Persuasive Advertising - J. Scott Armstrong [112]
Consider the impact of expert reviews of Broadway plays. Selecting which play to attend is a high-involvement decision. The target market relies on the reviews of critics from the New York Times and other media in making this decision. Plays that received good reviews enjoyed higher ticket sales than those with poor reviews (e.g., Reddy, Swaminathan, and Motley 1998).
Three lab experiments found that messages from low-credibility sources are more persuasive if the sources are identified as the end of the messages (Greenberg and Miller 1966).
6.8. Comparative advertising
Comparative ads have been traced back to the 1700s in England. However, for a long time they were rarely used because they were considered to be ineffective and unethical—as well as being illegal in some countries. In 1759, Samuel Johnson said, “In an advertisement, it is allowed to every man to speak well of himself, but I know not why he should assume the privilege of censuring his neighbor.” In 1894, a famous advertiser, George P. Roswell, said “Mention the name of a competitor and you advertise him; slander him and you do yourself no end of harm.” As you will see below, the lawmakers and the experts were wrong.
In 1932, the Getchell agency, given the task of introducing a new Chrysler Plymouth model when Ford and Chevrolet were dominating the market, came up with the headline, “Look at all three, and may the best car win!” Chrysler executives were not impressed with the idea of giving attention to competitors. One said, “Why would I want to sell Ford and Chevrolet?” But Walter Chrysler, the owner, overruled them and ran the ad—which challenged the informal ban on comparative advertising. Plymouth’s share of the low-priced automobile market rose from 16 percent in 1932 to 24 percent in 1933 (Fox 1997).
Prior to 1970, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) discouraged comparative advertising. After 1970, the FTC changed its position and began to encourage it. In a 1979 policy statement it said, “Comparative advertising is a source of important information to consumers and assists them in making rational purchase decisions” among alternative brands.
In 1993, the European Common Market lifted restrictions that member countries had placed on comparative advertising and stated:
comparative advertising shall be allowed provided that it objectively compares the material, relevant, verifiable, and fairly chosen features of competing goods or services and that it: (a) does not mislead; (b) does not cause confusion, ... and (c) does not discredit, denigrate, or bring contempt on a competitor.
Comparative advertising grew rapidly once free of government restraints. This is not surprising given its effectiveness for buyers and sellers. In 1973, only about 7 percent of U.S. TV commercials used comparative ads. This jumped to 14 percent in 1980, 23 percent in 1982, to 35 percent in 1984, and to 80 percent in the late 1980s (Pechmann and Stewart 1990). An examination of 949 full-page ads for 12 U.S. magazines, estimated that 20 percent were comparative (Chou, Franke, and Wilcox 1987).
6.8.1. Use comparative advertising for brands that have clear comparative benefits and a small market share.
Comparative advertising is powerful for products with a low market share— such as a new product—and an important comparative advantage that is easy to communicate. This implies that comparative advertising is most effective for high-involvement utilitarian products
In 2007, Apple Inc. had ideal conditions for comparative ads for its computer operating system. It had a small market share for a utilitarian product with important comparative benefits that were easy to communicate—ease of use, service, reliability, and