Direct or indirect comparative ads: The moderating role of information processing modes

Kalro, Arti D.; Sivakumaran, Bharadhwaj; Marathe, Rahul R.

doi:10.1002/cb.1421

Cited by 21 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One study showed that when individuals think analytically about an ad, named comparisons result in greater perceived differences between the brands than unnamed comparisons (Kalro et al, 2013). Our findings were consistent with this study, showing that named comparisons are more influential than unnamed comparisons in DTC ads.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Effects of comparative claims in prescription drug direct-to-consumer advertising on consumer perceptions and recall

O’Donoghue

Williams

Sullivan

et al. 2014

Social Science & Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although pharmaceutical companies cannot make comparative claims in direct-to-consumer (DTC) ads for prescription drugs without substantial evidence, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration permits some comparisons based on labeled attributes of the drug, such as dosing. Researchers have examined comparative advertising for packaged goods; however, scant research has examined comparative DTC advertising. We conducted two studies to determine if comparative claims in DTC ads influence consumers' perceptions and recall of drug information. In Experiment 1, participants with osteoarthritis (n=1934) viewed a fictitious print or video DTC ad that had no comparative claim or made an efficacy comparison to a named or unnamed competitor. Participants who viewed print (but not video) ads with named competitors had greater efficacy and lower risk perceptions than participants who viewed unnamed competitor and noncomparative ads. In Experiment 2, participants with high cholesterol or high body mass index (n=5317) viewed a fictitious print or video DTC ad that had no comparative claim or made a comparison to a named or unnamed competitor. We varied the type of comparison (of indication, dosing, or mechanism of action) and whether the comparison was accompanied by a visual depiction. Participants who viewed print and video ads with named competitors had greater efficacy perceptions than participants who viewed unnamed competitor and noncomparative ads. Unlike Experiment 1, named competitors in print ads resulted in higher risk perceptions than unnamed competitors. In video ads, participants who saw an indication comparison had greater benefit recall than participants who saw dosing or mechanism of action comparisons. In addition, visual depictions of the comparison decreased risk recall for video ads. Overall, the results suggest that comparative claims in DTC ads could mislead consumers about a drug's efficacy and risk; therefore, caution should be used when presenting comparative claims in DTC ads.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Effects of comparative claims in prescription drug direct-to-consumer advertising on consumer perceptions and recall

O’Donoghue

Williams

Sullivan

et al. 2014

Social Science & Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, we only tested the impact of direct comparative advertising. Further research could supplement our results by integrating indirect comparative advertising or non-comparative advertising (Kalro et al , 2013; Jewell and Saenger, 2014). Similarly, we considered only an extrinsic attribute (price).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 72%

The impacts of comparative ads used by retailers to compare their store brands with national brands

Lacœuilhe¹,

Louis

Lombart

et al. 2020

IJRDM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe research aim is to investigate the impacts of comparative ads used by retailers to compare the prices of their store brand (SB) products with those of equivalent national brand (NB) products. More specifically, this research examines if consumers perceive retailers as legitimate when they use comparative ads to compare the prices of their SB products to those of equivalent NB products, and how effective are these comparative ads in terms of actual purchases. This research also explores for which SB type (economy, standard or premium) and consumers are comparative ads most effective.Design/methodology/approachThis research investigates consumers' reactions to comparative ads used by retailers to compare the prices of their SB products with those of similar NB products through an experiment within a store laboratory. A between-subject design has been used. The participants of the first/second/third group (n1 = 93/n2 = 92/n3 = 91) were exposed to ads comparing the prices of retailer's economy/standard/premium SB food products with their equivalent NB food products, in the same product category. The participants of each group carried out a shopping trip in the store laboratory.FindingsConsumers consider retailers legitimate when they use comparative ads. This favourable evaluation improves their attitude towards these ads. However, the impact of retailers' legitimacy of (1) means, (2) objectives and (3) historical legitimacy on consumers' attitude towards comparative ads depends on the SB type (economy, standard and premium). By contrast, comparative ads are effective in terms of consumers' attitude towards these ads and towards SBs, along with purchase intention and actual purchases of these brands, whatever the SB type. Lastly, this research highlights that comparative ads for SBs are mainly directed at consumers with high levels of price consciousness and resistance to NBs.Research limitations/implicationsThis research only tested the impact of direct comparative advertising and an extrinsic attribute (price). The research experiment was conducted on a convenience sample, which limits its external validity.Practical implicationsThis research encourages retailers to use comparative advertising for their SBs (economy, standard and premium) for several reasons. First, this study suggests that comparative advertising is an effective tool for retailers to shape or improve consumers' attitude towards SBs, via their attitude towards comparative ads. Second, this research proposes that comparative advertising contrasting the prices of SB products with those of NB products could increase retailers' in-store sales of their SBs. Lastly, this research underlines that comparative advertising is particularly effective for consumers with high levels of price consciousness and resistance to NBs.Originality/valueThis research supplements previous research in the field of SBs and comparative advertising. Previous research on comparative advertising has examined NBs exclusively (Dianoux et al., 2013; Beard, 2018). Comparisons between SBs and NBs are lacking. This research thus validates the use of this specific form of communication for SBs, given the paucity of studies of the effects of the use of mass media communication on SBs (Nenycz-Thiel and Romaniuk, 2014; Gendel-Guterman and Levy, 2017).

show abstract

“…The information provided by puffery is subjective; one cannot accurately infer the quality of the product or service from the puffed claims (Chakraborty & Harbaugh, ; Xu & Wyer, ). However, as we reasoned above, the mode of information processing may affect how consumers evaluate puffed claims, and thus influence their brand attitude (Kalro, Sivakumaran, & Marathe, ; Thompson & Hamilton, ). Consumers who think holistically tend to consider various levels of puffery of the target brand and relate them to the quality of the brand as a whole.…”

Section: Theoretical Background and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Claiming best or better? The effect of target brand's and competitor's puffery on holistic and analytic thinkers

Yang

Xie

2019

J of Consumer Behaviour

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous empirical studies have yielded contradictory results about how consumers react to puffed claims in advertisements. This study addresses this issue by considering how consumers' thinking style and competitors' puffery interact to influence consumers' brand attitude in terms of product puffery. Drawing upon experiments using fictitious and real brand names, three studies provide converging evidence that holistic thinkers will form a more positive brand attitude when exposed to the target brand's low‐puffery (vs. no puffery or high puffery) claims. In contrast, analytic thinkers are less sensitive to puffery, and their brand attitude will not change. Further, holistic thinkers are more sensitive to the presence of competitor's puffery. Holistic thinkers exposed to competitor's high‐puffery (vs. low) claims form a more positive brand attitude toward the target brand. For analytic thinkers, competitor's puffery level will not significantly affect their attitude toward the target brand. Our findings shed fresh light on the inconclusive results of prior studies and offer practical implications for marketing puffery.

show abstract

Direct or indirect comparative ads: The moderating role of information processing modes

Cited by 21 publications

References 53 publications

Effects of comparative claims in prescription drug direct-to-consumer advertising on consumer perceptions and recall

Effects of comparative claims in prescription drug direct-to-consumer advertising on consumer perceptions and recall

The impacts of comparative ads used by retailers to compare their store brands with national brands

Claiming best or better? The effect of target brand's and competitor's puffery on holistic and analytic thinkers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About