Let's look now at how specifically, you present the arguments that you want to make in a persuasive message. One question that marketers often ask is, should you repeat the message? replicate repetition can be a double edged sword. We usually need multiple exposures to a stimulus before learning occurs. However, excessive exposure can cause advertising wear out, which can result in negative reactions to an ad after we see it too much. research evidence indicates that three is the charm when it comes to exposing an audience to a product claim.

Additional messages tend to trigger skepticism and actually reverse any positive impact. So the tech takeaway is, first of all, that a one off message rarely works. Try to expose your customers to a minimum of three executions. But avoid the temptation to saturate them with too many messages. So how do we structure the argument there are a lot of ways to skin a cat. And we have to make some important choices here.

One approach, which we see most often is to employ supportive arguments. Most messages merely present one or more positive attributes about the product, or reasons to buy it. Each of these is a supportive argument. However, an alternative is to use reputational arguments or two sided messages in which the message presents both positive and negative information under the right circumstances, reputational arguments that first run Raise a negative issue and then dismiss it can be quite effective. It's very similar to sales techniques that try to anticipate customers objections, and then provide ways around those objections. This reputational approach increases source credibility because it reduces reporting bias.

This means that the receiver assumes the source has carefully considered both sides of the argument. Also, people who were skeptical about the product may be more receptive to a balanced argument. Instead of a whitewash. We saw one example of a reputational strategy when General Motors began a messaging campaign after its meltdown during the Great Recession after the company declared bankruptcy, and ad declared, let's be completely honest, no company wants to Go through this. When experts have strong arguments on their side, they're usually more effective if they express some uncertainty rather than stating unequivocally that they are correct. Another question is, should you draw a conclusion for the customer.

Consumers who make their own inferences instead of having ideas spoon fed to them will form stronger, more accessible attitudes. On the other hand, leaving the conclusion ambiguous, increases the chance that the consumer will not form the desired attitude. However, if the arguments are hard to follow, or consumers lack the motivation to follow them, it's safer for the message to draw conclusions. Well, it's time for a pop quiz. Let's take a look. If a customer is skeptical about your brand, it's best to use a supportive arguments, B reputational arguments, C reciprocal arguments or D counter intuitive arguments.

If you picked B reputational arguments, you've just made a good argument for continuing with this module. So good job. The takeaway here is that if your customer is not yet convinced, consider presenting both the pros and cons. If he or she is convinced, however, just say why your arguments are correct. Another question that comes up very often, should you compare your brand to your competitors comparative advertising refers to a message that compares two or more recognized brands and weighs them in terms of one or more specific attributes. Like drawing conclusions this strategy can cut both ways, especially if the sponsor depicts the competition in a nasty or negative way.

Let's take a look at a well known comparative advertising execution. Large pepperoni pizza, a Pepsi shirt and curly cupcake in a civilized world, our team a chance to compete Other comparative advertising strategies may be less effective, although some comparative ads do result in desired attitude changes. They may also be lower in believability and stir up source derogation that is, the consumer may doubt the credibility of a biased presentation. And in some cultures such as Asia, comparative advertising is rare because people find such a confrontational approach to be fairly offensive. We don't seem to have that problem here in the West. So putting your competition in a negative light can backfire unless the source is credible and can substantiate the criticism