To sell more guilty pleasures, tie it to a cause. It works.

Choosing the right product impacts sales more than which charity you benefit, argues Yael Zemack-Ruga

The impact of visualizing use versus acquisition of a product on the appeal of its complement

Prior work on consumer visualization has focused on how visualization increases the appeal of the imagined product itself. Instead, the present work examines the effects of visualization on the appeal of the imagined product\u27s complement. The authors distinguish between two visualized consumption actions: use and acquisition. Both are predicted to increase the appeal of the complement, but this increase is expected to be asymmetric, with imagined acquisition leading to a greater increase than imagined use. Specifically, the authors propose that imagining use evokes consideration of how one would interact with the product, which increases the salience of the imagined product\u27s attributes. Conversely, imagining acquisition evokes consideration of why one would purchase the product, which increases the salience of the imagined product\u27s goals. As complementarity is defined by products’ shared goals (not physical attributes), it is predicted and shown that imagining acquisition results in a greater increase in the appeal of the complement than imagining use. Four studies demonstrate the asymmetric effect of imagined use versus acquisition on preference, choice, and willingness-to-pay for a complement. The studies also provide evidence for the proposed process and rule out several alternative explanations. Implications for theory and practice are discussed

The Effects Of Anticipated Goal-Inconsistent Behavior On Present Goal Choices

Prior work has examined how, in the pursuit of long-term goals, past goal behavior influences present goal choices. Instead, the present work focuses on how anticipating future goal behavior, specifically future goal-inconsistent behavior, influences present goal choices. For example, how anticipating overspending on an upcoming vacation influences current spending behavior. The authors propose that the effect of anticipated goal-inconsistent behavior on present goal choice is moderated by the perceived changeability of the future behavior. When future goal-inconsistent behavior is perceived as changeable, consumers tend to imagine it away, and it has no systematic effect on present goal choices. However, when future goal-inconsistent behavior is perceived as unchangeable, consumers accept it as a matter of fact, and systematic effects occur. Specifically, some consumers not only fail to buffer against future goal-inconsistent behavior\u27s negative consequences, but tend to exacerbate those consequences by increasing their goal-inconsistent behavior in the present. Four studies examine this surprising behavior, using an individual difference (the response-to-failure scale) to identify when and for whom it occurs. The studies demonstrate the role of perceived changeability using various manipulations across multiple critical goal domains such as spending, eating, and academics

Should Donation Ads Include Happy Victim Images? The Moderating Role Of Regulatory Focus

We examine how victim imagery interacts with ad messaging’s regulatory focus to determine the effectiveness of donation appeals. We predict and show that ads that combine a happy victim image with a promotion-focused message uniquely increase donation intentions. We demonstrate that this occurs because the combination of promotion-focused messaging, which makes gain goals salient, and a happy victim image, which signals gains are occurring, increases consumers’ perceived response efficacy. Four studies test the interaction of victim imagery and regulatory focus showing the predicted effect. We also test the mediating role of perceived response efficacy and rule out several alternative explanations. Our findings extend prior work which has overlooked the interactive effects of victim imagery and ad messaging and the effects of victim imagery on perceived response efficacy. By exploring these dimensions, we offer marketers and consumers guidance on how to construct effective fundraising ads

Just Do It! Why Committed Consumers React Negatively To Assertive Ads

Research shows that assertive ads, which direct consumers to take specific actions (e.g., Visit us; Just do it!), are ineffective due to reactance. However, such ads remain prevalent. We reexamine assertive ads, showing that their effectiveness depends on consumers\u27 relationship with the advertising brand. Across studies, we compare committed and uncommitted consumers\u27 reactions to assertive ads. We find that because committed (vs. uncommitted) brand relationships involve stronger compliance norms, assertive ads create greater pressure to comply for committed consumers. Specifically, we propose and show that committed consumers anticipate feeling guilty if they ignore an assertive message, creating pressure to comply. Pressure to comply increases reactance, which paradoxically reduces compliance, ultimately leading to decreased ad and brand liking as well as decreased monetary allocations to the brand. Our results show the perils that assertive ads pose for marketers and their most valuable customers

The effects of nonconsciously priming emotion concepts on behavior.

Current empirical evidence regarding nonconsciously priming emotion concepts is limited to positively versus negatively valenced affect. This article demonstrates that specific, equally valenced emotion concepts can be nonconsciously activated, remain inaccessible to conscious awareness, and still affect behavior in an emotion-specific fashion. In Experiment 1A, participants subliminally primed with guilty emotion adjectives showed lower indulgence than did participants subliminally primed with sad emotion adjectives; even after the addition of a 5-min time delay, these results were replicated in Experiment 1B. Participants in the different priming conditions showed no differences in their subjective emotion ratings and were unaware of the emotion prime or concept activation. Experiments 2A and 2B replicated these findings using a helping measure, demonstrating that individuals primed with guilt adjectives show more helping than do individuals primed with sadness adjectives. In all studies, effects were moderated by individuals ’ specific emotion-response habits and characteristics

When Donating Is Liberating: The Role Of Product And Consumer Characteristics In The Appeal Of Cause-Related Products

The present work examines the effectiveness of pairing a charitable donation with a product purchase. We propose a compensatory process, in which the guilt-laundering properties of charitable donations are more appealing the more consumption guilt is experienced. Consumption guilt is dependent on both product type (hedonic vs. utilitarian) and consumer characteristics (guilt-sensitivity), such that adding a charitable donation to hedonic products is more impactful than adding the same donation to utilitarian products, especially for guilt-sensitive consumers. As a result of the impact of product type and guilt-sensitivity, several non-intuitive findings emerge. For example, guilt-sensitive consumers, who normally indulge in hedonic consumption the least, indulge at least as much as their less guilt-sensitive counterparts when hedonic products are paired with a charitable donation. Moreover, guilt-sensitive consumers are relatively insensitive to the nature of the supported cause, indulging in hedonic consumption even when it supports disliked causes. Six studies demonstrate the impact of adding charitable donations to products as well as the unique role that consumption guilt and its alleviation play in the underlying process

When donating is liberating: The role of product and consumer characteristics in the appeal of cause-related products

Abstract The present work examines the effectiveness of pairing a charitable donation with a product purchase. We propose a compensatory process, in which the guilt-laundering properties of charitable donations are more appealing the more consumption guilt is experienced. Consumption guilt is dependent on both product type (hedonic vs. utilitarian) and consumer characteristics (guilt-sensitivity), such that adding a charitable donation to hedonic products is more impactful than adding the same donation to utilitarian products, especially for guilt-sensitive consumers. As a result of the impact of product type and guilt-sensitivity, several non-intuitive findings emerge. For example, guilt-sensitive consumers, who normally indulge in hedonic consumption the least, indulge at least as much as their less guilt-sensitive counterparts when hedonic products are paired with a charitable donation. Moreover, guilt-sensitive consumers are relatively insensitive to the nature of the supported cause, indulging in hedonic consumption even when it supports disliked causes. Six studies demonstrate the impact of adding charitable donations to products as well as the unique role that consumption guilt and its alleviation play in the underlying process