For
years insurance companies have tried to get people to save more money for
retirement with little success. In fact,
according to a recent study the situation is "worse than you thought,"
and the average American couple has only $5,000 saved. (Malito, 2017)
Back
in December 2015, Prudential launched a new campaign focusing on social proof
as a means of persuasion. You can look
at the commercial here...
My
students that semester had high hopes for the campaign. You can read their comments here...
But
since that campaign was discontinued, and I can find no trace of it currently
on the website, one has to assume it was not effective.
And
now it is being replaced by a new campaign.
According to Niharika Shah, VP head of brand marketing and advertising
"rather than throwing out stats and facts the formula allows us to tell a
people-powered story." (Pasquarelli, 2017)
You
can look at the new commercial here...
So,
what do you think? Which of the approaches
that we discussed in class last night are they using? Are they using them well? Do you think they will be successful this
time? Or are Millennials more likely to
use new disrupter brands such as Ladder, Fabric and Tomorrow?
Malito,
A. (2017, May 20) It’s worse than you thought: Americans are drastically
under-saved for retirement. marketwatch.com. Retrieved September 6, 2017, from
Pasquarelli,
A. (2017, September 1) Prudential Taps Real-Life Couples to Push Retirement
Services. adage.com. Retrieved September 6, 2017, from http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/prudential/310313/
18 comments:
Social proof approach is used in the new commercial. I think the new commercial more directly associate to the theme since it shows each person's estimation of money for retirement and their reaction when they see how many years their money last.
Prudential represents that it can help people save money which shows the company's value, but this commercial doesn't tell me the advantage of Prudtial. So,Prudential can be an option when I'm gonna save my money, but it won't be the first choice without showing advantages.
By Shixiong Yang
Hi class!
First of all, what an interesting post, Professor Lehrer! To be honest, I have previously never given much thought to this topic, as it did not seem personally relevant, timely, or important. That said, I believe Prudential addresses an important topic by tapping into both authority and consensus. In class, we defined authority as “the idea that people will follow credible knowledgeable experts” (In-Class PowerPoint). In Prudential’s short clip, the woman states, “it turned out, a lot of people fell short of even the average length of retirement.” The company uses a visual to show how short each individual actually fell. By doing so, in some way, Prudential shares inside knowledge or industry know-how and then claims that this in fact is why we, as consumers, need to turn to their company for help. On another note, we also defined consensus as “looking to the behavior of others when uncertain” (In-Class PowerPoint). To maximize odds of people identifying with their claims, prudential uses a wide range of individuals in their ad. The company does not use a single spokesperson. Instead, Prudential selects individuals (fourteen to be exact), of all races, genders, sexes, ages, who are relatable. Selecting a dozen plus individuals is likely both an intentional and effective strategy to reach all kinds of people. The message Prudential sends is, “We are in this together…and Prudential is here to help!”
That said, when reading the comments from the students back in December, I agree with Gab Wuhl’s questions. She states, “for me, this pledge is non-committal and reminiscent of ‘I pledge to not text and drive’ and similar online campaigns.” There are so many unanswered questions, as to how Prudential will honor/fulfill this campaign. The effectiveness of actual campaign does not seem too promising.
What do you all think? Would love to hear back from you!
All the best,
Grace Napolitano
One of the reasons that baby boomers are not responding to advertising regarding retirement savings is that the baby boomers are the first generations that are retiring with out having pensions. Before about thirty years ago most companies offered some basic pensions benefits to employees that were retiring to supplement their social security benefits.
In early 1980 Ted Benna introduced the 401K which initially was enacted to prevent the organization executive from having access to cash deferment plans. Benna added 401K to allow Johnson Company employees to contribute to retirement savings pre-tax dollars.
401k retirement saving is a relatively new phenomenon and when given the opportunity to pay bills or to save most baby boomers would prefer to pay credit card debt, mortgage, or student loans.
Most people put off saving as much as possible until it is often too late. That would explain why most people have less than 300,000 at the age of retirement. Simply put it is not a priority until it is time to retire which it too late.
Hello everyone,
I remember lots of different campaigns that Prudential has run in order to give people a visual to help understand what a retirement savings should look like. I can see why it’s hard for some people to grasp the concept that retirement savings should begin as early as possible. Keeping in mind the discussion we had during our last class, I think Prudential uses two different keys of persuasion to gain clients through their advertisements: consensus and authority.
