Persuasive Advertising - J. Scott Armstrong [91]
5.9.2. If resistance is expected, use indirect conclusions when the arguments are strong and obvious
Too much zeal offends when indirection works.
Euripides, Greek playwright, 480-406 BC
In the United Kingdom, Unilever’s Surf was a detergent that provided good cleansing at a low price; nonetheless, its sales were low. In August 1994, a new campaign featured Pauline and Linda, stars from a popular U.K. television series. In each TV commercial, Pauline would demonstrate that Surf was a smarter choice than Linda’s expensive detergent, and Linda would raise questions about that. Follow-up analyses showed that the campaign more than doubled sales from August 1994 to November 1997. This ad was an IPA award winner for effective advertising (Broadbent 2000).
The direct approach may cause people to feel a loss of freedom when the customer is not already favorable to the product, especially for high-involvement products. In his advertising textbook, Poffenberger (1925) said: “The suggestion [in an ad] should be indirect. No one wants to feel that he is under the control of another; everybody clings to the notion that he is a free being.” Stated another way, advertisements should not club a resistant audience over the head with a conclusion.
There are a variety of indirect approaches. One is simply to present the arguments and then let the customer decide what to do. For example, an advertisement by Saab presented performance attributes for a Saab and a BMW. It then invited customers to “compare the value you will get,” followed by “and then you make the decision.”
Another indirect approach is to allow the reader or viewer to observe others arguing each side of an issue. This should reduce counter-arguing, because someone else is doing the counter-arguing. Galileo used this approach in his 1632 book, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, in which the Copernican position was argued by “Sagredo” while the other side was argued by “Simplicio” (which angered the Inquisition because of its similarity to “simpleton.”) This can be done in advertising by showing someone who is being persuaded.
The indirect approach is more suitable when the source is regarded as biased and when the message is directed at an intelligent audience.
Evidence on effects of indirect conclusions when resistance is expected
A review of research, including over 40 studies, found that attempts to restrict people’s freedom by providing direct conclusions often led them to reassert their beliefs (Clee and Wicklund 1980).
Other research reviews suggest that indirect conclusions are most persuasive when the communicator is perceived as biased, presumably because customers would otherwise be more likely to counter-argue—and, of course, commercial advertisers are viewed as biased. Indirect conclusions are also more appropriate when the members of the target market are intelligent because they would be more likely to understand the conclusions on their own, and self-persuasion is convincing (Chebat, Charlebois, and Gélinas-Chebat 2001). Finally, there is little need for direct conclusions when exposure to the campaign will be frequent, because the audience reaction might be “Hey, I heard you already!”
In a lab experiment, booklets were shown to 211 subjects. They contained ads with either an open-ended conclusion (e.g., “Now that you know the difference, decide for yourself which disposable razor you should buy”) or a closed-ended conclusion (“Now that you know the difference, shave with Edge, the disposable razor that is best for you”). Purchase intentions were higher for the open-ended ads. Similar results were obtained with an ad for compact disk players (Ahearne, Gruen, and Saxton 2000).
In a small-scale lab experiment, 24 Japanese subjects saw online ads for 15 products (e.g., movies). Near the end of each ad, the subjects saw one of two scenes: a life-like