Persuasive Advertising - J. Scott Armstrong [47]
2.1.1. Provide a reason
Ads that give the viewer a reason are more persuasive. And why not? We like to know why we should buy a given product. Bose Wave radio ads provide a reason why Bose radios sound good—“patented acoustic waveguide speaker technology.”
In general, the reasons provided should be relevant and logical. However, in the case of convenience goods or small donations, even an odd or illogical reason could be persuasive. For example, in the early 1900s, Quaker implied that its Puffed Rice product was good because it was “Shot from guns.” Odd though it is, the reason is true, and it apparently worked.
In the late 1990s, Waitrose, a U.K. supermarket chain, was perceived as expensive. In surveys, customers said, “You always end up spending more there.” In actuality, Waitrose matched prices on items sold in other stores. Rather than making this claim, it decided to advertise reasons why some of its items were more expensive. For example, it aired a TV commercial showing a cod-boat fishing in rough seas. The voice-over said, “We will never ever buy fish unless it achieves at least eight out of ten on the Torry Institute scales of freshness and quality. Waitrose. Quality food, honestly priced.” Statistical analyses showed that the campaign was a huge success and it was an IPA award winner (Rimini 2003).
Frank Perdue used this principle effectively in his ad:
My chickens eat better than you do. The problem with you is that you’re allowed to eat whatever you want. My chickens eat what I give them. And I only give them the best. Their diet consists mainly of pure yellow corn, soybean meal, marigold petals—you’d call it health food. … If you want to start eating as good as my chickens, take a tip from me. Eat my chickens.
This principle is in agreement with courteous behavior in everyday interactions—and with received wisdom among advertisers. Furthermore, it is common practice in advertising to provide reasons. For example, our WAPB analysis found that of the 480 full-page print ads, 71 percent provided reasons.
Evidence on the effects of reasons
In a field experiment in the 1980s, a research collaborator approached a person who had just put a page on a copy machine but had not yet deposited money. Three questions were asked (randomly assigned to people):
1. “Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine?”
2. “Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine, because I’m in a rush?”
3. “Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine, because I have to make copies?”
When no reason was given (number 1 above), 60 percent agreed to let the person go ahead. When the reason was given about being in a rush (number 2), 94 percent said to go ahead, and when the silly reason was given (number 3), 93 percent said to go ahead. Why so high for the silly reason? For low-involvement decisions such as this, the subjects did not think carefully about the reason (Langer, Blank, and Chanowitz 1988).
In another experiment, subjects were given a choice between two Emerson television sets. The price of the standard set was $229, while the bargain set was $129. When no reason was given, people were uncertain why the bargain price was so much lower, so only 24 percent chose the cheaper set. But when other randomly selected subjects were given the same choice along with a reason, “You immediately notice that there is a long scratch on the side (decorative) panel,” they chose the less expensive TV set 53 percent of the time. The reason eliminated uncertainty (Simonson, Carmon, and O’Curry 1994).
Our analysis of quasi-experimental data found that reason-why ads aid recall:
Print ads with a “reason why” had better recall. Our WAPB analysis found 37 pairs of print ads in which one ad offered a relevant reason to buy the product while the other ad offered no reason. For example, a Polaroid camera ad claiming that the camera’s “tiny flatter flash helps