Let’s say you’re trying to get someone to buy your product and you want to purchase an ad. Do you go with a black-and-white or color ad? Well, that depends on where you want to draw attention.

“Black-and-white images can lead consumers to focus on the abstract, essential, and defining components of a product,” wrote authors Hyojin Lee, Xiaoyan Deng, H. Rao Unnava, and Kentaro Fujita (all The Ohio State University), in a new study in the Journal of Consumer Research. “In contrast, color images can draw attention to the concrete, sometimes unimportant and idiosyncratic features of the product.”

The researchers had consumers in one study look at either black-and-white or color pictures of four shoes (plain sneakers, leopard print sneakers, plain heels, and leopard print heels) and asked them to categorize the shoes into two groups. Those who saw the black-and-white images most likely categorized the shoes based on function (high heels vs. sneakers) instead of differences in aesthetic design.

“Color has become dominant in marketing because it attracts attention and promotes favorable attitudes,” the authors wrote. “However, there may be times when companies might prefer to use black-and-white advertising. If a product’s primary features are superior, companies can successfully promote the product by using black-and-white images. On the other hand, if a product’s secondary features are superior, companies should consider using color images to draw attention to these otherwise easily overlooked features.”

(photo credit: Thomas Hawk via photopin cc)

Good news. Let’s add beer to the list of beverages that are good for your health. According to a report in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, a compound from the ingredient hops could protect brain cells from damage. The report specifically points out that it has the potential to slow down the development of Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases.

“One compound found in hops, called xanthohumol, has gotten the attention of researchers for its potential benefits, including antioxidation, cardiovascular protection, and anticancer properties,” the American Chemical Society reported. “In lab tests, the researchers found that the compound could protect neuronal cells and potentially help slow the development of brain disorders. The scientists conclude xanthohumol could be a good candidate for fighting such conditions.”

The scientists plan to keep researching their findings. In the meantime, if you drink beer, make sure it’s in moderation. Too much is bad for your health (and your belly).

(photo credit: JoseXL via photopin cc)

A study in the Journal of Marketing shows that a scent’s “temperature” in a store can affect what and how much a customer buys.

“People smelling warm fragrances such as cinnamon feel that the room they are in is more crowded, and feel less powerful as a result,” wrote study authors Adriana V. Madzharov (Stevens Institute of Technology), Lauren G. Block (City University of New York), and Maureen Morrin (Temple University). “This can lead them to compensate by buying items they feel are more prestigious.”

The researchers conducted many experiments on how warm and cool scents affect perception and decision making. As mentioned, people in “warm” scented rooms felt more crowded than when they were in a “cool” scented room, even when the room contained the same number of people each time. The “warm crowded” room people made up for this feeling of less power by buying prestigious items to help raise their personal status. They even bought significantly more items overall.

“This study, to the best of our knowledge, is the first to show how fragrance in the environment can affect how we feel about the space surrounding us, and how that in turn can drive customers to choose prestigious products,” the authors wrote. “We show that retailers can easily manipulate social density perceptions with a subtle and relatively inexpensive application of ambient scenting in the store environment.”

Now all the team stores will smell like cinnamon, right?

(photo credit: jypsygen via photopin cc)

The IAVM community is deeply saddened by the loss of Tanya Baugus, and we extend our support and sympathy to our friend and former colleague, R.V. Baugus, and to the family and friends of Tanya.

Coaches Outreach will be establishing an annual scholarship in honor of Tanya, and a tribute from the Dallas Mavericks honoring one of their loyal, passionate, season ticket holders will be presented during an upcoming game.

Tanya Renee Baugus of Grand Prairie passed away January 30, 2015. She was born on September 16, 1966 to LaVerne and Marie Bailey. Tanya was a graduate of Hawkins High School and she attended Dallas Baptist University. She was a member of Oak View Baptist Church in Irving and worked as an event coordinator and office manager for Coaches Outreach for 8 years. She is preceded in death by her parents and is survived by her husband R. V. Baugus, Jr. of Grand Prairie; 2 two brothers; 1 sister and aunt Carrie “Honey” Marshall and numerous cousins, nieces and nephews.

The family will receive friends from 6:00 to 8:00 pm. on February 6, 2015 at Oak View Baptist Church. A funeral service will be held at 2:00 p.m. Saturday, February 7, 2015 at Oak View Baptist church with Dr. Jim Gerlach officiating. Interment will follow at Roselawn Cemetery in Seagoville. Services are being coordinated by Browns Memorial Funeral Home.

The FCC has issued a new advisory regarding Wi-Fi Hot Spot interference. The current language from the FCC includes the following:

No hotel, convention center, or other commercial establishment or the network operator providing services at such establishments may intentionally block or disrupt personal Wi-Fi hot spots on such premises, including as part of an effort to force consumers to purchase access to the property owner’s Wi-Fi network. Such action is illegal and violations could lead to the assessment of substantial monetary penalties.

This advisory, in part, is related to the 2014 petition filed by Marriott International, the American Hotel & Lodging Association, and Ryman Hospitality Partners. The petition sought clarification from the FCC on reasonable Wi-Fi network management practices after a $600,000 fine was administered by the FCC for intentional interference with consumer Wi-Fi networks.

Marriott has withdrawn the petition, leaving venue managers and network operators with the difficult task of deciphering the broad language of the FCC advisory. The rhetoric in the petition and the subsequently filed comments focused primarily on cybersecurity and concerns related to malicious, rogue hotspots. Comments from Google, Microsoft, and others challenged the legitimacy of this argument, and the recent FCC advisory appears to support that view.

A secure network is undoubtedly essential for the transactions, point-of-sale verifications, and data exchanges happening by exhibitors and in-house services in the convention environment, but it is not a sufficient summary of the legitimate challenges affecting network management.

Another frequently encountered issue— the one affecting most convention centers and shows—is one of density and network capacity.

As corporate event consultant Brandt Krueger points out in his summary of the Marriott Wi-Fi incident, network density is an important part of the conversation that is being overpowered by the security argument:

Marriott did make one more point that was barely mentioned in the petition, or in their subsequent statements in the PR battle to follow. Sadly, I think it’s their strongest argument, at least it could have been when it came to public opinion. Wi-Fi pollution is real, and the more hotspots that are jammed into an area, the more the integrity of the signals is degraded due to natural interference. When Marriott offers high speed Wi-Fi to their meeting and convention guests, usually for what some might call exorbitant rates, their guests are going to expect it to work properly.  They do indeed have an obligation to provide certain levels of service to their guests, and they can’t offer that level of service if things are all jammed up with Wi-Fi traffic.

The density issue was also raised in the reply comment filed with the FCC by Smart City Networks:

[M]ost of the parties supporting the Petition seem to agree that devices in normal operation that do not pose a threat to security or to network reliability and that are operating in a public space should not be subject to containment. These parties are urging the Commission to balance the public interest in protecting against carte blanche interference with the need for reasonable network management practices that ensure safe and reliable Wi-Fi service in non-public spaces and during private events. The Commission can and should chart a course that advances both of these legitimate objectives.

Convention centers are some of the highest density Wi-Fi environments in the world, and the congestion experienced from the volume of Wi-Fi enabled devices legitimately undermines the throughput and reliability for everyone accessing the network.

The current language offered by the FCC provides little guidance for venue managers and network operators seeking acceptable policies, and appears to be a direct response to the perception that every instance of containment is, as Google states in its opposing comment, “to drive traffic to the interfering operator’s own network (often for a fee).”

IAVM is actively following this issue, and is pursuing collaboration with the IAVM Industry Affairs Council, convention center managers, partner companies, convention center customers, and fellow industry associations (CIC, ESCA, IAEE, SISO) to determine appropriate ways to equip the FCC with information that can assist with future clarifications and policies.

Updates will continue to be shared on this blog and in communications to the IAVM community.

Related Links:

• Proceeding RM-11737; Petition filed by Marriott, AHLA, and Ryman Hospitality Properties: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=60000983387

• All public filings (comments) associated with Proceeding RM-11737: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=RM-11737
• FCC Public Notice, published January 27, 2015: http://www.fcc.gov/document/warning-wi-fi-blocking-prohibited

• (ASAE) What We Learned From the FCC’s Wi-Fi Blocking Sagahttp://associationsnow.com/2015/02/learned-fccs-wifi-blocking-saga/?utm_source=AN%2BDaily%2BNews&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20150203%2BTuesday

• (National Journal) FCC Warns Hotels Not to Block Wi-Fi: http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/fcc-warns-hotels-not-to-block-wi-fi-20150127

• (Brandt Krueger) The Marriott WiFi Kerfuffle: A Deep Dive: http://www.brandtkrueger.com/blog/2015/1/9/deep-dive-into-marriott-wifi