The Role of Voice Mimicry and Imitation in Marketing | An In-depth Analysis
The best way to use Voice Mimicry and Imitation in Marketing is to give the customer an idea what the product will do for them.
When marketing a product, people often want to know what they will get out of using it. If you can offer up a vision that paints a picture of how your product helps them, then they will be more inclined to buy your product than if you simply say “buy our product”.
They will be more likely to buy more of your products if they know the returns it will offer them.
The idea of using voice mimicry and imitation has been around for a while but marketers have only recently started to use this strategy in their marketing.
More often than not people tend to focus on how a product does something for you instead of how it makes you feel.
A person will buy something because they feel good about it or they will avoid it because they feel bad about it.
Any advertisement that can spark that emotion is bound to sell more products.
Voice mimicry is used in a lot of places but it is not always noticeable. This type of marketing is most commonly used in advertisements, stores and packaging.
When voice mimicry is used less subtly it tends to be overused. The best way to use voice mimicry and imitation in marketing is to give the customer an idea what the product will do for them.
You want your message to make sense because you want the customer to buy the product, so make sure it makes sense.
Another way to use voice mimicry and imitation in marketing is to make a celebrity or public figure endorse your product. This will increase your sales if the public likes the person you chose to endorse your product.
This type of promotion is long term and can be very effective because people remember when someone uses their voice mimicry so they tend to trust their products more in the future.
Voice mimicry and imitation can be very persuasive but it can also be overused.
The best way to use voice mimicry and imitation in marketing is to give the customer an idea what the product will do for them.
In order to achieve a better understanding of what others are doing, we might choose to read their mind. We are likely to believe that when we are immersed into something, we can accurately know how others think and feel.
However, relying on our own mental model of what others are thinking is only part of the link that informs our social interactions.
Furthermore, the “MENTAL MODELS” that we generate in our own mind may not be sophisticated and can be influenced by our social interactions.
For instance, some people believe that men are less emotional than women and therefore they tend to think that the opposite sex is more emotional than themselves.
Mental models of others provide us with a basis for understanding them and assuming their emotions. This approach is similar to observing behaviors while ignoring context.
To utilize mental models of others, the observation of both behavior and thought processes should occur at the same time.
For instance, mental models of others can be used to develop theories about the emotions and thoughts of others. When we observe an event our first instinct might be to assume other people will have similar thoughts because we have mentally modeled them in a similar way.
However, we might overlook differences in context. For example, for a group of children they could at one point be playing a game and for another time they could be observing something interesting.
By taking into account the context of the situation, we might predict their mental models of the observed content.
The use of mental models is commonly used in our daily social interactions. For example, we may want to understand why people are doing what they are doing.
To understand their motivations, we can view the world from their perspective and make inferences about their inner thought process.
Furthermore, many of our impressions of others are influenced by our own mental models and not necessarily by actual evidence provided by fellow humans.
For instance, if a woman is ignored by her male colleagues when she speaks about an issue, she might assume the event was based on gender stereotyping.
Although this may be true, the same incident can happen to anyone. By taking the context into account we can better understand others and make less assumption.
Mental models of others help us to predict their behavior under a specific situation. For example, in order to know what others are going do we might need to use mental models of others.
When we cannot predict what others will do, we make assumptions that are less accurate.
For example, when people watch an event and they have no clue as to what might happen next, they may make premature conclusions about how the situation will unfold.
By guessing about others behaviors based on past experiences, we might be more accurate in our predictions.
However, there is always the possibility that these assumptions are wrong and people’s behavior is due to complex reasons other than their mental models of others.
Understandings of mental states differ across cultures:
In western cultures, there is a general tendency to misinterpret emotions of other people.
As a result, westerners tend to be less empathetic than easterners. For example, Japanese people may have more difficulty understanding that emotions can be triggered by factors other than visual stimuli.
In general, eastern cultures tend to emphasize interdependence and relationships whereas western cultures emphasize independence and individuality.
Mental state decoding is the process of inferring the mental states of others from their behaviors or observed expressions. This process is highly individualized, which means that people come to a particular conclusion based on their own experiences.
Therefore, when we decode others’ minds, we may emphasize certain features while ignoring others. When we make these judgments about other people’s mental states, we are also interpreting their mental states using our own mental model of others.
Mental state decoding error can lead to disagreements in social interactions and misjudgments about the health status of patients.
This section deals with mental state decoding errors that are a result of inaccurate information. Mental state decoding errors are one of the most common types of mistakes in social interactions as they occur more often than other types of errors.
These types of mistakes are most likely to occur when we have access to incomplete, biased, or inappropriate information.
For example, when people do not have enough information about someone’s past behavior or personality, they may misinterpret their mental states based on their own flawed beliefs about how others should act.
Mental state decoding errors can also be a result of faulty attributions. For instance, when someone believes that others are intimidated or upset by their behavior, they may misinterpret their behaviors as due to their mental state rather than their intentions.
Inaccurate information is at the core of many social interactions and can lead to more serious problems in social interactions.
Inaccurate information is most often present in communication between people that are interacting and trying to understand the thoughts of others.
It is also present in interviews with patients during medical consultations and legal proceedings. In social interactions, people often judge the state of others based on their past behavior and their own beliefs about what constitutes appropriate behavior.
For example, if we believe that others should be happy when we are around them, we may misinterpret someone’s facial expressions as anger and act accordingly our own beliefs.
However, if we make a mistake about the mental state of someone else, our actions may be based on faulty information rather than a genuine interpretation of people’s feelings or intentions.
Therefore, when we act on information that is inaccurate, there is a possibility that our actions may cause more harm than good.
Mental state decoding errors can be caused by a variety of reasons but one major reason seems to be the availability heuristic. For example, when people are asked to describe others’ mental states, they tend to use information that is familiar or easily available in their mind.
When people are asked about others’ attitudes, they often make judgments by referring to other contexts or events rather than the present situation.
For example, you might ask someone how they felt about a movie and then judge their response based on your memories of the movie.
Similarly, we may be influenced by the influence of information that is easily accessible in our memory. For instance, when people are asked to describe others’ emotions or intentions we often have information about these topics that is related to recent events or memories.
Therefore, these kinds of mental state judgments are likely to be based on information that is easy to recall. This is known as the availability heuristic.
When people are asked to describe others’ intentions or beliefs in a context that is different from where they are actually situated, they may make vague and inaccurate judgments of mental states.
For example, we may judge someone’s mental state based on past events or what has been said about us. Sometimes, we may incorrectly attribute our own feelings or intentions to others based on their past actions or attitudes rather than using our own information as a basis for judging their mental states.
This type of mental state decoding error can lead to numerous social problems in everyday life as people make erroneous judgments about others’ intentions and feelings.
To conclude, there are several reasons why we make mental state decoding errors. However, the availability heuristic is probably at the core of most errors that occur in social interactions.
Mental state judgments have been shown to be influenced by the availability heuristic, which means that people tend to base their judgments on information that is easy to recall.
Because of this, people may be highly likely to make mistakes when they are asked questions about someone’s mental states because they may not have enough information to accurately describe it.