We compare six taxonomies (including some not previously tested) that systematically categorize visual rhetorical figures (RFs) on their domain coverage, reliability, parsimony, and predictive validity to determine which is best for advertisers and researchers. All taxonomies showed increased effectiveness with RFs than without RFs in a sample of 952 copy-tested advertisements. However, one taxonomy—that of McQuarrie and Mick —demonstrated the best balance of the criteria for a useful taxonomy including predictive validity. Ads containing RFs from each of their visual RF categories improved ad effectiveness measures related to Starch Noted, Associated, and Read Most scores as predicted by theory.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Huhmann et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: