Manufacturers of consumer
products have to be liberal with the warning labels these days, that’s why warnings have become a common feature of
everyday society. In fact, a product is
almost atypical if it does not bear a warning.
Warnings are intended to protect and inform consumers of the dangers of
misusing a product. These warnings run
the gamut from a bold font “danger” to elaborate pictographic
illustrations. Warnings curb product
abuse and also aid manufacturers in avoiding costly product liability
lawsuits. Today companies add warnings
to account for many scenarios of product mishandling. Warnings are the primary
means of communicating proper use of a product and the danger of misuse to its
users.
The purpose of this report is to evaluate
whether warnings are effective in influencing consumer behavior. What does the
average consumer make of this? Are
consumers bombarded with too many warnings?
Do they perceive common warnings as superfluous? Do consumers view the warnings found on
products such as toothpaste and chainsaws alike as important information?
This study analyzes how effective warnings
were in changing consumer behavior. It
addresses several basic questions: How
many warnings does the average person encounter in a day? What type of warnings do they see? How are those warnings presented?
The main goal of this study is to determine
the effectiveness of warnings by observing consumer reaction to these four
factors of warnings in a typical consumer environment.
The reasons of ineffectiveness of warnings:
Warnings are so prevalent that consumers
become immune to them. Consumers are often unaware that a product
bears a warning even if they frequently use that product. After several uses of
that product, consumers tend to ignore the warning and are prone to forget that
such a warning exists.
Warnings are
often an inappropriate channel to communicate safety information. McGrath
states in his research (1994) that safety information is often added to
products to protect manufacturers from product liability lawsuits. However, the effectiveness of these warnings
is minimal, and has no positive effect on safety. For instance, most consumers feel that the information on
warnings is common sense and feel that the warning is not directed at
them. For example, a warning on a hair
dryer warns consumers of the danger of using the product in the bathtub. Most people would never use a hair dryer
while bathing, so they disregard the entire warning.
Males are
more likely than females to recall seeing warnings. However, when warnings are noticed, females are more likely to
change their behavior based on warnings.
The logistics of the
warning, such as language, size, color, and placement influence the
effectiveness of the warning. There are many
factors that contribute to warning effectiveness. For example, prominent placement that compels the consumer to see
the warning would be more effective than a warning place in an indiscreet
location. Factors such as bold colors
and fonts increase the likelihood that the warning will be noticed. Key words such as danger aid in the effectiveness of warnings because
consumers perceive them to be more of a threat.
The context in which
warnings occur has an impact on the effectiveness of those warnings. If a warning is in an environment loaded
with warnings, it will have to compete for consumer attention. I believe, that in this type of environment,
people are less likely to pay attention to the warnings they come across, and
are less likely to change their behavior to match such warning. This makes all of the warnings in the
environment less effective.
To conclude, I’d like to say consumers will continue to need
important information about the products they use. Consumers go through a filtering process that limits the effectiveness
of warnings. The warning needs to get
attention. Then, it must be understood.
In order to change behavior the warning must be persuasive. Finally, the
message must motivate the user to follow through with the suggested
action.
This study had observers shadow 20 subjects
for a 12-hour period to determine the number of warnings that they came in
contact with during a normal working day as well as their perceptions of those
warnings. The compelling implication of
this study is that warnings are not the most effective way to communicate
information. Only 25% of all warnings
are effective. People see an average of
20 warnings a day, and over 5200 warnings a year. They notice and change their behavior for only 1300 of those
warnings. While this study draws a
correlation from the highly rated credibility of warnings and their
effectiveness, this credibility rating is personal. Subjects prioritized warnings differently. This makes it difficult to isolate what
factors consumers perceive as important.
However the data gathered does suggest that warnings as they are used
now are only 25 percent effective. The customers should observe factors, which
make a warning effective to improve the method of communication between people
and manufacturers. Due to the
communication channel used by warnings, there are several factors involved in
what makes a warning effective:
1.
The consumer
must notice the warning in the product/environment.
2.
The consumer
must read and understand the warning.
3.
The consumer
must accept the warning as credible.
4.
The consumer
must change their behavior to match the warning.
Maria Shykhova
Íàóêîâèé êåð³âíèê òà
êîíñóëüòàíò ç ³íîçåìíî¿ ìîâè:
Ùåðáà À.Â.