Prudential first selects a group of people with different demographics and unifies them by exposing their inexperience of financial planning. This implies the fact that they all have a common problem, the lack of retirement savings. Finally, their call to action suggests that the group should partner with Prudential (since they have the knowledge) and have them create a plan for them. By showing some stats and displaying their knowledge, authority is being used to help persuade us as consumers to trust Prudential with out financial planning needs.
I believe Prudential has used both approaches well enough to get most people to at least inquire about their services. I think they are going to be more successful this time for one reason: I still don’t know that much about my retirement. They left out lots of facts and instructions on where and how start which I believe is smart. Now I’m forced to go to their website and browse for more information. Myself, being a millennial, don’t even consider financial planning companies mainly because my job offers benefits in which a 401k account is set up. However, if I didn’t have such benefits I think Prudential would be my first stop for info about my retirement. And depending who’s there to answer my questions, that person could possibly have a sale on their hands.
Hi class，
In the first commercial advertisement, I think Prudential company uses Consensus (social proof) to sell people retirement insurance. At first, they launch the new campaign and gather people together. Everyone joins in the race for retirement, so more and more people will influence by this campaign. They will start to concern about retirement insurance because other people have their retirement insurance. When I saw this advertisement, the first thing came to my mind is do I need to buy retirement insurance. By giving a little more, I can change the life after my retirement. Many people are doing it, why don’t I ?
However, I think the second commercial advertisement is more effective. In my personal opinion, the second commercial advertisement uses Scarcity. At first, they choose the couples to estimate their retirement saving and then show them how many years the money will last. After several years, some people will spend all of their money. I noticed the women run out of retirement saving within eight years. Most people spend all the money before the average retirement years. They will concern what should they do after running out of money, so they will buy retirement insurance to ensure their later life. As we know in the first class, people hate to lose more than likely to win.
By Jinjin Lu
It is very interesting to try and compare these two commercials. Even though they are pushing the same message, which is getting people to save more for retirement. In the first commercial, I believe that it is using the principle of Social Proof as its main persuasion tactic. However, I also see it being Authority. The proof being the narrator. Just because there is a narrator (he’s wearing the blue collared shirt). Most people will assume that he's a subject matter expert in retirement savings, and automatically assume and automatically concur with his reasonings.
However, I see the second commercial leading with scarcity instead of social proof. Basically, trying to scare us into believing that we won’t have enough for retirement. By having the actors say things like "how did this happen", and "you are leaving me in behind in year 9". Giving us an image of what may happen to us if we do not save.
Personally, I was also surprised that the first commercial failed. I felt upbeat about saving and had a generally positive attitude after watching it. While compared to the second one, I felt more like I had to save or I'm going to be in a world of hurt when older. I will say that I understand the fact that a need is greater than a want. So, I wanted to save after the first commercial, yet on the other hand, I needed to save after watching the second.
In the new commercial Prudential uses consensus as one of the approaches to target customers. While watching both commercials one of the things I noticed about Prudential is that they did not show you a specific group of people that they are targeting. In the first commercial the people who are running are of all demographics. It is clear that his campaign is for whoever wants to start saving. The notion of saving is something that many millennial’s do not necessarily try to do, and Prudential is trying to show why saving money sooner then later is important. The second commercial shows a visual of how much money people think they will need and how long it will actually last them. It is rather alarming at they fact that many of the estimates fall short of their expectations.
I think that the second commercial that Prudential has launched will be successful. The reason being is that it offers a visual to the customers on their projected savings. I also feel like the first commercial could have been effective as well had they showed a more then just customers running in order to pledge one percent of their savings for retirement. At the end I do think that Prudential has shown enough importance on the matter to at least spike the interest of the upcoming working class and generation to consider saving money as soon as possible.
By comparing the first and second campaign of Prudential, I found them very interesting on how they persuaded the customers with two very different approaches. The first campaign is comparably more "positive" by having people participating in the marathon saying things like "I have to do this for my future". The second campaign is more “negative”,and, in my opinion, more effective. Fear is one strong force of persuading people to do something. The second campaign delivers fear to its audiences by having some people calculating how many years can their money saved for their retirement lives last. None of them have enough money for their whole retirement lives. As a result, I like the second campaign than the first one. I think the first time does not successfully stimulate me to have a second thought about my retirement life. In contrast, the second one makes me to question myself: do I have enough money for my retirement life?
