Persuasive Advertising - J. Scott Armstrong [193]
10.4.3. Use short silences before and/or after strong arguments
Keep the silence short, lest the audience drift to other thoughts. How short? About two seconds.
Silence before a key point helps build tension and gain attention for what follows, and silence after a key point allows the audience to think about the message. This conclusion is in accord with responses from 53 creative directors in the United States and Canada (Olsen 1994).
If an advertiser expects resistance to a message that is clearly in the interest of customers (e.g., an anti-smoking message), consider avoiding silence after a strong claim in order to reduce counter-arguments.
Evidence on using short silences before and after strong arguments
In a lab experiment, 409 subjects were presented with five radio ads about cellphones—a relatively new product to U.S. customers at the time. Backgrounds of either silence or music were inserted between information about three features: price, free activation, and voice mail. The normal pause between items (where an item may be one or more words) is .25 seconds. Either silence or music for intervals of zero, one, two, or three seconds was added to the normal pause. Recall was highest when the silence was about two seconds or slightly less. However, when the silence exceeded two seconds, recall was diminished. In a related experiment, 81 subjects were annoyed by a three-second silence; they reported a much higher likelihood of thinking about “things unrelated to the advertisement.” Distraction was less pronounced for three seconds of music (Olsen 1997).
In an earlier lab experiment using 144 subjects with the same materials as in the preceding paragraph, subjects who heard silence right before the key information recalled 44 percent of this information, whereas those who just heard music throughout the ad recalled only 15 percent. Silence had the greatest effect when used to highlight the last item in a series (Olsen 1995).
10.4.4. Hold scenes to hold attention
Hold a scene to keep the viewers’ attention for something important. Said another way, it is important to avoid frequent scene shifts for high-involvement products when strong arguments exist. Scene cuts are disruptive.
Interestingly, frequent shifts in scenes have become more common over time. Shot-lengths in 30-second commercials decreased from 3.6 seconds from 1978 through 1980, to 2.3 seconds for 1989 through 1991. Over this 11-year period, the number of camera angles increased from 8.4 to 13 (MacLachlan and Logan 1993).
Evidence on the effects of scene length
In a lab experiment, 36 subjects were presented with six slow-paced TV commercials (average of 2.2 cuts in 30 seconds) and six fast-paced commercials (15.8 cuts in 30 seconds). While the fast-paced ads attracted more attention, the subjects recalled only about three-quarters as many claims as the subjects shown the slow-paced commercials (Bolls and Muehling 2003).
In a lab experiment using TV advertisements for political candidates, fast cuts inhibited recall of the information in the ads (Geiger and Reeves 1991).
A lab experiment with 195 subjects tested animation in two Internet ads. Subjects were in one of three treatments related to banner ads: static, moderate animation, or fast animation. Animation led to higher click-through intention rates. While faster animation in banner ads attracted more attention, it led to irritation and to more negative thoughts than did slower animation (Yoo and Kim 2005).
Turning to non-experimental data on TV commercials, a high number of scene cuts (over 25) harmed recall (24 percent lower than the average for this Ipsos ASI sample) and persuasion (13 percent below average). In addition, commercials rated as having high “visual complexity, motion, or abstraction” were lower on recall (15 percent below average) and persuasion at 9 percent below average (Walker 2008).
Commercials with more scenes (more “cuts”) had lower comprehension than those with fewer cuts. This was based on an analysis