99.9% pure or 0.01% impure – Framing marketing message

3–4 minutes

read

99% pure, 99% fat free, and kills 99.99% of germs are the common advertisement messages given by different brands. Why the same brands does not use 1% impure, 1% fat, and 0.01 % germs survive?. Using the right kind message will induce consumers to buy product. Framing effect is the reason behind using the marketing messages like the ones mentioned above.

Cool mint fragrance toilet cleaner ads. Cleaner bobs kill germs inside toilet bowl. Vector realistic illustration. Horizontal banner.
Kills 99.9% of Bacteria – Source: https://previews.123rf.com

In 1979, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky published a paper titled “Prospect Theory:An Analysis of Decision Under Risk”.(Also Tversky A., Kahneman D. (1985),Kahneman D. Tversky A.,(1983)). This paper investigated and questioned “expected utility theory” which is widely used in the area of economic decision making. Expected utility theory uses probabilities of the outcome and does not consider any other irrational factors of humans. To support their claim, authors refers to Allais Paradox which was proposed in the year 1953 by Maurice Allais.

Prospect theory has used a modified version of Allais Paradox to prove that people don’t take decision based on probabilities of the outcome, instead they choose an option by weight of an outcome. If the outcome of the choice is certain, people choose it instead of an option that comes with probability. They named this phenomenon as “certainty principle”.

An example problem from the paper for your view (extracted from Prospect theory paper – but I have used Pounds instead of Israeli money for ease of understanding )

  1. 50% chance to win 1000 Pounds, 50% chance to win nothing
  2. 450 Pounds for sure

Which one will you prefer?. I hope there is more chance you will pick 450 pounds since it ensure you get it for sure. Whereas, in the first condition you are given with 50% probability to win 1000 pounds which is more than double of the value in the second choice. Since, the second outcome is certain you picked it.

1-ihKDZlhIzigPJPv-ymyoRg
Example of framing – Which one do you prefer? – Retrieved from https://cdn-images-1.medium.com

The authors concluded that people are normally risk averse and risk seeking based on the choices they encounter. Risk averse condition is where people tend to avoid uncertainty (while buying food products), risk seeking is where they accept uncertainty (while buying lottery or during gambling). To know more about this theory, please read chapters 26, 29 and 34 of Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman and chapters 4 and 10 of Misbehaving by Richard Thaler.

This theory is the base for framing effect phenomenon we discuss today. Messages have to be carefully crafted to show the benefits of consumers.

If a company say that their product 0.01% impure, they are inducing the risk averse behaviour of consumers. When the same message is crafted like 99.9% pure, it gives more confidence and promotes risk seeking in the consumer mind. In the former condition consumer tend to avoid buying compared to the latter condition.

Researchers have classified frames as gain frame and loss frame. Gain frame conveys positive information and loss frame conveys negative information. Many studies was carried out to see the impact of gain and loss frame on decision making. Let’s take a look at one study.

Detweiler, J. B et al (1999) studied the effects of gain frame and loss frame among beach goers in using sunscreen, they found if the message is in gain frame (99.9% pure in our example) people used more sunscreen compared to the message in  loss frame (0.01% in our example).

Gain vs Loss frame
Retrieved from the article of Detweiler., J et al (1991) – Source: http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1999-10189-011

Based on all the studies and their reports, it is clear that using gain frame can certainly influence consumer than the same message being written in negative frame.

To know more on consumer psychology, click here.

 

5 responses to “99.9% pure or 0.01% impure – Framing marketing message”

  1. Your blog is really interesting for me because I actively look out for the “kills 99.9% of bacteria” when I’m buying soap and I don’t buy soap anymore that doesn’t have this little message on it. But I actually think, we’re surrounded by framing more than we think after reading your blog and Nudge (Thaler & Sunstein, 2009).

    Thaler and Sunstein (2009) mention the effects of framing in their chapter Biases and Blunders as an example of how humans don’t always make rational decisions. They argue that patients and doctors’ recommendations for certain treatments are also influenced by framing. In the example it’s either 10 people are dead or 90 people of 100 are still alive after 5 years.

    Additionally, they mention an example of credit cards, which I found very interesting. Apparently, retailers wanted to charge credit card users a higher price because they need to pay a commission to the credit card companies. As credit cards companies didn’t like this, they applied rules to prevent this but after some time a law was introduced saying these rules aren’t viable. Therefore, they used framing and started calling the price for credit card users the normal price and the one for people paying cash a discount.
    In my experience, not everybody paying cash gets a discount but I have a lot of examples where I didn’t receive a discount because I paid by credit card. Consequently, this could really be true.

    I also think that framing is part of the scarcity selling technique because if the supply was 100 units, I react differently when I read “10 are left” than if it’s “90 sold”. Roy and Sharma (2015) particularly examine the scarcity appeal in relation to message framing, indicating that framing is used in combination with other areas of consumer psychology.

    References

    Roy, R., & Sharma, P. (2015). Scarcity appeal in advertising: Exploring the moderating roles of need for uniqueness and message framing. Journal of Advertising, 44(4), 349-359. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2015.1018459

    Thaler, R. H. & Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Nudge – Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. London: Penguin Books.

    1. Yeah, if you frame a message quoting scarcity it will induce people to buy. In this case a different principle comes into to play, that is called “loss aversion”.

  2. Surprising how the way we received the same information in a different frame can lead our opinions, decisions and logical. In terms of helping other people, this post has made me think about the influences of messaging framing for charities. And I have found an article about Framing Charity Advertising where is explained how charitable advertisements could be beneficial in the child poverty context:

    Chang, C., & Lee, Y. (2009). Framing Charity Advertising: Influences of Message Framing, Image Valence, and Temporal Framing on a Charitable Appeal1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(12), 2910-2935. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00555.x

    1. Thanks for reading and sending a reference article to read further more.

  3. Great blog! Just to add to the Detweiler et al. study about sunscreen, message framing can be especially important when it comes to health campaigns. There was a study done by Meyerowitz and Chaiken (1987) in which people were given pamphlets to try to increase the number of breast examinations to check for cancer. These pamphlets were either worded in a gain-framed or a loss-framed manner, and they found that the ones worded in a loss-framed way were more effective than those worded in the gain-framed way.

    References
    Meyerowitz, B. E., & Chaiken, S. (1987). The effect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 500-510.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Balachandar Kaliappan

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading