because we are already living in the future.
Limitations
Limitations of this study include the timeline of the advertisements, the choice of manufacturers, and choice of advertising medium.
Due to the constraints of a limited class time frame, the data set needed to be a manageable amount for two graduate students to handle. The choice of manufacturers, while justified, exclude AV technology companies like Tesla and Google. These companies existed first as technology manufacturers before branching out to automotive design. If companies who started in the technology sphere and transferred to the automotive sphere were included in the study, results may show how/if the technology is being normalized on multiple platforms and spheres.
Future studies
This content analysis was limited to U.S.-based commercial advertisements and vehicle-to-AV companies. Future analysis should include a wider range of data. A cross-national analysis could result in interesting information about how countries compare on integrating the technology within their respective societies. While previous cross-national surveys ask participants about their willingness to ride in certain levels of automated and driverless vehicles, the surveys do not count the persuasive influences of advertisements in the participants’ answers.
Additional studies looking specifically ad print advertisements would allow the researcher to look at text-based communication. Where visual advertisements can show how technology is used in real-time, print advertisements are limited to showing still images for the viewer to interpret. Inclusion of print media would give insight to the different types of persuasive appeals vehicle manufacturers use with different media, and which audiences they are targeting. For example, a print advertisement for a GMC truck may be found in an outdoorsman magazine, while a Toyota Prius advertisement could be found in a modern living magazine (this is just speculation).
An additional study should include themes about advertising, as well how individuals are portrayed. There is an overwhelming amount of sex appeal, using both men and women. A lot of the sex appeal focuses not just on the physical appearance of the vehicle, but also uses that sex appeal to demonstrate different features of the vehicle, sometimes newer technologies. While this study features words that describe the technology, in many advertisements, there is an overarching theme featuring adventure, family, independence, etc. Additional studies would also help flush out the effectiveness as well as the persuasiveness of these advertisements in incorporating AV technologies.
References
Abraham, H., Reimer, B., Seppelt, B., Fitzgerald, C., Mehler, B., & Coughlin, J. F. (2017a). Consumer interest in automation: Preliminary observations exploring a year’s change. [White paper]. Retrieved March 25, 2019 from MIT AgeLab, Massachusetts Institute of Technology: http://agelab.mit.edu/sites/default/files/MIT%20-%20NEMPA%20White%20Paper%20FINAL.pdf.
Abraham, H., Seppelt, B., Mehler, B., & Reimer, B. (2017b). What's in a name: Vehicle technology branding and consumer expectations for automation, presented at 9th ACM International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, Oldenburg, Germany, 2017. New York, NY: AutomotiveUI ‘17. doi:10.1145/3122986.3123018 Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3123018.
Anania, E. C., Rice, S., Walters, N. W., Pierce, M., Winter, S. R., & Milner, M. N. (2018). The effects of positive and negative information on consumers’ willingness to ride in a driverless vehicle. Transport Policy, 72, 218-224. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.04.002
Beard, D. (2017). The tech: Of all the challenges in putting a robocar on the road, figuring out the hardware may be the easy part. Car and Driver, 63(5). Retrieved from https://www.caranddriver.com.
Car and Driver. (2017). Path to autonomy: Self-driving car levels 0 to 5 explained. Retrieved from https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a15079828/autonomous-self-driving-car-levels-car-levels/
Futuristic. (2019). In OxfordDictionaries.com. Retrieved from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/futuristic.
Gladwell, M. (2017). What happens when we give up control of our car? Car and Driver. Retrieved from https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a15080195/what-happens-when-we-give-up-control-of-our-cars-feature/.
Howard, D. & Dai, D. (2014). Public perceptions of self-driving cars: The case of Berkeley, California, presented at 93rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, 2014.
Hyatt, K. & Paukert, C. (2018). Self-driving cars: A level-by-level explainer of autonomous vehicles. Roadshow by CNET. Retrieved from https://www.cnet.com/roadshow.
Internet Innovation Association. (2018). Smartphone users in the US expected to reach over 270 million by 2022. Retrieved from https://internetinnovation.org/general/research-peek-of-the-week-smartphone-users-in-the-us-expected-to-reach-over-270-million-by-2020/.
John, D. R., & Park, J. K. (2010). Got to get you into my life: Do brand personalities rub off on consumers? Journal of Consumer Research, 37(4), 655-669. DOI: 10.1086/655807.
Kwon, J., Seo, Y., & Ko, D. (2016). Effective luxury-brand advertising: The ES–IF matching (entity–symbolic versus incremental–functional) model. Journal of Advertising, 45(4), 459–471. https://doi-org.er.lib.k-state.edu/10.1080/00913367.2016.1226995.
Lee, C., Seppelt, B., Abraham, H., Reimer, B., Fitzgerald, C., Mehler, B., & Coughlin, J. F. (2018). Consumer comfort with in-vehicle automation: Technology of today drives acceptance of self-driving future. [White pages]. Retrieved March 25, 2019, from MIT AgeLab, Massachusetts Institute of Technology: http://agelab.mit.edu/index.php/system/files/2018-12/mit_-_nempa_white_paper_2018_10_22_for_publication.pdf.
Nielson. (2018). Nielsen estimates 119.9 million TV homes in the U.S. for the 2018-19 TV season. Retrieved from https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2018/nielsen-estimates-119-9-million-tv-homes-in-the-us-for-the-2018-19-season.html.
Nordhoff, S., de Winter, J., Kyriakidis, M., van Arem, B., & Happee, R. (2018) Acceptance of driverless vehicles: Results from a large cross-national questionnaire study. Hindawi Journal of Advanced Transportation. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5382192.
Pflugfelder, E. H. (2017). Communicating mobility and technology: A material rhetoric for persuasive transportation. London: Routledge.
Rossiter, J. R. (1982). Visual imagery: Applications to advertising. Advances in Consumer Research, 9, 101-106.
Sheller, M. (2004). Automotive emotions. Theory, Culture & Society, 21(4-5), 221-242. DOI: 10.1177/0263276404046068.
Spivey, W. A., Munson, J. M., & Locander, W. B. (1983). Improving effectiveness of persuasive communications: Matching message with functional profile. Journal of Business Research, 11, 257-269. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(83)90032-2.
Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles J3016_201806. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j3016_201806/.
Toyota Global Company. (2012). Corporate philosophy: Toyota global mission. Retrieved from https://www.toyota-global.com.
Twenge, J. M. (2017). Have smartphones destroyed a generation? The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com.
Von der Fehr, N., & Stevik, K. (1998). Persuasive advertising and product differentiation. Southern Economic Journal, 65(1), 113-126. DOI: 10.2307/1061355.
Woldeamanuel, M., & Nguyen, D. (2018). Perceived benefits and concerns of autonomous vehicles: An exploratory study of millennial’s sentiments of an emerging market. Research in Transportation Economics, 71, 44-53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2018.06.006.