Persuasive Advertising - J. Scott Armstrong [163]
An eye-tracking study included an ad, either in color or B&W, on each of the 96 pages of six 16-page dummy newspapers. Color increased unprompted recall of the advertiser’s name by 53 percent and purchase intentions by 10 percent (Chisholm 1995).
In an eye-tracking study, 32 subjects were shown ads for eight product areas in the Yellow Pages and were told that they needed to make a selection from each category. As is typical for the Yellow Pages, the ads were for utilitarian products. Each category comprised 40 listings and eight ads. Subjects noticed more color ads (92 percent versus 84 percent for B&W) and were more likely to look at them first. In addition, they looked at them 21 percent longer (Lohse 1997).
Turning to non-experimental data, a summary of unpublished analyses of data on full-page ads in Dutch magazines led to the conclusion that color ads had 43 percent higher brand identification than B&W ads. There was a 45 percent gain in brand identification for color in full-page ads for major U.S. magazines (Franzen 1994, #4.6).
An analysis of 211 Echo Award entries to the Direct Marketing Association found that those in color produced approximately twice as many responses as the B&W ads (Woodside, Beretich, and Lauricella 1993).
8.8. Humor
When asked which ads they like best, people often mention those with humor. However, they seldom say that the ads alter their purchasing behavior. Moreover, they are sometimes confused about what brand sponsored an ad because the humor overwhelms the message.
Some advertising experts have been critical of the use of humor. Claude Hopkins (1923) wrote, “People do not buy from clowns.” John Caples (1932) said, “Humorous copy, like clever copy, should be avoided by 99 copywriters out of 100.” As I will show, however, humor is helpful for some conditions and harmful for others.
Perhaps the dominant issue with humor is whether or not it is related to the product. In a survey of advertising research and creative directors in 1982, almost 90 percent claimed that humor works best when it is related to the product (Madden and Weinberger 1984). A replication of this survey was conducted 23 years later and the results were virtually identical (Beard 2007).
Do not use humor that might offend potential customers or even non-customers. In addition to reducing sales effectiveness, it could lead to unfavorable press coverage or negative word of mouth. For example, a Miller Lite ad that proved offensive to many people showed two bikini-clad female models in a catfight over whether the beer tastes great or is less filling. In 2005, some advertisers in the beer industry came to the conclusion that crude ads were harming sales.
The following case illustrates the risks involved with the use of humor. Just for Feet, a shoe retailer, was on Fortune’s list of “America’s fastest growing companies” in 1998. Saatchi & Saatchi suggested that the company advertise on the 1999 Super Bowl “to build goodwill nationally.”4 Its commercial, which cost approximately $7 million, showed four military officers in a Humvee as they tracked a barefoot Kenyan runner. They offered him water that they had laced with a knockout drug. When he collapsed, they forced Nikes on his feet. He awakened, was horrified at the sneakers and tried to kick them off. A narrator says, “We’re Just for Feet, to preserve and protect feet.” The ad led to protests that it was racist. Just for Feet tried to distance itself by suing Saatchi & Saatchi for producing a politically incorrect commercial (which Just for Feet had approved prior to its airing). Just for Feet filed for bankruptcy the following November.
Humor is persuasive when the target market does not need much information about the product, and they already have a favorable attitude