For example, with blog posts ( Seducing or misleading consumers? Where do you draw the line in online influencing and Consumer protection in the online economy ) and meetings of the Data Driven Marketing Association (DDMA, How do you protect consumers against misleading influencing techniques? ).
Consumer research
In my 2019 article I described some dilemmas that I discussed with the audience during a presentation. In the meantime, we have also presented some of these questions to a sample that is representative of the Dutch population. This concerns the autumn measurement of the AFM Consumer Monitor among 605 respondents. It is good to mention: this always concerns intentions, we do not measure actual behavior.
Ideally (and in practice), marketers conduct field experiments such as A/B testing with real customers and real decisions.
When promoting a product or service, there is spain telegram data often more attention for the positive aspects than for the negative aspects. The AFM states that advertisements about investment products must give a balanced picture of the advantages and disadvantages.
In the consumer research we did an experiment with a pop-up for a cancellation insurance. Respondents were randomly shown one of four versions. The pop-up is a fictional but realistic advertisement, where we made the buy button more prominent and/or added “I take the extra risk”. The question was: suppose you book a trip online. During the booking process the following pop-up appears. How unacceptable or acceptable do you find it that this pop-up is shown?
Cancellation insurance
On average, slightly less than half (45%) found this pop-up acceptable. It made no difference which pop-up was shown. So the most neutral pop-up (no colour, no risk, left image) is found just as acceptable as the most directive version (with colour and risk sentence, right image). For all four versions, more than one in five (22%) finds the pop-up unacceptable, but this seems to be separate from the expression itself.
