Persuasive Advertising - J. Scott Armstrong [89]
5.8. Two-sided arguments
Men wanted for hazardous journey. Small wages, bitter cold, long months of darkness,
constant danger, safe return doubtful. Honor and recognition in case of success.
This ad, which ran in the personal columns of the London Times in 1913, drew 5,000 applications for a crew of 27 on Shackleton’s trip to the Antarctic.
Aristotle advocated two-sided arguments—tell the bad points as well as the good points. Advertising experts have agreed. Bill Bernbach said, “A small admission gains a large acceptance.” However, they overlooked the key condition that it is necessary to refute the negative arguments.
5.8.1. Use two-sided arguments that refute strong opposing arguments
A Bernbach ad for the Volkswagen Beetle raised an important opposing argument with the headline, “Do you think the Volkswagen is homely?” then refuted it: “A Briton called it a marvelous economy of design.” An American owner put it differently: “It’s funny,” he said, “how she grows on you. At first you think it is the homeliest thing you ever saw. But pretty soon you get to love her shape. And after a while, no other car looks right.”
The opposing argument should be one of some importance. It is especially helpful when the negative argument supports the main selling point, as it did in Shackleton’s advertisement for his Antarctic voyage. At the same time, the opposing side should be less important than the primary benefit being offered. By using a two-sided approach, an advertiser can frame opposing arguments so that they are favorable to its view.
Two-sided arguments are especially applicable for high-involvement products; consumers will devote more attention to the quality of the arguments and think more carefully about counter-arguments. They are useful in situations where believability is an issue. The credibility of advertisers is enhanced by showing that they have nothing to hide.
A two-sided argument is unnecessary when the members of the target audience agree with the position that the ad advocates. Worse, it might lead them to re-examine their beliefs.
When people do not need much information, such as when low-involvement goods are concerned, little would be gained from a two-sided argument.
Here is a good application of the principle: Despite awards for good engineering and high quality, Skoda, the Czechoslovakian car, was the target of ridicule in the United Kingdom. Direct attempts to emphasize quality did not work. In 1999, Skoda used a campaign that examined problem areas and then rebutted them. The ads showed a buffoonish diplomat on a factory tour, a know-it-all motor-show supervisor, and a moronic car-park attendant. While each was shown evidence of good Skoda quality and design, none could understand it. But the viewers did. This campaign increased sales and won an IPA Effectiveness Award (Rimini 2003).
Some advertisements violate this principle. A 1967 Volvo ad listed five reasons that might keep you from buying a Volvo, but did not refute any of them.
Evidence on the effects of two-sided arguments
A meta-analysis was conducted of experimental studies that compared two-sided arguments versus one-sided (supporting only). When opposing arguments were raised then refuted in two-sided messages (which was the design for 43 experiments), the two-sided messages were more persuasive than when the message presented only favorable arguments. However, when the opposing arguments were raised but were not refuted (as was done in 26 experiments), the two-sided arguments were less persuasive than the ads that included only supporting arguments (Allen 1991).
O’Keefe’s (1999) meta-analysis examined comparisons for many aspects of two-sided versus one-sided arguments. His analysis of four experiments found that when people already agreed with a position prior to receiving a message, a two-sided approach harmed persuasion. In an analysis of 45 comparisons, he found that a two-sided