Persuasive Advertising - J. Scott Armstrong [54]
Scarcity effects due to a loss of freedom were found in a “natural experiment” in 1972. Because of environmental concerns, the Miami, Florida government prohibited the sale, possession, or use of laundry detergent that contained phosphates. After the ban was implemented, interviews were conducted with housewives in Miami and in Tampa (which had no such law) who had used phosphate laundry detergents during the previous six months. The 76 Miami respondents rated phosphates more highly than the 45 Tampa respondents for each of seven characteristics, such as whiteness and stain removal (Mazis 1975).
In a representative study, 200 subjects were told that the study concerned “your perception of and attitude toward the art print,” and were asked “How expensive do you think art prints generally are?” The subjects then examined photocopies of two art prints identified as “The London Bootblack” and “The Print Collector.” They were told that one was available only from the French museum that owned the original painting, while the other was available from that museum and from “most stores that carry art prints.” Those who believed that the print was scarce rated it as more expensive and more desirable (Lynn 1989).
Mentioning prices in ads could influence perceived quality and thus affect claims of scarcity. In a lab experiment, 171 subjects were given brochures describing a fictitious white wine made from a strain of “Seyval grapes that grow only in the Chateau Pierre vineyards” and claimed to regularly win the “French National Gold Medal for Exquisite Wines.” Half of the brochures in each of the groups stated that the wine was scarce; others said it was abundant. The no-price condition read, “This wine can be purchased at an attractive price.” The price condition read, “This wine can be purchased at the attractive price of $20 per bottle” (a high price for wine at the time.) The subjects rated a wine “more desirable” when scarce and when price was not mentioned (Lynn 1989).
Advertisers can enhance the perception of scarcity by giving some customers inside (scarce) information. In a field experiment, some customers of a beef-importing company were given a standard sales presentation. A second group was told that the supply of beef was likely to be scarce in the coming months, and they ordered twice as much as those in the standard-presentation group. A third group was given the same information about beef scarcity, but was also told that this information was not generally available—that is, the information was scarce because it came from exclusive contacts that the company had; they ordered six times as much as did the standard group (Cialdini 2009).
2.3.2. Restrict sales of a product
Hopkins (1923) claimed that, “An offer limited to a certain class of people is far more effective than a general offer.” Mark Twain realized this in Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1885): “Ladies and children not admitted. ‘There,’ says he, ‘if that line don’t fetch them, I don’t know Arkansaw!’”
A variety of restrictions can be used. They could be related to the time during which the product might be purchased, the type of customer, or to quantity. For example, in the mid-1800s, P. T. Barnum’s circus ads used time scarcity, “This week only.”
The effects are stronger if there are good reasons for the restrictions—such as high demand—especially for high-involvement products.
Evidence on the effects of restricting supply
To examine restrictions on the type of customer, a lab experiment provided 64 subjects with statements that were allegedly taken from a pornographic book cover. Half received an additional statement that the book was restricted “to those 21 and over.” The age restriction substantially increased the desire to read the book (Zellinger et al. 1975).
Time restrictions were examined in three experiments involving 37 university students, 67 telephone operators, and 305 fast-food customers in natural settings. The time-limit restrictions were only