Interpreting ads with semiotic content analysis- Semiofest 2013- George Rossolatos

629 views

Published on

Interpreting ads with semiotic content analysis- Semiofest 2013- George Rossolatos

rhetor dixit

marketing semiotics

Published in: Technology, Spiritual
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
629
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Interpreting ads with semiotic content analysis- Semiofest 2013- George Rossolatos

  1. 1. //rhetor.dixit//Interpreting advertisementswith semiotic content analysisGeorge Rossolatos, University of Kassel, Germany//disruptiVesemiOtics//
  2. 2. Is structuralist semiotics relevant forinterpreting and constructing advertising texts?From structuralism to deconstruction and backagain“This article introduces the application of deconstruction to consumerresearch by addressing three questions:What is it? How does one do it? What contribution can it make?It examines the key term différance (difference and deference) anddemonstrates the role of deconstructive criticism as an agentprovocateur by presenting interpretations of an advertising exemplar -Joe Camelfrom the perspectives of the New Criticism and structuralism and thenperforming a deconstructive reading that subverts theseinterpretations.”(Barbara Stern (1996) Deconstructive strategy and consumer research: Concepts and illustrativeexemplar. Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (2), pp. 136-147] //rhetor.dixit//“This article introduces the application of deconstruction to consumerresearch by addressing three questions:What is it? How does one do it? What contribution can it make?It examines the key term différance (difference and deference) anddemonstrates the role of deconstructive criticism as an agentprovocateur by presenting interpretations of an advertising exemplar -Joe Camelfrom the perspectives of the New Criticism and structuralism and thenperforming a deconstructive reading that subverts theseinterpretations.”(Barbara Stern (1996) Deconstructive strategy and consumer research: Concepts and illustrativeexemplar. Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (2), pp. 136-147]
  3. 3. From structuralism to deconstruction and back againDeconstructionist argument:- Over-reliance on oppositional thinking.- As against deconstructionism that puts in the heart of a reading strategythe "playful movement that produces the effects of différance“.Structuralist answer:- The criticism reflects only one aspect of a structuralist approach tosignification, that is the depth level organization of discourse. But even in thiscase, Greimas was explicit that figurative modes of connectivity cut across theentire trajectory of signification.- Greimas neither underplayed the importance of ‘playful discourse’, as theeffect of rhetorical tropes on a surface discursive level, nor the impact ofrhetoric on the metalinguistic organization of a text.- He actively sought to account for the ‘vast distance’ that sets apart (andunites at the same time) figurative discourse from an elementary structure ofsignification.- Derrida’s deconstructive strategy addressed structuralism by recourse tofounding figures, such as Saussure and Levi-Strauss, while being largelyoblivious to Greimas.//rhetor.dixit//Structuralist answer:- The criticism reflects only one aspect of a structuralist approach tosignification, that is the depth level organization of discourse. But even in thiscase, Greimas was explicit that figurative modes of connectivity cut across theentire trajectory of signification.- Greimas neither underplayed the importance of ‘playful discourse’, as theeffect of rhetorical tropes on a surface discursive level, nor the impact ofrhetoric on the metalinguistic organization of a text.- He actively sought to account for the ‘vast distance’ that sets apart (andunites at the same time) figurative discourse from an elementary structure ofsignification.- Derrida’s deconstructive strategy addressed structuralism by recourse tofounding figures, such as Saussure and Levi-Strauss, while being largelyoblivious to Greimas.
