Persuasive Advertising - J. Scott Armstrong [13]
Advertising can be used to maintain loyalty by encouraging customers to resist switching to a competitive product. The notion of building brand loyalty was popular in the early 1900s and has grown substantially since then (Pope 1983). A Tareyton cigarette campaign of the 1960s, “I’d rather fight than switch,” illustrates this type of advertising.
Much advertising is done to help customers feel better after they have made a purchase. It can provide reassurance that the purchase was a good one. It can also help manage customer expectations regarding the benefits offered because customers often overestimate the pleasure they will receive from new purchases.
Advertising can also produce benefits for employees. For example, consumer banking revenues at the Halifax, one of Britain’s largest banks, had been slipping during the 1997–2000 period. To let customers know about its benefits (higher interest rates and friendly service) and to motivate its employees, the bank involved its employees in a “Staff as Stars” ad campaign. Over 1,000 employees auditioned for parts in the ads, and the bank built the campaign around 20 finalists. The campaign, which won an IPA Effectiveness Award, motivated employees and attracted new business (Rimini 2003).
When the ultimate objectives are specified, one can then specify relevant sub-objectives. This process requires much care and thought because managers have a tendency to inject sub-objectives that are not relevant to the ultimate objectives.
Do not confuse strategies with objectives. Unfortunately, statements of objectives for advertising campaigns often focus on strategies, such as increasing awareness or informing people about a new feature. Some managers are more comfortable specifying how to do tasks than explaining why the task needs to be done. In World War II, Willy Messerschmitt, the German aircraft designer, put this issue perfectly: “You can have any combination of features the Air Ministry desires, so long as you do not also require that the resulting airplane fly.”
Likeable ads represent a strategy, not an objective. While many successful ads are likeable, many are not. For example, comparative ads and those based on fear, guilt, or provocation are sometimes very effective though not likeable. Because of its potential misuse as an objective, my advice is that advertisers should not ask whether customers or experts or clients like an ad. This conflicts with current practice. A U.S. survey showed that 73 percent of advertisers and 53 percent of advertising agencies use ad likeability as an objective (Cook and Dunn 1996). The Advertising Research Foundation claimed that ad likeability is the single best copy-test predictor of campaign success. However, I have not been able to find experimental evidence to support this belief (nor were Bergkvist and Rossiter 2008). The value of ad likeability is conditional on the situation, and it makes no sense to use likeability as an objective. Rosser Reeves said, “Liking be damned.”
In discussing objectives, The Handbook of Advertising advised that, “Establishing market share and increasing market share, then, are the 21st century touchstones by which a company gauges the effectiveness of its advertising” (Lewis and Nelson 1999, p. 172). But is market share relevant as an objective in business? Consider the following situation:
You are the marketing manager of a manufacturing firm known as “Big Guys Incorporated.” You are responsible for all marketing decisions and strategies, including the pricing structure of the firm’s products.
Recently your company introduced a new, highly technical product, and you have been asked to set the pricing strategy for this product. You are aware that your main competitor,