Among
the many persuasive techniques or “tricks” by supermarkets, I find this the
most ridiculous. Yet, many of us may have come across or even become victim of
it. As you could see from the picture, the price is 1.39 GBP for one product.
The yellow tag suggests that this product is on offer and you could get two of
them for just 4.50 GBP. Wait a minute! 2 for 4.50 GBP means you have to pay
2.25 GBP per product. It is actually more expensive and this is absolutely not
a good deal at all.
Supermarkets like to take advantage of using yellow tags
and a so-called offer to persuade customers to buy more. This persuasive
technique is called misleading inference. Supermarkets induce a misleading
inference to make you think that buying two products will help you save money
than just buying one. Unfortunately, customers will easily believe so if they
do not think clearly. Harris (1977) found that consumers falsely assumed that
juxtaposing two imperative statements in an advert would imply a causal
relationship. Shimp (1978) also found that incomplete comparatives in an ad are
often used by consumers to falsely infer that a product is superior to
competitors. These misleading inferences can result in inflated product
evaluations, beliefs, and even purchase intentions (Burke, DeSarbo, Oliver,
& Robertson, 1988; Olson & Dover, 1978).
References
Burke,
R. R., DeSarbo, W.S., Oliver, R. L., & Robertson, T.S. (1988). Deception by
implication: An experimental investigation. Journal
of Consumer Research, 14, 483-494.
Harris,
R. J. (1977). Comprehension of pragmatic implications in advertising. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62,
603-608.
Olson,
J. C., & Dover, P A. (1978). Cognitive effects of deceptive advertising. Journal of Marketing Research, 15(1),
29-38.
Shimp,
T. A. (1978). Do incomplete comparisons mislead? Journal of Advertising Research, 18(6), 21-27.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.