  4. 4. From structuralism to deconstruction and back againStructuralist answer:- This criticism reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of Greimasianstructuralism, that is that structures constitute a self-enclosed language thatis not open to alternative modes of structuration.- On the contrary, Greimas (and Rastier, Fontanille among others) haveemphasized extensively that different interpretations may be produced from asurface discursive text, which lead to pluri-isotopies or different andsimultaneously operative structures of semantic coherence.- It is specific ways of framing the organization of surface discourse thatproduce self-enclosed linguistic structures and not an absolute reduction ofsurface discourse to such and such structures.- what Stern essentially affords by pursuing a deconstructive reading of themeaning of ‘Camel’ , which is edified on an inherent undecidability, is not a criticismof structuralism, but a proliferating opening-up of semiotic structures to ever newinterpretive possibilities.- For Greimas, structures are constraining metalinguistically, and not as directand immutable reflections of surface discourse.- Hence, playfulness is recognized, but it is reduced for the sake of managingtexts as structures of invariable elements beneath the variable expressiveunits that make up surface discourse.Deconstructionist argument:Deconstructive readings shatter the structuralist system of self-enclosedlanguage, rendering futile the possibility of unity as the end of critical inquiry.//rhetor.dixit//Structuralist answer:- This criticism reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of Greimasianstructuralism, that is that structures constitute a self-enclosed language thatis not open to alternative modes of structuration.- On the contrary, Greimas (and Rastier, Fontanille among others) haveemphasized extensively that different interpretations may be produced from asurface discursive text, which lead to pluri-isotopies or different andsimultaneously operative structures of semantic coherence.- It is specific ways of framing the organization of surface discourse thatproduce self-enclosed linguistic structures and not an absolute reduction ofsurface discourse to such and such structures.- what Stern essentially affords by pursuing a deconstructive reading of themeaning of ‘Camel’ , which is edified on an inherent undecidability, is not a criticismof structuralism, but a proliferating opening-up of semiotic structures to ever newinterpretive possibilities.- For Greimas, structures are constraining metalinguistically, and not as directand immutable reflections of surface discourse.- Hence, playfulness is recognized, but it is reduced for the sake of managingtexts as structures of invariable elements beneath the variable expressiveunits that make up surface discourse.
  5. 5. From structuralism to deconstruction and back againMarketing semiotic answer:- This corpus of texts is utterly irrelevant to advertising research.- Does a structuralist grammar and the topological ascription of a textbeneath a text involve metaphysics for Greimas? NOT AT ALL- Derrida’s critique of the metaphysics of presence, launched againsttraditional philosophical texts, has a completely different focus and field ofapplication than the Greimasian notion of depth structures (which are utterlydiscrepant with Chomskyan innatism, that posits that depth structures areinnate in the human mind).- The stratagem of différance that consists in laying bare how difference anddeference are responsible for structuring a philosophical text that is edifiedon a metaphysics of presence is not relevant for interpreting and constructingadvertising texts.- If we are not concerned with the ‘ontology’ of an ad text, but with‘pragmatic criteria’ about its structuration, then deference is nothing but asimple cataphora, that is verbal expressions or visuals that anticipate theirsubject.Deconstructionist argument:Deconstructive readings focus on laying bare the so-called metaphysics ofpresence behind traditional philosophical texts in the Western tradition.“There is no real end to mythologicalanalysis, no hidden unity to be graspedonce the breaking-down process has beencompleted. Themes can be split up adInfinitum” (Levi-Strauss)//rhetor.dixit//Marketing semiotic answer:- This corpus of texts is utterly irrelevant to advertising research.- Does a structuralist grammar and the topological ascription of a textbeneath a text involve metaphysics for Greimas? NOT AT ALL- Derrida’s critique of the metaphysics of presence, launched againsttraditional philosophical texts, has a completely different focus and field ofapplication than the Greimasian notion of depth structures (which are utterlydiscrepant with Chomskyan innatism, that posits that depth structures areinnate in the human mind).- The stratagem of différance that consists in laying bare how difference anddeference are responsible for structuring a philosophical text that is edifiedon a metaphysics of presence is not relevant for interpreting and constructingadvertising texts.- If we are not concerned with the ‘ontology’ of an ad text, but with‘pragmatic criteria’ about its structuration, then deference is nothing but asimple cataphora, that is verbal expressions or visuals that anticipate theirsubject.
  6. 6. From structuralism to deconstruction and back againDeconstructionist argument:Différance is Derridas recommended strategy for disassembling hierarchies ofsubmission (e.g., male / female, presence/absence) that permeate all texts,including those pertinent to consumer research.Structuralist answer: If this the case, based on Stern’s reading of différance,then the hermeneutic task of deconstructionism is in fact the same asstructuralism (in its traditional form), that is discerning underlying oppositionalpairs (e.g., male/female) beneath surface discourse and exploring how thesepairs are semantically invested with a given axiology.//rhetor.dixit//Structuralist answer: If this the case, based on Stern’s reading of différance,then the hermeneutic task of deconstructionism is in fact the same asstructuralism (in its traditional form), that is discerning underlying oppositionalpairs (e.g., male/female) beneath surface discourse and exploring how thesepairs are semantically invested with a given axiology.