Happy to be back on the blog!! Relating this to our class 1 lesson - the recent commercial uses scarcity, consistency, liking and consensus. (Pretty much all!) When the couples are doing the walking exercise, nobody wants to be the one left behind watching everyone else walk ahead. This is a prime example of consensus. The quote at the end of the first commercial is an example of this as well. "If we all do that, we can all win!" Scarcity works in a way that makes people realize, literally, that they need to save their money as it can quickly become scarce. I'm not sure if this will be successful or not with Millennials as they seem to be a generation where saving/budgeting anything at all is super difficult.
Comparing these two commercials, I think the first commercial mainly focuses on the principle of authority while the second one mainly focuses on social proof. In the first commercial, there’s a male speaker that represents Prudential, especially he is wearing a blue shirt! He serves as the authority to expose expertise of why and how people should save money for retirement. The commercial also taps on two participants (man and woman, black and white) to reveal Prudential’s target market. The commercial shows that as everyone joins in the race for retirement, it might intrigue audience’s interest by getting into the activity as well. However, the target exposure in the first commercial seems a lot broader than the second one.
I think the second commercial is more effective than the first one for two reasons. One is that the target market is more specific in tapping the most likely customers who would act. And it uses the peer power to stress the persuasion. This commercial focuses on couples who are more family-oriented regardless of age, race, or sex orientation. To be honest, even though I find the commercial is interesting, I don’t think it speaks to me as I’m still a university student and haven’t put retirement in my short-term life plan yet. No matter how great the commercial is, if the product or service is not what the target needs or desires, it still fails. Apparently, the second commercial does well in narrowing down the target market that is most likely to respond. And yes, I would think more about saving for retirement after graduation and began real career. What’s more, a little interview with two pairs of couples (homosexual and heterosexual, white and black) implicates Prudential’s ambition in covering target as more as possible. And their reasons for saving for retirement seem more persuading.
Another reason for effectiveness lies in the design of this commercial. The idea is creative as it is designed in the setting of a game. It catches audience’s constant attention by unfolding how the couples’ estimated savings for retirement leads to corresponding consequence. And the couples’ reactions seem real and vivid as they lead to audience’s emotional thinking in saving for retirement.
At last, as a millennial, I would choose renowned and trustworthy brands for their reputation and authority over new disrupter brands that have cool-sounding names and yet unrecognizable in consideration of retirement insurance.
Excellent and timely post, Professor Lehrer. It would appear that Prudential is attempting a 2nd bite at the proverbial apple. While their initial offering extolling the virtues of retirement planning was not as successful as they would have liked, I believe the new version may yield stronger results. As opposed to Social Proof, the new ad derives its credibility through the Influence principles of Authority (presenting themselves as an expert on the topic) as well as Commitment & Consistency (a proposed action is in harmony with your internal values). By showcasing a wide variety of couples with various age groups and personal lifestyles, the new ad is more resonant and attractive to millennial savers. This is a potentially lucrative market space for Prudential, as studies show this generation to be outpacing both Boomers and Gen X'ers in retirement savings, primarily through 401(k) plans. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2017/07/26/millennials-may-far-retirement-but-think-ahead-401-k/510665001/
While the new/disrupter brands may be appealing simply because they're iconoclastic, Prudential has the benefit of Authority from their long and rich history in financial services and well-known gravitas in the area of retirement investment products. The name equity and related cache may help them outpace newer/shinier brands in the same space.
- Michael G Gillett
At the first advertisement, Prudential used consensus to tell everyone about what other people are doing and the benefits of it. The second advertisement used scarcity to scare people about their insufficient funds of their retirement savings. The second one is better than the first one since it's more personal and it has more impact. However, I don't think they will be successful since many people understand that insurance company always try to add fees on your retirement saving. At last, millennial still think they are young and don't need to think about retirement. I think they will started to save money for retirement after 15 years from now.
-Yucheng Wu
At the first advertisement, Prudential used consensus to tell everyone about what other people are doing and the benefits of it. The second advertisement used scarcity to scare people about their insufficient funds of their retirement savings. The second one is better than the first one since it's more personal and it has more impact. However, I don't think they will be successful since many people understand that insurance company always try to add fees on your retirement saving. At last, millennial still think they are young and don't need to think about retirement. I think they will started to save money for retirement after 15 years from now.
