Message Design Factors and Advertising Disclosures*

Craig Andrews

Marquette University

May 2001

*Many factors affect the processing of disclosures.  By the way, this is 8-point font size!

Disclosure Modality
        - Dual modality disclosures (audio and video) are better recalled than single modality disclosures (especially video only).
        - Audio-only disclosures are better recalled than video-only disclosures.
        - In practice, almost all television disclosures are video-only.

          -  Dual modality disclosures in which video warning messages are accompanied by an audio voice-over achieve higher levels of message recall than print-only disclosures (Houston and Rothschild JMR 1980; Smith JPP&M 1990; Barlow and Wogalter JCR 1993; Murray et al. JCP 1993; JPP&M 1998) or audio-only disclosures (Morris et al. JPP&M 1989). 
          -  In practice, a content analysis of 246 disclosures in network TV commercials in 1990 showed that 245 (99.6%) were video-only and only one disclosure was audio-only.
          -  Examples of audio-only disclosures include voice-overs of risks in recent prescription drug ads.

Disclosure Size, etc.
        - Improving disclosure conspicuity (size and contrast) can increase message recall.
        - “Modem Required. Sold Separately.” – 4pt. font
        - Shorter disclosures are comprehended better than longer disclosures.
        - Disclosures that have fewer characters per inch, occupy a larger area, and are more isolated are more noticeable than disclosures without these features.

          -  Improving disclosure (warning) conspicuity (size – 11 pt. Vs. 8pt. Font; contrast – white vs. dark background) enhanced recall of alcohol warning messages (Barlow and Wogalter JCR 1993). (See also Foxman et al. JPP&M 1988). In Karnes and Leonard (Exper. #3, Trends in ergonomics, Human factors III, 1986), larger warning size (7 in. vs. too small to be read) and better contrast conditions had a significant and positive effect on perceptions of ATV risk.  Popper and Murray (1989 ACR) were unable to detect any improvements in comprehension when chewing tobacco warnings were increased from 10pt. Font to 14pt. Font.
          -  Shorter disclosures (10 words or less) are comprehended better than longer disclosures (Murray et al. JCP 1993).
          -  Alcohol warnings that contain fewer characters per inch, occupy a larger area, and a re more isolated tend to be more noticeable than warnings without these design features (Swasy et al. M&PP Conf.1992).
          -  Example – 4 point font disclosure (“Modem Required. Sold Separately”) in recent Microsoft/Hewlett-Packard case.

Disclosure Distraction 
        - Background noise and ad clutter tend to reduce the awareness of disclosures.
        -  Distinctive “peripheral cues” (color, celebrities, music, scenery,...) can interfere with viewers’ processing of message disclosures – especially if the cue is unrelated to the message disclosure.
        - Listerine corrective ad disclosure

          -  Example – Warner-Lambert (1975) Listerine case – the following corrective ad disclosure was placed midway through the “onion breath” commercial: “While Listerine will not help prevent colds or sore throats or lessen their severity, breath tests prove Listerine fights onion breath better than Scope.”
          -  Regression analyses found that the amount of noise or clutter on the surrounding alcohol warning label significantly reduced warning detection times.
          -  Under low motivation, ability, or opportunity to process the message, peripheral cues can be more salient in persuasion than main message arguments (Petty and Cacioppo Persuasion and Communication1986). If related to the main message, distinctive cues can draw attention into the massage arguments (cf. Andrews et al. JCIRA 1992).  However, Edell and Staelin (1983 JCR) found that in print ads where the verbal message does not relate the picture to the brand (I.e, unframed pictures – motor oil ad picturing a sunset), receivers were distracted from evaluating the brand in the ad. See also comments by Stewart and Martin (JPP&M 1994) on selective attention and the role of distraction.  See also Bither (JMR 1972), Gardner (JAR 1970), and Venkatesan and Haaland (JMR 1968).

Disclosure Specificity and Length
        - General advisories and claims (e.g., “read the label,” “consult your doctor”) tend not to be comprehended as well as more specific information.
        - However, disclosure length should not be favored in increasing specificity.  Again, shorter disclosures are recalled better than longer disclosures.

          -  Other examples include “environmentally friendly” and “healthy” versus more specific claims (see Andrews et al. JM 1998; JA 2000; Maronick and Andrews JCA 1999).
          -  In a laboratory study of warning messages embedded in Alka Seltzer TV commercials, none of 135 viewers recalled seeing the general warning message “Read the label. Use only as directed.,” which was presented visually (Houston and Rothschild JMR 1980). In general, more specific warnings in TV ads are more effective than general warnings (Houston and Rothschild JMR 1980; Laughery et al., Human Factors Proceedings, 1991; Morris et al. JPP&M 1989; Smith JPP&M 1990).
          -  Commercials containing disclosures with ten or fewer words were comprehended better than those containing disclosures with more than ten words (Murray et al. JCP 1993).

Disclosure Understanding
        - Target market viewers may have difficulty understanding disclosures at times. Their ability levels (age, education, special product knowledge) in processing the disclosures should be considered.
        - Children and disclosures (“Some assembly required” vs. “You have to put this together”) 

          -  See work by Petty and Cacioppo (1986) on ability to process information.  
          -  See work by Piaget (Scientific American 1957) and Roedder (JCR 1981) on different information processing categories for children.