  7. 7. Deconstructionist argument: Derrida argues against all binary thinking, forinstead of accepting the structuralist notion that "X is the opposite of Y," heproposes a doubled elaboration in which "X is added to Y" and "X replaces Y”.From structuralism to deconstruction and back againStructuralist answer:- It seems that the fundamental logical relations that underpin the semioticsquare have slipped from this paradigmatic opposition.- The starting point for constructing a semiotic square is not object-terms ina logical relation of contradiction, but of contrariety, that is quasi-opposition.- In applied branding terms, a pair of contrariety may involve two semic termsthat are posited as contrary within the contours of an elementary structure,e.g., ready-to-cook vs preparation-intensive.- A strict oppositional pair would be ready-to-cook vs not ready-to-cook,which does not necessarily involve intensive preparation.- Then, the criticism that X may not be Y (for structuralism) does not hold,as a provision has been made in the square for the possibility of X’s being Yin the neutral zone of a square, which unites the strict opposites of the twoterms of an elementary contrariety pair.//rhetor.dixit//Structuralist answer:- It seems that the fundamental logical relations that underpin the semioticsquare have slipped from this paradigmatic opposition.- The starting point for constructing a semiotic square is not object-terms ina logical relation of contradiction, but of contrariety, that is quasi-opposition.- In applied branding terms, a pair of contrariety may involve two semic termsthat are posited as contrary within the contours of an elementary structure,e.g., ready-to-cook vs preparation-intensive.- A strict oppositional pair would be ready-to-cook vs not ready-to-cook,which does not necessarily involve intensive preparation.- Then, the criticism that X may not be Y (for structuralism) does not hold,as a provision has been made in the square for the possibility of X’s being Yin the neutral zone of a square, which unites the strict opposites of the twoterms of an elementary contrariety pair.
  8. 8. Semiotic squareSS1 S2contrarietydeixisdeixis//rhetor.dixit//SS2 S1---- : relationship between contrary terms: relationship between contradictory terms----------- : relationship of implicationdeixisdeixisNEUTRAL ZONE
  9. 9. Argument: A structuralist reading focuses on a set of binaries, for differencein space rather than deference in time motivates the analysis.Stern’s ‘structuralist’ reading of Joe CamelAnswer: This conflates surface with depth structures in a structuralistreading. Even though ‘deference’ is hardly an issue for advertising discourse(as against philosophical texts, where it may be used as an argument), ‘time’ isa facet of a structuralist reading, especially as regards the temporalreconstruction of a surface text at the semio-narrative level.Moreover, binary structures in terms of surface discourse consist ofreductionist reading grids for organizing expressive elements (e.g. Floch). Suchreading grids may involve temporal variables with regard to ad texts, especiallyin the context of the moving image.//rhetor.dixit//Answer: This conflates surface with depth structures in a structuralistreading. Even though ‘deference’ is hardly an issue for advertising discourse(as against philosophical texts, where it may be used as an argument), ‘time’ isa facet of a structuralist reading, especially as regards the temporalreconstruction of a surface text at the semio-narrative level.Moreover, binary structures in terms of surface discourse consist ofreductionist reading grids for organizing expressive elements (e.g. Floch). Suchreading grids may involve temporal variables with regard to ad texts, especiallyin the context of the moving image.
  10. 10. Argument: A finite set of binaries in the Camel cigarette advertisementis identified: margin / text, human / animal and male / female, inaccordance with socially constructed hierarchies of representation,morality, and gender, characteristically found in Western culturalartifacts.Stern’s ‘structuralist’ reading of Joe CamelAnswer:- Binary structures in terms of depth grammar consist of semioticsquares for reducing the semantic content of expressive elements.- There is no ‘pre-determination’ in the number and sort of semesthat may enter semiotic squares.- The example of ‘socially accepted relations’ offered by Greimas inthe original exposition of the semiotic square did not seek to avoid‘critical readings’ of widely held cultural oppositions, but to plot thedepth structure of ordinary discursive formations.//rhetor.dixit//Answer:- Binary structures in terms of depth grammar consist of semioticsquares for reducing the semantic content of expressive elements.- There is no ‘pre-determination’ in the number and sort of semesthat may enter semiotic squares.- The example of ‘socially accepted relations’ offered by Greimas inthe original exposition of the semiotic square did not seek to avoid‘critical readings’ of widely held cultural oppositions, but to plot thedepth structure of ordinary discursive formations.