-Yucheng Wu
As a millennial I had never thought saving from retirement in an early age. I found the articles as well as the commercials truly interesting. I could not believe that people have less than 300,000 at the age of retirement.
I was highly compelled with the second commercial of The Prudential Walkways, because as we saw in class “people hate losing more than they love to win,” scarcity was used as a tool of persuasion. In addition, the second commercial really got my attention not only because it had an appealing movie-like feeling, but also it had a powerful story telling. The commercial uses the device of consensus by demonstrating the individuals reactions from what everyone though was a reasonable to save for retirement and that was something I found intriguing and which created a cause of action because I found myself going through their website and contacting my older relatives to find out this information.
The first advertisement was not as compelling because they use the authoritative tool of persuasion, where there is an expert figure that would give credit to the stats and the information presented in the commercial. I believe they also used part of consensus because they want you to imitate what the other people are doing, which in this case is joining together “to race for retirement.” This was not as effective for me because as a millennial this commercial seemed to be targeting an older demographic by giving me to much information.
Melissa Cruz
I think the new campaign works better. The new campaign is using "consistency" well because it helps people to visualize the connections between "retirement" and "income", so people would more likely to realize the importance of saving money, and more willing to put efforts in doing such. This approach is different than the old campaign. The old one is more educating, and it asks people directly to do such things. However, the new campaign is more encouraging. Most of the people don't have an idea about saving after retirement, but the second campaign really gets me. It will at least make people think about their futures and pay more attention to the Prudential services.
Erin Ding
The second commercial speaks to the heart (not the mind) and gets the message across to the target audience in a clear, fun way. I personally have always been taught the important of retirement savings, so I have saved and saved and saved my entire life...I found the first commercial to be really endearing and it made me want to add another 1% to my 401K...however, since I am a person who already saves regularly for retirement I am not the target audience of the commercial. They totally missed speaking to a larger group of people who do not currently save and understand the power 1% of savings can hold.
The second commercial hit the target audience by showing everyone what they have to lose by not saving more. Some of the players in the commercial literally left their spouse behind, and saw right in front of their face that they are not properly prepared for retirement. In a very playful way the game tapped into people's fear of leaving their families without proper care at the end of their life. It was fun and playful yet extremely poignant.
Ann Messinger
It was very interested that comparing two advertisements with different point of view. As we learn from the class, the most effective method to stimulate customers is to scare people with anxiety. It is because when they scare, they are going to be more aggressive to solve the problem. At this point, prudential’s advertisement perfectly touched customer's fear for uncertainty deep in their mind. Compared with the previous advertisement, they just held the race for the retirement. The purpose was more clear but it did not bring any emotions to customers. The advertisement contains hope to encourage customers to buy the product but it seems inefficient to attract them.
However, the second advertisement made me awake and feel anxiety. The host asked to the couples that “How much money do you think you need to retirment? How many years the money last?” After this questions, they stepped on the sections that they estimated how many years that money last. The result was shocked that it could not last over 15 years. Even though I’m far to think about retirement, but it made me think of my future financial plan.
I think Prudential uses a great method to allure customers and this advertisement is much successful than the previous one.
Hi everyone,
The old video encourages people to put more money into their retirement funds, with a positive message.
In contrast, the new ad uses fear as motivator.
It shows couples walking on a path (which represents retirement years) and they can only walk as far as their retirement founds would last. The video not only shows people running out of their retirement founds but furthermore it makes couples split up, as one would have more savings than the other.
I think Prudential did a better job this time around, as we discussed it in class fear is a greater motivator than happiness.
But when it comes down to actual customers, it is hard to predict weather or not people will save more money for their retirement.
From a finance point of view: The main problem with saving money for retirement is low interests rate. Most retirement plans have two parts: saving money until you retire then buy a pension found. (You put Y dollar into a savings account every year, than when you retire you use the sum of Y dollars to buy a pension Fund, which pays X every year). It is a self-founding investment. So the problem is that with current low interstate you have pay a much higher Y to get the same X than if the interest rate where high. Causing people to underestimate how much money they should be putting away.
Adam N.
Post a Comment