82 CHAPTER 3 HOW MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS WORKabsolute certainty, and thus implying universal applicability of the advertising claims, in ads of hedonic services
might attract the consumers’ attention to the inappropriateness of such claims and cause them to question the
absolute and categorical conclusion of the truth of the claim. On the other hand, placing a claim with a hedge
into a hedonic service ad might reduce the tendency of the consumers to counter-argue the claim and increase
the perceived honesty/credibility of the advertiser.^28 Utilitarian services are, however, much more pragmatic and
practical than hedonic ones. They are characterised by low levels of employee–customer contact, moderate
customisation and higher product orientation than hedonic services. All this makes them much less individualised
and person-specific, enabling easier objective assessment of service quality and customer satisfaction, which
depend mainly on the functionality of their consumption,^29 based on an almost universal set of characteristics that
ensure optimal functionality. Using pledges in ads of utilitarian services, therefore, signals the advertisers’ full con-
fidence in the truthfulness of the claim, thus enhancing its persuasive power. A hedge in advertising copy for a
utilitarian service, on the other hand, might create the impression that the advertiser is not willing to stand totally
behind the claim, weakening the claim itself, and undermining the advertiser’s authority, credibility and status.^30
This would result in decreased efficiency of the ad.
The third dimension studied is uncertainty avoidance, defined by Hofstede as ‘the extent to which people feel
threatened by uncertainty and ambiguity and try to avoid these situations’.^31 Since probability markers are linguistic
expressions of various degrees of certainty vs probability or ambiguity (i.e. uncertainty), the question arises
whether the cultural dimension of uncertainty avoidance or tolerance for ambiguity could cause higher or lower
acceptance of pledges and hedges in different cultures, and, therefore, influence the effectiveness of ads containing
hedges or pledges on consumers from different country markets.
Two 2 (service type: hedonic/utilitarian) × 2 (involvement: high/low) × 3 (probability marker: hedge, pledge,
no marker) between-subjects experiments were set up, one in Croatia, and one in Belgium (Flanders). The two
experiments used the same stimuli, although the verbal part was translated into the local languages. A graduate
school ad was used as a utilitarian high-involvement service, a copy/printing shop as a utilitarian low-involvement
service, a bar as a hedonic high-involvement service, and a sandwich shop as a hedonic low-involvement service.
Twelve different groups were each exposed to one of the ads, and responses were measured.
As expected, hedges and pledges do not have an effect in case of high-involvement services. This is not surprising,
as probability markers are considered peripheral cues that are expected mainly to have an effect in low-involvement
situations. However, probability markers do have an effect in case of low-involvement services, and this effect is
moderated by the tolerance for ambiguity. More tolerance for ambiguity improves the attitude towards the brand
and purchase intention for low-involvement services ads in which hedges are used. More tolerance for ambiguity
leads to a lower attitude towards the brand and purchase intention for low-involvement services ads in which
pledges are used. For hedonic low-involvement services, which are experiential, subjective and very person-specific
in nature, advertising claims that include hedges have been found to be the most effective, resulting in the highest
levels of brand attitude and purchase intentions. It seems that such claims may be inciting heightened perceptions
of honesty/credibility of the advertiser in the eyes of the consumer, whereas a claim containing an absolutistic
pledge would not only be easy to counter-argue and dismiss, but also have the opposite effect on the perceived
credibility of the advertiser. On the contrary, ads for utilitarian low-involvement services seem to work better when
they include a claim containing a pledge. Pledges in this case, where the service is much less customised and person-
specific, and considerably easier to evaluate objectively (making it also easier to compare its universal functional
characteristics with other similar services with certainty), signal the strength of the advertisers’ convictions in the
absolute truthfulness of the claims contained in the advertising copy.
The above-mentioned results have some interesting practical implications for advertising professionals and
executives in both countries. As Croatian consumers, being in general rather tolerant of ambiguity, seem to react
positively to ads containing probability markers, advertising campaigns in Croatia would benefit from inclusion of
probability markers in advertising copy. This ought to be especially the case for ads for hedonic products or ser-
vices, for which arguments with hedges have been proven to be the best choice. On the other hand, a comparatively
low tolerance for ambiguity among Belgian consumers should cause advertisers in Belgium to be cautious in the use
of probability markers in advertising campaigns designed for the Belgian market. An exception to this might be the
use of pledges, which leave little room for uncertainty and ambiguity, and which, according to the results of this
study, would be especially well suited to arguments used in ads of utilitarian products/services.M03_PELS3221_05_SE_C03.indd 82 6/5/13 3:03 PM