Is a Picture Always Worth a Thousand Words? The Impact of Presentation Formats in Consumers' Early Evaluations of Really New Products (RNPs)†

Really new products (RNPs) enable consumers to do things they have never been able to do before. However, research has shown that consumers have difficulties understanding the benefits of such novel products, and therefore, adoption intentions remain low. Mental simulations and analogies have been identified as effective framing strategies to convey the benefits of RNPs. However, existing research has focused solely on the use of mental simulations and analogies conveyed using words, whereas these can also be conveyed using pictures. Although the general consumer research literature points to a superiority effect of pictures, because the underlying mechanisms that individuals use to understand RNPs differ entirely from those used for traditional products, there is a need to study the impact of pictures for RNPs. Moreover, prior work has not examined differences in RNP type. The present research argues that RNPs can be utilitarian, hedonic, or hybrid and that the optimal presentation format (words versus pictures) is contingent upon the type of RNP considered. Consequently, failure to acknowledge this distinction could lead to negative consequences. The present study aims to identify the impact of alternative presentation formats (i.e., words versus pictures) presented using different framing strategies (i.e., analogies versus mental simulations) on individual responses (i.e., product comprehension and attitude to the product) to three types of RNPs (i.e., utilitarian versus hedonic versus hybrid). Hypotheses are tested by means of an experimental study. The results of the study show that the effectiveness of alternative combinations of framing strategies and presentation formats in enhancing comprehension and attitude for RNPs depends on product type (utilitarian versus hedonic versus hybrid). The empirical findings presented not only extend prior work on consumer responses to mental simulations and analogies for RNPs, but also establish connections between this literature and an underdeveloped stream of research on hybrid products, as well as a broader stream of research on utilitarian versus hedonic product benefits. The findings suggest that practitioners may not have been using optimal marketing communications strategies to convey the benefits of RNPs. Strategies that may help enhance consumer responses to RNPs by taking into consideration product type (utilitarian versus hedonic versus hybrid) are put forward.

[1]  B. Sternthal,et al.  Ease of message processing as a moderator of repetition effects in advertising. , 1990 .

[2]  Elizabeth C. Hirschman,et al.  The Effect of Verbal and Pictorial Advertising Stimuli on Aesthetic, Utilitarian and Familiarity Perceptions , 1986 .

[3]  Amina Ait El Houssi The pitfalls in the analogical learning process for really new products: guidelines for generating effective analogies to communicate distinct benefits , 2008 .

[4]  Amanda J. Broderick,et al.  Analogies and Mental Simulations in Learning for Really New Products: The Role of Visual Attention , 2008 .

[5]  Flemming Hansen,et al.  Hemispheral Lateralization: Implications for Understanding Consumer Behavior , 1981 .

[6]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Mechanisms of Analogical Learning. , 1987 .

[7]  M. Sirgy,et al.  Value-Expressive versus Utilitarian Advertising Appeals: When and Why to Use Which Appeal , 1991 .

[8]  Timothy C. Brock,et al.  The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. , 2000, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[9]  A. Markman,et al.  Entrenched Knowledge Structures and Consumer Response to New Products , 2001 .

[10]  John R. Hauser,et al.  Premarket Forecasting of Really-New Products , 1996 .

[11]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches , 1981 .

[12]  Tripat Gill,et al.  Convergent Products: What Functionalities Add More Value to the Base? , 2008 .

[13]  Miranda R. Goode,et al.  The Effect of Experiential Analogies on Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes , 2010 .

[14]  Deborah Roedder John,et al.  Consumer Learning by Analogy: A Model of Internal Knowledge Transfer , 1997 .

[15]  Bernd H. Schmitt,et al.  Brand Name a La Francaise ? Oui, But For the Right Product! , 1989 .

[16]  Shelley E. Taylor,et al.  Harnessing the imagination. Mental simulation, self-regulation, and coping. , 1998, The American psychologist.

[17]  Alvin C. Burns,et al.  A Framework Providing Direction For Research on Communications Effects of Mental Imagery-Evoking Advertising Strategies , 1992 .

[18]  Larry Percy,et al.  Attitude Change through Visual Imagery in Advertising , 1980 .

[19]  I. Ajzen,et al.  The Influence of Attitudes on Behavior , 2005 .

[20]  Shelley E. Taylor,et al.  Social cognition, 2nd ed. , 1991 .

[21]  Mary Frances Luce,et al.  Process versus outcome thought focus and advertising. , 2003 .

[22]  Gerard J. Tellis,et al.  Predicting Sales Takeoff for Whirlpool's New Personal Valet , 2006 .

[23]  Brian Sternthal,et al.  The Moderating Effect of Knowledge and Resources on the Persuasive Impact of Analogies , 2001 .

[24]  J. Bettman An information processing theory of consumer choice , 1979 .

[25]  John T. Gourville The Curse of Innovation: A Theory of Why Innovative New Products Fail in the Marketplace , 2005 .

[26]  T. S. Robertson,et al.  Imaging and analyzing in response to new product advertising , 1993 .

[27]  Edward F. McQuarrie,et al.  INDIRECT PERSUASION IN ADVERTISING , 2005 .

[28]  Min Zhao,et al.  The Role of Imagination-Focused Visualization on New Product Evaluation , 2009 .

[29]  D. Mick,et al.  Levels of Subjective Comprehension in Advertising Processing and Their Relations to Ad Perceptions, Attitudes, and Memory , 1992 .

[30]  Steve Hoeffler,et al.  Measuring Preferences for Really New Products , 2003 .

[31]  Paul Messaris,et al.  Visual Persuasion: The Role of Images in Advertising , 1996 .

[32]  John G. Lynch,et al.  As Time Goes By: Do Cold Feet Follow Warm Intentions for Really New versus Incrementally New Products? , 2008 .

[33]  Edward F. McQuarrie,et al.  INDIRECT PERSUASION IN ADVERTISING: How Consumers Process Metaphors Presented in Pictures and Words , 2005 .

[34]  M. Sirgy,et al.  Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior: A Critical Review , 1982 .

[35]  Richard W. Olshavsky,et al.  Conditions and Consequences of Spontaneous Inference Generation: A Concurrent Protocol Approach , 1995 .

[36]  Kevin E. Voss,et al.  Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Dimensions of Consumer Attitude , 2003 .

[37]  Darren W. Dahl,et al.  Visualizing the Self: Exploring the Potential Benefits and Drawbacks for New Product Evaluation , 2004 .

[38]  Deborah Roedder John,et al.  Consumer learning by analogy , 1997 .

[39]  Ko de Ruyter,et al.  In stories we trust: How narrative apologies provide cover for competitive vulnerability after integrity-violating blog posts , 2010 .

[40]  Marjorie Delbaere,et al.  Knowledge Transfer and Rhetoric: the Influence of Rhetorical Figures on Consumer Learning , 2007 .

[41]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research , 1977 .

[42]  R. Batra,et al.  Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes , 1991 .