  11. 11. Floch’s commutation testvisual dimension of theadvertisementslinguistic dimension of theadvertisementscompositionwithregularity indominanceocclusiveconsonantscompositionwithirregularity indominancevsorchromatismby leaps andboundschromatismby degreesorconstrictiveconsonantsvsdiscontinuity continuityexpression//rhetor.dixit//discontinuity continuity/identity/ /alterity/vspersonaldiscoursepermanenceof thenewspaperseditorialchoicephotographsdiscourseof othersdaily frontpagesthe shotsbrought ineventsvsvsvsvsororororinitiative fora breakparticipation in the rushvscontent
  12. 12. Answer: According to Greimasian structuralism, there is no such thingas one and only possible interpretation of a text. If this is the case,then what is proposed as a deconstructive ‘alternative’ readingstrategy is in fact the same with traditional structuralist readings. Inthis sense, what Stern essentially affords by pursuing adeconstructive reading of the meaning of ‘Camel’ , which is edified onan inherent undecidability, is not a criticism of structuralism, but aproliferating opening-up of semiotic structures to ever newinterpretive possibilities.Argument: A deconstructive reading undoes all of the above byoffering multiple and divergent interpretive possibilities.Stern’s ‘alternative’ deconstructive reading of Joe CamelAnswer: According to Greimasian structuralism, there is no such thingas one and only possible interpretation of a text. If this is the case,then what is proposed as a deconstructive ‘alternative’ readingstrategy is in fact the same with traditional structuralist readings. Inthis sense, what Stern essentially affords by pursuing adeconstructive reading of the meaning of ‘Camel’ , which is edified onan inherent undecidability, is not a criticism of structuralism, but aproliferating opening-up of semiotic structures to ever newinterpretive possibilities.//rhetor.dixit//
  13. 13. From structuralism to deconstruction and back again Occasionally, new paradigms that seethe into marketinginterpretivism enforce a judgmental, rather than criticalreevaluation of existing ones, such as claiming thatdeconstructionist readings may unearth facets in advertisinganalysis, which have been suppressed by structuralism. As Frank remarks, post or neo-structuralism essentiallyafforded to open up the concept of structure, rather thanreveal ‘suppressed meanings’.//rhetor.dixit// Occasionally, new paradigms that seethe into marketinginterpretivism enforce a judgmental, rather than criticalreevaluation of existing ones, such as claiming thatdeconstructionist readings may unearth facets in advertisinganalysis, which have been suppressed by structuralism. As Frank remarks, post or neo-structuralism essentiallyafforded to open up the concept of structure, rather thanreveal ‘suppressed meanings’.
  14. 14. The value of structuralist semiotics in interpreting andconstructing ad texts Offers reading grids for the systematic transcoding andinscription of surface discourse. But also a generativist pathway for the organization ofbrand meaning at a deep semantic level. It combines the ‘logical’ with the ‘figurative’. Structures constitute first and foremost spaces ab quothat allow for the situational production and management ofmeaning, rather than an attempt at bringing forward‘archetypical’ and ‘innate’ values.//rhetor.dixit// Offers reading grids for the systematic transcoding andinscription of surface discourse. But also a generativist pathway for the organization ofbrand meaning at a deep semantic level. It combines the ‘logical’ with the ‘figurative’. Structures constitute first and foremost spaces ab quothat allow for the situational production and management ofmeaning, rather than an attempt at bringing forward‘archetypical’ and ‘innate’ values.
  15. 15. Structuralist language is employed throughout standardmarketing terminology and adjacent fields(e.g. discourse analysis) Kevin Lane Keller: Brand knowledge structureTeun A. Van Dijk: macrostructures, microstructures,surface structures, superstructural narrative schemaBrandAwarenessBrand RecallAttributesProductrelatedNon productrelatedPriceUser/usageimageryBrandpersonalityFeelings andexperiencesFunctional//rhetor.dixit// Kevin Lane Keller: Brand knowledge structureTeun A. Van Dijk: macrostructures, microstructures,surface structures, superstructural narrative schemaBrandKnowledgeBrand ImageBrandRecognitionTypes ofbrandassociationFavorabilityUniquenessStrengthBenefitsAttitudesFunctionalExperientialSymbolic
  16. 16. But structures do not ‘have’ to be binary:The connectionist approach to the brand trajectory ofsignification (Rossolatos 2012)adjunction Semicmolecule 2Key actorialfiguresubstitutionThematicisotopy//rhetor.dixit//FilmicsequenceSemicmolecule 1adjunctionProductshotSemicmolecule 2substitutionadjunctionStylisticisotopy
  17. 17. Local ad textual structure=Systematic organization of figurative meaningFigurativemarkersFigurativerelataAd text//rhetor.dixit//FigurativemarkersFigurativerelataAd text
  18. 18. Figurative markers as components of ad textual coherenceIn advertising discourse, a logo, a product-shot or anendorser as key actorial figure, constitute figurativemarkers, as minimal units of signification.The same holds for key visuals that are juxtaposedthrough continuity editing techniques, e.g., two heterogeneoussettings through montage. There is no ‘single way’ of delimiting figurative markersas minimal units of ad textual coherence.A minimal unit may be anything, based on the context thatis used for delimitation, from a subatomic particle of a lineup to an entire text.A minimal unit is defined by pragmatic criteria in terms oftextual encoding and by assumptions about the mode of atext’s decoding (principle of pertinence).//rhetor.dixit//In advertising discourse, a logo, a product-shot or anendorser as key actorial figure, constitute figurativemarkers, as minimal units of signification.The same holds for key visuals that are juxtaposedthrough continuity editing techniques, e.g., two heterogeneoussettings through montage. There is no ‘single way’ of delimiting figurative markersas minimal units of ad textual coherence.A minimal unit may be anything, based on the context thatis used for delimitation, from a subatomic particle of a lineup to an entire text.A minimal unit is defined by pragmatic criteria in terms oftextual encoding and by assumptions about the mode of atext’s decoding (principle of pertinence).
  19. 19. Figurative markers as parts of an intra-iconic gestaltSpatial juxtaposition+insertion in the temporal order of a brand’sfigurative logic =Iconic similarity among heterogeneous expressiveminimal units How do these units hang together in a brand’sintra-iconic gestalt (Lindekens)?//rhetor.dixit//Spatial juxtaposition+insertion in the temporal order of a brand’sfigurative logic =Iconic similarity among heterogeneous expressiveminimal units How do these units hang together in a brand’sintra-iconic gestalt (Lindekens)?
  20. 20. Reading grids as modes of organizing intra-iconicgestalts It is our reading grid (figurative markers + relata) thatimposes iconic similarity between a visual object and what isiconically represented.Dislocation of a structuralist reading of visual signs from anycontentions about a metaphysics of presence.“This shows the extent to which it is true that a semioticobject, instead of being a given, is the result of the readingthat constructs it” (Greimas).//rhetor.dixit// It is our reading grid (figurative markers + relata) thatimposes iconic similarity between a visual object and what isiconically represented.Dislocation of a structuralist reading of visual signs from anycontentions about a metaphysics of presence.“This shows the extent to which it is true that a semioticobject, instead of being a given, is the result of the readingthat constructs it” (Greimas).
  21. 21. //rhetor.dixit// Accounting for ad textual coherence:From units to relataThe rhetorical semiotic approach of//rhetor.dixit//prioritizes rhetorical markers as the‘figurative glue’of ad textual coherence//rhetor.dixit//The rhetorical semiotic approach of//rhetor.dixit//prioritizes rhetorical markers as the‘figurative glue’of ad textual coherence
  22. 22. //rhetor.dixit//: Semiotic content analysis case-study Sample of 87 TV ad texts from the world’smost valuable brands (based on BrandZ 2012report). A pool of 561 individual ad filmic segments. Extensive analyses of rhetorical semioticstrategies.//rhetor.dixit// Sample of 87 TV ad texts from the world’smost valuable brands (based on BrandZ 2012report). A pool of 561 individual ad filmic segments. Extensive analyses of rhetorical semioticstrategies.
