Persuasive Advertising - J. Scott Armstrong [90]
Here is a representative experiment. Print ads for a new (fictitious) brand of ice cream were randomly assigned to 240 subjects. Some ads were two-sided, others one-sided. Richness of taste was the primary argument in both ads. One two-sided ad mentioned an important opposing argument, the high number of calories; it was viewed as more honest, and the desirable attribute (richer taste) of the product was considered more important than the undesirable attribute (high calories). The subjects who saw the two-sided ad gave higher brand evaluations. When a trivial opposing argument was used (the number of different container sizes) instead of mentioning calories, the two-sided ad did not lead to higher brand evaluations (Pechmann 1992).
Legal experts refer to the two-sided approach as “stealing thunder.” In a lab experiment, 257 subjects read a transcript of a fictional criminal trial or heard an audiotape of the trial. Subjects were less likely to think the defendant guilty if the defendant’s attorney raised damaging evidence and then refuted it, than if the prosecutor first raised the damaging evidence. Another experiment used a transcript from an actual courtroom trial and obtained similar results (Williams, Bourgeois, and Croyle 1993).
What should go first in an ad, the good news or the bad news?
5.8.2. Put supporting arguments before opposing arguments, or begin with the supporting ones and interweave them
Put supporting arguments first, especially if the opposing ones are strong (e.g., “use of this product can cause disfigurement”). Seeing strong opposing arguments at the beginning of an ad could cause consumers to react negatively to the product, convince them to discard the ad, or distract them from thinking about the supporting arguments. Putting supporting arguments first seems to be typical practice in pharmaceutical advertising, for example.
Evidence on the effects of the order of supporting and opposing arguments
A meta-analysis obtained 31 experimental comparisons of refutational two-sided arguments where the order of presentation differed. The persuasive advantage between one-sided and two-sided messages was largest when the supporting and opposing points were interwoven. The next largest differences were when the supporting arguments were presented before opposing arguments. (O’Keefe 1999, table 6.3).
5.9. Indirect versus direct conclusions
An indirect (implicit, open-ended) approach provides the information needed to reach a conclusion, whereas a direct (explicit, closed-ended) approach provides the information, and then explicitly states the conclusion. The push from a direct conclusion can cause resistance, especially when an immediate response is expected. Common wisdom suggests that when people are thinking about the offer in an ad, a nudge (soft sell) is more effective than a push (hard sell).
I was an expert witness in an arbitration case. One of our lawyers possessed e-mail messages indicating that Larry, a person on the opposing side, had lied in his earlier testimony. In his arguments to the arbitrator, our lawyer read the messages, but he did not draw a conclusion; he merely paused and prepared to go on to the next issue. Everyone was on the edge of their seats thinking, “Larry was lying.” After the pause, the arbitrator broke in and said, “So this means that Larry was lying, right?” The indirect approach was persuasive in this high-involvement situation where resistance was expected.
5.9.1. If resistance is not expected, use direct conclusions
Direct conclusions are relevant where resistance would not be expected. This applies for well-known products that the customer likes already or for low-involvement products where the customer has no strong opinions.
Evidence on direct conclusions
A meta-analysis showed that in 11 of 14 experimental comparisons, messages with explicit overall