Example: cancellation insurance
Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2024 6:15 am
In order to provide companies with more tools, the ACM published the Guideline for the Protection of Online Consumers in February 2020. The AFM stated that this ACM guideline not only offers protection for the 'online consumer', but also tools for financial companies. The ACM is also working hard to ensure that the principles of the guideline are adopted by relevant target groups such as online marketers.
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.
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.