  23. 23. //rhetor.dixit//: Challenging the ‘master tropes’//rhetor.dixit//
  24. 24. //rhetor.dixit// : 3 new figures for unlocking ad texts’rhetorical configurationPareikonopoeia: Employment of similar images with differentsenses; similarity is conferred by the employment ofdifferent actors in different filmic sequences/ syntagms withsimilar postures, usually enhanced by the employment of thesame production techniques (e.g., all syntagms featuringclose-ups or medium shots or alternating close-ups/mediumshots), who repeat the same underlying theme underdifferent manifest narratives.//rhetor.dixit//Pareikonopoeia: Employment of similar images with differentsenses; similarity is conferred by the employment ofdifferent actors in different filmic sequences/ syntagms withsimilar postures, usually enhanced by the employment of thesame production techniques (e.g., all syntagms featuringclose-ups or medium shots or alternating close-ups/mediumshots), who repeat the same underlying theme underdifferent manifest narratives.
  25. 25. pareikonopoeia
  26. 26. //rhetor.dixit// : 3 new figures for unlocking ad texts’rhetorical configurationAccolorance: Repetition of the same color in the majority ofvisuals in a filmic syntagm or across syntagms. Usuallyemployed with view to highlighting either a color that is partof a brand’s visual identity or of an ad film’s aestheticorientation.//rhetor.dixit//
  27. 27. accolorance//rhetor.dixit//
  28. 28. //rhetor.dixit// : 3 new figures for unlocking ad texts’rhetorical configurationReshaption: Repetition of the same shape in the majority ofvisuals in a syntagm or across syntagms.//rhetor.dixit//
  29. 29. reshaption//rhetor.dixit//
  30. 30. //rhetor.dixit// : The benefits from using contentanalysis with semioticsQuantified view of modes of ad textualconfiguration, rather than just speculationSystematic organization of a large corpus ofmultimodal surface discourses, which is untenablethrough manual reading/coding proceduresDetailed focus on ad filmic syntagms, ratherthan treating the entire ad film as a standaloneunit of analysis//rhetor.dixit//Quantified view of modes of ad textualconfiguration, rather than just speculationSystematic organization of a large corpus ofmultimodal surface discourses, which is untenablethrough manual reading/coding proceduresDetailed focus on ad filmic syntagms, ratherthan treating the entire ad film as a standaloneunit of analysis
  31. 31. The benefits from using //rhetor.dixit//Traditional copy strategies assume as their point ofdeparture figurative markers (settings, actors, garments)//rhetor.dixit// emphasizes figurative relataBy benchmarking brand communications against acompetitive ad textual setting //rhetor.dixit// points toareas for building a first mover figurative advantageBy analyzing and interpreting not only the incidence ofindividual figures, but even more importantly ofconfigurations, that is combinations of figures that areresponsible for a brand’s textualization//rhetor.dixit//Traditional copy strategies assume as their point ofdeparture figurative markers (settings, actors, garments)//rhetor.dixit// emphasizes figurative relataBy benchmarking brand communications against acompetitive ad textual setting //rhetor.dixit// points toareas for building a first mover figurative advantageBy analyzing and interpreting not only the incidence ofindividual figures, but even more importantly ofconfigurations, that is combinations of figures that areresponsible for a brand’s textualization
  32. 32. The benefits from using //rhetor.dixit// The model is scalable to other vehicles in anIMC mixA whole host of expressive elements (music, voiceover typologies) are quantified with view to yieldinga holistic picture of an ad text’s textualizationRhetorical operations are matched withargumentation strategies and appeals, thus yieldinga semiotic rhetorical cartography of advertisingcommunications//rhetor.dixit// The model is scalable to other vehicles in anIMC mixA whole host of expressive elements (music, voiceover typologies) are quantified with view to yieldinga holistic picture of an ad text’s textualizationRhetorical operations are matched withargumentation strategies and appeals, thus yieldinga semiotic rhetorical cartography of advertisingcommunications
  33. 33. preview //rhetor.dixit// @http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2251819contact∞grosolatos123@myway.com∞disruptivesemiotics@myway.comhttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2251819contact∞grosolatos123@myway.com∞disruptivesemiotics@myway.com//rhetor.dixit//
  34. 34. //rhetor.dixit//by //disruptiVesemiOtics//
  35. 35. Download paper from the 42ndEuropean Marketing AcademyProceedings (EMAC) @http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2257483ISBN: 978-1481843157Release date: 2012Pages: 270Available at: http://www.amazon.com/dp/148184315X
  36. 36. www.ijmarketingsemiotics.com

×