Persuasive Advertising - J. Scott Armstrong [124]
This principle has a long history. For example, a 1925 ad for Packard automobiles said: “Ask the man who owns one.”
Evidence on the effects of telling others about a message
In four lab experiments, over 500 subjects read an essay about using leisure time more purposefully. One-third were asked to prepare to tell others about the message; another one-third were asked to prepare to receive more information regarding the topic; the rest were merely asked to read the essay. Subjects who expected to tell others changed their attitudes more frequently; furthermore, the change was still apparent when measured 8 to 20 weeks later (Boninger et al. 1990).
6.17. Call for action
The use of action steps was frowned upon in the late 1800s. However, in the early 1900s, Walter Dill Scott claimed that people are more likely to respond to a specific command than a vague one; therefore, he recommended the use of direct-response forms. He said, “The command relieves the one commanded from the trouble of making up his mind. It makes up his mind for him, and so makes action easy.” An early field experiment showed that the use of a response form in a print ad doubled returns when compared with a print ad that contained the same information but no response form (Starch 1914).
Some advertisers resist action steps. In its 1992 campaign proposal for Subaru cars, the Wieden & Kennedy ad agency did not include a call for action. Members of the agency’s creative team believed that they were abandoning their art when they reluctantly gave in to the client and agreed to include a toll-free telephone number, which they regarded as one of those gimmicks used by the “big boring agencies in New York” (Rothenberg 1994, p. 339).
The call for action is especially important for high-involvement products. Advertisements for low-involvement goods often do not have a strong need for an action step because the subsequent action step is obvious.
The action step is important, yet many large corporations use action steps that infuriate me—and perhaps others. Here is an example. In February 2005, I received a mail offer for a low monthly rate from a wireless telephone company. The offer included an invitation to call about this new rate, so I decided to do so. Here was the process I encountered:
1. Small font (8-point) was used to list a number of exceptions to the offer.
2. No telephone number was provided, but I finally found one.
3. When I called, I was put into an infuriating voice mail system.
4. While I waited, a quiet recorded voice told me how much the company valued my business and how it never stopped working for me. It also blared out annoying ads.
5. I turned down the volume of the ads on the phone. A long wait ensued. Then silence. NO! It was the quiet voice of an agent, and I almost lost my chance to ask about the offer for the lower price. However, because I was one of the company’s “valued customers,” I was not eligible; it was only for new customers.
Our WAPB analysis found that of 480 print ads, only 24 percent provided action steps.
6.17.1. Ensure action steps are clear and specific
The call for action should be clear and specific, though not necessarily strong.
When customers see an ad, they should know what action is desired. In many situations, that action will be obvious. However, advertisers should not assume that customers will figure this out. Thus, it is often desirable for an ad to suggest a clear and specific action step. This apparently worked for Coke in its “Drink Coca-Cola” ads that ran from 1917 to 1951.
The action step should attract attention. This is especially important for low-involvement products. For example, in a still ad, the action step could be placed within a box or in reverse print, or a marker could be placed in the margin. In a radio