Prejudice Effect: The PR logic behind coating WeChat ads

China Paint Network
: These days, WeChat friends in the circle of the most lively topic is WeChat really began to advertise. And a shot is not yet one, directly on the dragonfly.
a lot of people are asking, why WeChat friends circle ads can have such a huge impact, attracted countless people to respond to these ads, and produced a huge number of secondary dissemination?
as a semi-hanging public relations dog, the author takes this opportunity today to explain to you a very important concept in social psychology and public relations theory: the bias effect.
is a bigotry?
is the one-sided or even wrong perception and influence of others or groups that people form on the basis of incorrect or inadequate information. Evaluation of others is based on the group it belongs to, not on understanding.
, in layman's terms, prejudice is when you make a stereotype of something through outside evaluation.
from this point of view, everyone is biased.
in the information overload today, people are every day from the Internet a large amount of information for their own information processing ability test. In a sense, prejudice is the most basic psychological basis for maintaining a system of social respect. It is also one of the most commonly used theoretical tools for PR dogs.
are the specific manifestations of bias?
such as some of your common nouns with strong symbolic meaning: city management, civil servants, code farmers, pry dogs, green tea and secondarys.
, of course, and the "Gao Fu Shuai" "Rose" and "Two Forced Youth" you saw in your circle of friends yesterday.
is the bias effect?
bias effect is that when different groups are in the same competitive environment, prejudice between groups can lead to conflict and communication.
weChat circle of friends is the application of this principle, so a huge amount of sound.
, WeChat Friends Circle advertising through some reason and means to the broad public group definition.
is defined by grouping information directed delivery.
definition is based on "big data."
the concept creates the illusion that their grouping reasons are objective and impartial.
let's take a look at another example.
for example, I posted a treaty gun message on my WeChat Public today: "Within
24 hours, I will issue an invitation to female fans who follow my WeChat public account." Some of the invitations received will include first-class flights to and from Shanghai, five-star hotel accommodation, 3 days to play. Another part of the invitation will be high-speed rail tickets to and from Shanghai, fast hotel accommodation, ONS Hello goodbye. The rest will not be invited. The principle of the invitation is: Look at the face value of the avatar.
you feel the malice coming from this face-seeing world in this example?
if it happens that these more than 5000 sisters are known to each other and are friends with each other. This unsolitared group difference translates into a bias that the sister who gets the five-star hotel invitation for a first-class ticket is the most beautiful, the sister who gets the high-speed rail express invitation is slightly less, and the others are not visible to me.
the question: Is my definition true, objective and accurate? Is my aesthetic point of view consistent with that of the public?
it doesn't matter, it's the process of definition and the cost of definition that I'm willing to pay.
if these more than 5,000 sisters were communicating in a group, group bias could easily lead to violent group conflicts. Sisters who are judged to have a high face value will feel that they are in a dominant position to show off in various forms, and sisters who are judged to have a low face value will either think they do not belong to a group defined by me, or self-reinforcing my definition criteria.