The airwaves are so saturated with commercials from large pizza chains like Pizza Hut, Papa John’s, and Domino’s, consumers see few differences among them. The impression many consumers have is that they all pretty much taste the same — filling perhaps, but otherwise unremarkable. The result is greater price sensitivity and frequent brand switching based on who has the week’s better deals.

Finding effective ways to differentiate one’s pizza brand has become a special challenge.  While introducing its new, improved recipe,  Domino’s came up with a unique marketing concept: tell the truth about its products. Brand managers and advertising execs were stunned when their new ad campaign compared their old product to “cardboard.” Another customer called it “mass produced, boring, bland.” Another said that microwave pizza is far superior.”

As reported by Sean Gregory in Time (May, 2011), Domino’s New Recipe: (Brutal) Truth in Advertising, that Domino’s was delivering a simple message: We admit we screwed up. We’re trying to improve. Give our pizza another chance.

The initial campaign and follow-up spots accomplished two important objectives: 1) It quickly differentiated Domino’s from those other cardboard products, and 2) It enhanced the credibility of its advertising message. A simple “new, improved” ad campaign would have caused most minds and palates to reject the ads as more of the same. But by admitting that there were issues they were correcting, viewers found the ads more believable.

Domino’s was using what is referred to as a “two-sided message.” In most instances it means communicating something the consumer will perceive as negative along with the positive.  Consumer research indicates that two-sided messages significantly increase advertising effectiveness if several criteria are met.

First, the negative information must be presented voluntarily.  In other words, being required to disclose something negative such as the official health warnings for cigarettes or alcohol do nothing to enhance credibility or effectiveness.

Second, two-sided messages are most effective when the audience members are not under excessive “cognitive load.” That simply means that the context must not be so mentally arduous or complex that the viewer or reader is unable to perceive or comprehend the message fully.

Third, the positive message must present a unique and meaningful (to the audience) benefit.

A recent study on two-side messages can be found in a study conducted by Martin Eisend, European University Viadrina, Germany, “Explaining the Joint Effect of Source Credibility and Negativity of Information in Two-Sided Messages,” published in Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 27(11): 1032–1049 (November 2010).

As I mentioned, Domino’s has continued its two-sided message advertising in several of its current campaigns. Below is a commercial for their “cheesy bread” product. Although this is an older version of the advertising, a recent spot uses almost the identical language. Note especially when one actor comments, “We were one of the worst offenders,” referring to the lack of cheese on or in most cheesy bread offerings.

In the interest of full disclosure, when I order pizza it is not from Pizza Hut, Domino’s, or Papa John’s. My favorite is a local spot called Leonardo’s on Forest Avenue, in Portland, Maine. Aptly named, each pie is truly a work of art.  Yum!

Domino’s Two-Sided Cheesy Bread Commercial

In fact, most testimonials do create a favorable impression — that’s why we use them! The question is: why are they so effective? A recent article in Scientific American gives us an answer.

“How Anecdotal Evidence Can Undermine Scientific Results” explains why clients sometimes reject the “facts” you might mention during the course of a consultation and instead adhere to unscientific, subjective stories they have heard or experienced, such as customer testimonials. According to the authors, this tendency to reject factual evidence in favor of personal anecdotes has its roots in our primitive survival instincts:

“We have evolved brains that pay attention to anecdotes because false positives (believing there is a connection between A and B when there is not) are usually harmless, whereas false negatives (believing there is no connection between A and B when there is) may take you out of the gene pool. Our brains are belief engines that employ association learning to seek and find patterns. Superstition and belief in magic are millions of years old, whereas science, with its methods of controlling for intervening variables to circumvent false positives, is only a few hundred years old.”

In other words, this behavior reflects a primitive survival instinct. That’s not likely to change anytime soon.

There are several lessons here. If you are a consultant or coach trying to help a client “get real” about their business or personal circumstances, don’t take it personally if the client rejects your factual “evidence.” When they balk at letting go of attitudes or beliefs based on personal experiences or stories, they are just being insanely normal!

Second, you can alert your client to this very human behavior. Explain that your information might seem to contradict what the client has come to believe anecdotally. Having this explanation upfront might at least open up the client to considering information that contradicts what the client already “knows” to be true.

The third lesson actually uses this primitive instinct in a positive way.

There’s a reason why so many effective marketing programs rely on testimonials to “make a case” for a product or service: they engage our basic human instincts. We tend to pay attention and give high value to stories from other humans. That’s just the way most of us are wired.

Even though our rational, logical selves tells us that four or five positive testimonials from satisfied customers are not scientific proof that the service is good for us — perhaps there are, unknown to us, two hundred dissatisfied customers! — our primitive emotional side tends to place greater weight on the positive, anecdotal evidence we read in an ad or on a web site.

Although this Scientific American story seems to contradict other studies about the way humans process information — for example, high-risk, high-involvement decisions often drive consumers to seek factual information before they make a purchase — it explains a human characteristic that most of us have experienced as consultants (at least, anecdotally speaking!).

Bottom line: you can use this lesson to help clients come to terms with facts they might otherwise be reluctant to accept. As for all those testimonials on your web site or blog saying what a great business you have — keep them! Now you know the real reason they are so effective.

Is the growing popularity of social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter slowly killing off email as an effective marketing tool?

“Death of email” articles like the one from the Journal assume that two methods of communication cannot coexist, each having a unique role to play. For decades now, television and radio have managed to survive — and even compliment each other — even though many media experts believed that TV would kill off the radio box. Likewise, the Internet was supposed to kill off everything — but it hasn’t (though I know some magazine and newspaper publishers who believe the Net gave them two shots in the hat).

Email and social media both have a specific utility. One does certain things better than the other — and that utility can and will change over time. Right now email works best for longer messages, communicating with more personalized, targeted audiences, and adding embedded content. Social networking offers greater immediacy, ease of use, a sense of personal empowerment, and potentially higher levels of frequency.

Email and social networking sites are used in different ways and communicate different kinds of information. One easily compliments the other. Like many of you, I tweet, participate on social networking sites, and send out and receive tons of email.  (I also blog, manage several web sites, and participate in various forums, but that’s another story!)  I don’t see the two as competing for my attention. I use them in the way that I need to and choose my tool according to the task I have in mind.

We’re also finding out that heavy social media users are also above-average users of email play. A Nielsen report back in September showed that social media use did not decrease email usage but actually increased it.

Says Nielsen’s Jon Gibs –

It’s perfectly logical that as people make connections though social media, they maintain those connections outside of the specific platform and may extend those connections to email, a phone conversation or even in-person meetings.

For marketers who worry that social media are making their email programs obsolete, nothing can be further from the truth. The strategy, as always, is to use media that mirror your target audience’s media behavior. In many cases, that means developing your presence in social networks and having a robust email marketing program.