Persuasive Advertising - J. Scott Armstrong [76]
The five responses ranged from “Oppose the idea strongly” to “Favour the idea strongly”.
Target markets are likely to include a mix of people at either extreme, and also people who focus on rational thinking in some situations and not in others. It is not always easy to target ads to each subgroup. However, prior research, summarized by Larrick, found that males and younger subjects tended to have a preference for rational thinking. In addition, rationality is related to intelligence and success. Thus, for example, ads in the Wall Street Journal might assume that rational arguments are likely to be persuasive, whereas they would be less so for the National Enquirer.
The resistance principles are discussed in this section under the following headings:
5.1. Distraction
5.2. Perspectives
5.3. Stories
5.4. Barriers
5.5. Brand or company emphasis
5.6. Spokespersons
5.7. Forewarning
5.8. Two-sided arguments
5.9. Indirect vs. direct conclusions
5.10. Innuendos
5.11. Customer involvement
5.12. Free trials and samples
5.13. Causes
5.1. Distraction
Advertising is “the science of arresting human intelligence long enough to get money from it.”
Stephen B. Leacock, early 1900s
When there are no meaningful comparative benefits for a product, advertisers might decide to distract the audience. This allows them to remind customers that they are still around, and perhaps do it in a way to delight viewers. Distraction also avoids counter-arguing.
In the movie The French Connection, detective Popeye Doyle questioned a suspect. When the suspect said that he was from Poughkeepsie, Popeye said, “You still picking your feet in Poughkeepsie?” This nonsensical question was intended to disrupt the suspect’s thinking so that he would be off guard when Popeye asked a question relevant to the crime.
5.1.1. For products that have neither advantages nor disadvantages, consider using distraction
If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with nonsense.
Old adage
Distraction can be used to lead customers to focus on aspects other than the benefits of the product. For example, a Budweiser campaign had frogs croaking “Bud—wis—er.” It was a pleasant distraction and it focused attention on the brand name.
Distraction is often used for advertising low-involvement products. As long as the product has no disadvantages for customers, distraction is unlikely to harm long-term relationships. Moreover, if it leads to pleasant associations, it can enhance purchasing and consumption experiences. In such cases, then, distraction can be beneficial to both buyers and sellers.
The following example seems appropriate: A print advertisement for Dove lotion had the following copy: “Skin Fact No. 21: The smoke from burning giraffe skin is used to treat nosebleeds among some tribes in Africa. These tribes always travel with a spare giraffe and a box of matches, in case they bump into a tree. (Not really: I made the last bit up.)” The ad then showed a picture of Dove lotion and closed with: “Dove is all you need to know about skincare.”
Distraction principles are questionable if they lead customers to make poor decisions that have serious consequences. The following examples were not well suited to distraction. In the first, Jaguar used distraction techniques in 2005 when it published a 16-page “gorgeous” ad in the Wall Street Journal. The ad consisted of pictures to appeal to wealthy people, nearly unreadable text, and no information about the car. The second example is based on an ad campaign begun in 2008 by Microsoft for its problem-plagued Vista operating system. One ad featured Jerry Seinfeld flexing his shoes and