Persuasive Advertising - J. Scott Armstrong [115]
The FTC does not call for higher standards of proof for comparative advertising than for non-comparative advertising. In fact, its 1979 policy statement wrote, “industry codes and interpretations that impose a higher standard of substantiation for comparative claims than for unilateral claims are inappropriate.” Nevertheless, the level of vigilance will be higher for comparative ads; competitors that fare poorly might take legal action if the comparisons cannot be supported.
Departures from fact-based comparative ads also entail legal risks, as these examples show. In 2004, Johnson & Johnson, makers of dental floss, successfully sued Pfizer for advertising that mouthwash was as effective as flossing. When Grey Goose vodka continued to claim that its vodka was rated by customers as “best-tasting,” although more recent tests had shown that the claim was no longer true, one of its competitors sued for false advertising.
The American Association of Advertising Agencies states that “The intent and connotation of the ad should be to inform and never to discredit or unfairly attack competitors, competing products, or services.” The key word here is “unfairly.”
Consider two-sided arguments in the comparisons. A product does not need to be better on all features. Tell the good and the bad. This will add to believability and contribute to a sense of fairness.
Evidence on the effects of comparative claims
Comparative advertising needs objective support. It had no effect on purchase intentions in five experiments in which the comparisons lacked factual evidence (Grewal et al. 1997).
To test the value of being gentle and positive, an experiment used print ads that promoted one of two fictional brands of jeans. Replies were obtained from 201 customers at a shopping mall, each of whom saw one of four ads. Those who saw a positive ad rated it as much more believable, had a more positive attitude toward the brand, and reported a higher purchase intention (3.9 versus 3.4 on a 1 to 9 scale). Extensions of this experiment using 11 actual ads, all for high-involvement products, added support. Negative comparisons led to lower believability, more perceived bias, more counter-arguments, and lower brand ratings than positive comparisons (Jain and Posavac 2004).
6.9. Negative advertising
Negative advertising differs from comparative advertising in that it provides no information about the product being advertised. It simply discusses the bad aspects of a competitor’s product. The aim is to harm the competitor’s product.
6.9.1. Consider negative advertising when there is only one major alternative to your brand and it has serious shortcomings
In talking about his opponent Catilina, Cicero asked how anyone could be a friend of someone “who has murdered many citizens.” The president of Yale University said that if Thomas Jefferson were elected, “the Bible will be burned … and we may see our wives and daughters the victims of legal prostitution.” Lincoln was attacked as a “liar, thief and buffoon.”
The conditions for negative advertising are often met with respect to political advertising. Negative advertising has long been common in political advertising. For example, more than half of the advertisements for the 1986 U.S. House and Senate races were negative (Johnson-Cartee and Copeland 1989). Negative advertising is most appropriate for political advertising when the race has narrowed to two candidates. It is useful to voters as it leads to a consideration of important shortcomings of the candidates.
By saying detrimental things about a competitor, it might be possible to reduce peoples’ interest in that competitor. This would be of little benefit