Persuasive Advertising - J. Scott Armstrong [117]
In still another lab experiment, 274 undergraduates saw six 30-second commercials for two fictional political candidates. Ads that focused on issues were more effective than emotional ads at reducing those who said they would vote for the target of the ads. Also, in contrast to the emotional ad, the issue ad caused negligible damage to the attacker (Roddy and Garramone 1988).
6.10. Refutation
Refutation is appropriate when an organization has made a mistake. It is also needed when false accusations are made.
Well-respected brands risk extortion from false accusations. People can claim bizarre things about a brand, then offer to “settle.” If the brand does not settle, they threaten to go public, as one woman did in 2005 when claiming to find a human finger in a bowl of Wendy’s chili. In the Wendy’s situation, publicity about the case led to reduced sales and layoffs. In such cases, firms need contingency plans and Wendy’s seemed to have one. It issued statements about how its staff were investigating the situation, and offered a $100,000 reward for information on the origin of the finger. Wendy’s also filed a successful criminal complaint, which led to a jail sentence for the woman who had claimed to find the finger, but who had in fact planted it.
6.10.1. Respond to negative claims that are likely to become widely known
Avis Rental Cars began its “We try harder™” campaign in 1962. The implication was that Hertz takes its customers for granted and does not provide good service. Avis’s market share went from 10 percent to 35 percent over the next few years. Hertz was slow to respond; however, in 1966, it managed to blunt the “We try harder” campaign with a campaign using ads such as:
For years, Avis has been telling you Hertz is No. 1. Now we’re going to tell you why. If you were in the car rental business and you were No. 2 and you had only half as many cars to offer and half as many locations at which to order them, and fewer people to handle everything, what would you say in your advertising? Right—your ashtrays are cleaner.
Another ad used the headline, “No. 2 says he tries harder. Than who?” Hertz then described its benefits without mentioning Avis.
It may be appropriate to challenge the credibility of sources, especially when the source is low-status. People tend to forget the source; therefore, damaging statements from unreliable sources could have an increased impact over time. It might help, then, to remind people that the source was unreliable, as shown in a political-advertising experiment.
Respond to negative claims with well-supported arguments, and ensure that your arguments are clear to others. When addressing false claims about a product, focus on solutions and do not dwell on the claim. McDonald’s was rumored to be using red worm meat in its hamburgers. It was a strange rumor because, at the time, red worms cost five times as much per pound as beef. In response, McDonald’s simply advertised “100 percent beef” (Tybout, Calder, and Sternthal, 1981, describe this and other rumors involving companies).
Preemptive replies are useful for high-involvement products because they help to inoculate people against arguments that might come up in the future. Raise the negative issues and say what you will do about them before an attack is made. In Iraq, when the U.S. military uncovered cases of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, one officer advised going public immediately and telling how the problem was being resolved. Her advice is consistent with the evidence. In addition to gaining credibility, this approach could help prepare people for detrimental news that would be published by other sources. She was overruled.
If an attack threatens the credibility of an organization, consider delegating oversight