If threatened, we move into action. Great messages compel action, so it’s no surprise fear is used in marketing. Fear is persuasive. It’s automatic and, to some extent, out of our control. It’s built into our operating system as a defense mechanism from the old days when the most important question was, “Can I eat it or can it eat me?” Getting people to take action in some cases seems to virtually require the use of fear. You don’t have to look very far to see advertising messages based on it: Fear of missing out, fear of losing something, or fear of the future threat. We fear getting laid off, dying or losing a child. We fear the government taking away our rights, our employers pushing us around, or a spouse leaving us. We fear failure. There’s no denying that agitating the problem with a message of potential threats if the reader doesn’t accept your offer, is powerfully persuasive.
Fear is a natural instinct; one that helps us to react appropriately to threats to increase our chance of survival. It creates urgency and prompts us to take action; to change or more importantly for this story, buy something that will prevent terrible things from happening. As Don Draper said in a Mad Men episode, “Advertising is based on one thing: happiness. And you know what happiness is? Happiness is the smell of a new car. It's freedom from fear. It's a billboard on the side of the road that screams reassurance that whatever you are doing is okay. You are okay.”
There’s been a lot of talk about fear in the current election. In particular, many people have explained Donald Trump’s success thus far to his keen ability to play on people’s fears. But it’s not even just appealing to pre-existing fears. Some have even suggested that he has been actively instilling fears where they may not have already existed. What’s the deal with fear appeals? Could creating fear in a population really be good for business? You might think that arousing fear in people can open them to influence. Plenty of ad campaigns have tried to terrify people as a way of convincing them to quit smoking, say “no” to drugs, and buy life insurance. So it must work, right? People are doing it! Psychologists have been wondering about the persuasive power of fear, too, and they’ve run some studies that provide some compelling insights about fear and persuasion. Basically, fear appeals aren’t a reliable persuasive strategy all on its own, but when it’s combined with a few other ingredients, it becomes a powerful influencer.
The part of the brain that kept us away from animals looking for a meal is not only alive and well, but it also makes most of our “gut instinct” decisions. People who are threatened will take one of two courses of action: danger control or fear control. Danger control seeks to reduce the risk. Fear control seeks to reduce the perception of the risk. Danger control is outer-focused and towards a solution. Fear control is inner-focused and away from a solution. Health campaigns often employ a message design strategy called a fear appeal, which seeks to persuade viewers to take steps toward improving their health by convincing them that a scary scenario is likely to happen to them unless they follow the advice laid out in the message. The primary theory of why fear appeals work (or fail) is a called the extended parallel process model (EPPM; Witte, 1992, 1994.) This theory posits that fear appeals must contain both threat and efficacy components to successfully persuade people. The Extended Parallel Processing Model (EPPM) is concerned with how perceived threats and perceived efficacy can cause behavioral change based upon fear. According to the theory, a perceived threat consists of perceived susceptibility, which is your perception of the probability of the threat actually occurring, and perceived severity, which is your perception of the seriousness of the threat.
EPPM describes how rational considerations and emotional reactions combine to determine behavioral decisions. The degree to which a person feels threatened by a health issue determines motivation to act, while one’s self-efficacy or confidence to effectively reduce the threat determines the action itself. For danger control to be selected, a person needs to perceive that an effective response is available (response efficacy) and that they are capable of utilizing this response to reduce the risk (self-efficacy). If danger control is not selected, then the action defaults to fear control. Basically, the theory argues that the perceived threat determines the motivation to act, and the perceived efficacy determines in what way you will act. According to the theory, appeal to fear will only be effective if there are a strong perceived threat and a strong efficacy component.
Fear-based appeals appear to be effective at influencing attitudes and behaviors. They are persuasive messages that emphasize the potential danger and harm that will befall individuals if they do not adopt the messages’ recommendations. While these types of messages are commonly used in politics, public health and commercial advertising campaigns (e.g., smoking will kill you, Candidate A will destroy the economy), their use is controversial as academics continue to debate their effectiveness. Scaring people to death is not be the perfect strategy, but why? Well, it might be that we feel stuck when we feel afraid. Just scaring people puts them into a panic, distracting them from your key message. In general, this is a bad thing, but it might also set people up to be more persuaded when the message makes one other thing clear: a solution. Fear is persuasive when it’s combined with a clear way to address it. By making people feel afraid, they are likely to latch onto a solution that provides a clear and effective route to addressing whatever it is that’s making them afraid. A lot of scare-advertising tactics can be seen in commercials to prevent drunk driving and cigarette smoking. The World Wildlife Fund is one brand known for its controversial and fear-inducing imagery. WWF also understands that they must prove the likelihood and severity of the threats as well as convince website visitors that they can reduce this threat. It provides a solution in the form of the viewers’ action. In fact, the entire WWF website is set up to raise a threat and then provide the solution, call-to-actions are sprinkled throughout their site.
Let’s not forget the most classic fear of all in marketing circles — the fear of missing out on a great deal. Making your sale offer for a limited time and telling your potential customers that time is running out is a good way to inspire immediate action.
So, is fear the way to win an election or sell your product? Well, maybe. Depending on the product or service, fear can be a highly effective marketing tool. But as Van Slyke advises, advertisers do need to think carefully before using it.
Comments