Persuasive Advertising - J. Scott Armstrong [118]
Evidence on the effects of refutation
Politicians who defended themselves by directly refuting attack ads suffered a smaller drop in voter intentions than those who did not defend. This finding was obtained in a lab experiment involving 274 subjects. Direct refutation also lowered intentions to vote for the candidate who launched the initial attack (Roddy and Garramone 1988).
With respect to the value of delegating authority to an impartial third party, three lab experiments showed that the voluntary delegation of authority led to more trust than when oversight was imposed on the organization (Nakayachi and Watabe 2005).
A lab experiment used ads from a 1982 campaign for a U.S. Senate seat in Montana. TV attack ads with no rebuttal were shown to 112 subjects, while 59 saw the same ads followed by rebuttals. The latter subjects were less likely than the former to vote for the candidate who had launched the attack (Garramone 1985).
A survey of 150 political consultants found agreement that political candidates should respond to negative ads by opponents (Perloff and Kinsey 1992).
6.11. Puffery
Promise, large promise, is the soul of an advertisement.
Samuel Johnson, mid-1700s
Puffery is an exaggerated claim that is presented without support. Many restaurants claim to serve the “best food in town,” Bayer sells “the world’s best aspirin,” Hush Puppies are “the earth’s most comfortable shoes.” “Shop here and your life will be a joy forever,” according to a sign over Bésame Mucho, a gift shop in Key West, Florida.
Ads can be viewed as promises or claims for a product; therefore, it is important to phrase puffery claims carefully. For example, say, “some graduates of our business school program have started at over $200,000 per year,” rather than, “you will earn over $200,000 per year after taking our program.” In making such claims, advertisers must ensure that the puffery is not misleading in important ways.
Companies sometimes challenge the use of puffery by their competitors. For example, in the late 1990s, Pizza Hut sued Papa John’s for claiming “better ingredients, better pizza.” The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused to overturn the judgment that favored Papa John’s. Although Papa John’s prevailed, lawsuits can be expensive.
Consumers have not been very successful in suing for puffery. For example, a consumer tried to sue American Honda Motors because, contrary to its claim, he did not meet the nicest people while driving around in his Honda Civic automobile.
A mid-1990’s revision to the U.S. Uniform Commercial Code helped advertisers by switching the burden of proof to consumers when they take advertising puffery as promises (Ross 1996). Still, in 2007, an individual sued a dry cleaner in Washington, D.C. for $54 million because he was not satisfied with the $10.50 alteration of his suit pants, claiming he did not get his original pants back. The sign said “Satisfaction guaranteed” and he was not satisfied. (The $54 million was based on a government formula for computing damages.) The Chungs, owners of the dry cleaners, won this “pants-suit,” but went out of business as a result of the legal costs.
Puffery has been a staple of advertising. It was widely used in the early 1800s in advertisements for patent medicines.