In longer pieces of copy, it’s normal to see claims grow in size as we progress through. They often start with something easily believable, like common knowledge and gradually push the boundary. You see, once we’ve made a ‘psychological commitment’, we tend to stay consistent with it and act accordingly. It’s how we’re wired.
But believability is a complex beast. And it’s arguably a copywriter’s or advertiser’s biggest villain.
Building claims is one way of fighting it. But to really send a message home and leave no room for doubt, you need to dimensionalise your believability techniques.
Today, looking at this ad from Levington, we’ll explore the ways they build believability, ultimately creating, what I think, is a very effective form of subtle persuasion. Let’s dig in.
Who’s responsible?
Copywriters: Baz Singh, Tim Riley, Peter Gatley | Art Director: Peter Gatley | Photographer: Andreas Heumann | Agency: BMP DDB Needham | Client: Fisons Horticulture Division | Year: 1993
Art Analysis
Let’s start with the art. Now, there’s not much to look at – it takes up only a small amount of real estate. I think they’ve done this intentionally to understate their message, a theme we’ll see throughout the ad. And as a result, it allows the copy to take centre stage.
In some ways, it works like a headline. The flowers, bright and vibrant, draw attention and attract the right market. And those not interested in flowers will likely ignore – and that’s fine.
But what I think is important here is the out-of-focus lab (research) analyst. Yes, the flowers attract attention. But the lab analyst is what shapes the message. By leaving them out of focus, I feel like the ad’s saying, “Oh, we didn’t even realise they were there”. Quiet confidence. A ‘we have nothing to hide’ kind of attitude. I think it’s meant to be tongue-in-cheek too.
Nevertheless, their blurred presence still adds credibility (by association) and becomes a form of subtle proof for the headline.
Let’s go there next.
Headline Analysis
The first observation? The headline takes up most of the ad. This is the main focus. And it reads very matter-of-factly. But lurking beneath the surface, it has some more ‘tongue in cheekness’, which engages the right hemisphere of our brain.
You see, our left hemisphere takes this literally – and cleverly, that still works. But it doesn’t sniff out the humour scent. We need the right hemisphere for that. This kind of humour, well any kind of humour, helps to bypass our natural ‘ad resistance’ so the message actually sinks in.
What’s more, the second sentence has another hidden message. A message you’re invited to reverse engineer. It’s a bold claim, and had it been said more directly (i.e. “we’re better than everyone else”), I think it’d be met with a lot of resistance.
But by letting you figure it out, you take some ownership of the message. And this helps you accept and believe the claim (or fact) that Levington is better than the rest. Noice.
Main Body Structure
Here’s how I’ve structured the body copy, effectively a sentence (or two) per section.
Followed by…
Section 1 Analysis
The first section transitions into the body copy. It bridges the gap. It doesn’t state anything new, just kinda reaffirms the message you should have solved from the headline. It’s dimensionalising, I guess. Same point, different perspective.
I think the rhetorical question is a smart choice. From it, you get a better feel for the impending playfulness.
And because it’s a loaded question that’s wrapped up in humour, it helps to get an early agreement from you. This helps to build agreement momentum, reducing doubt and making future, bigger claims easier to accept. I think this also helps to bring you into the ad, almost creating a bond. You know, like you’re friends just joking around.
In the second sentence, they name the testing body, a clever use of specificity, which adds credibility and believability. “Romped” is an interesting choice. I think it adds energy but subtly disqualifies the other seven competitors, planting persuasion seeds to make Levington an easier choice later.
Section 2 Analysis
Section 2 is our first glimpse at Levington nudging the believability limits. It broadens their newly established position in your mind because they achieved great results across lots of plants. This, again, makes them an easier choice later.
Notice how they use a sentence fragment too. This helps to keep the reader moving. Remember, with every passing word, the likelihood of completion increases.
Section 3 Analysis
So they’ve made a point – they’re good, the best, in fact – they’ve escalated it (or dramatised it), and now they’re effectively proving it. They lean into the playfulness again because they say their “research team” expected it.
What I particularly like about this section is that the proof (i.e. the research team) becomes a ‘costly signal’.
In other words…
The ad says: “We have a research team. We care about our reputation.”
You hear: “Levington are good”.
It gives you more confidence in their compost and reduces the perceived risk of choosing them. It’s like a demonstration of their commitment to excellence.
Section 4 Analysis
Next, we see more playfulness. I mentioned before how humour and playfulness help keep resistance low. And well, I’d like to remind you of it here. The humour and relaxed language, again, help humanise Levington and nurture your ‘bond’. So, although it’s tongue-in-cheek, their lack of popularity amongst their peers evokes a little more emotion than it would otherwise.
This is also a clever demonstration of the Pratfall Effect, where a concession helps humanise them further. Only here, it aids believability too. “If others don’t like them, they must be good”.
Their willingness to ‘leave the tribe’ also reinforces their commitment to excellence, acting as another costly signal. In other words, they’re choosing quality over popularity. Which actually helps create more mental distance between them and their competitors.
Section 5 Analysis
In this final section, they dimensionalise what we’ve figured out – and say it directly. It’s a good example of an antithesis, where you put two opposing ideas together to highlight (and exaggerate) the difference. Where the difference, here, is them rooting for you, the gardener.
Idea 1: We’re not popular amongst competitors because our product’s so good.
Idea 2: But we are popular amongst gardeners, and that’s what matters to us.
The closing sentence also acts like social proof: Gardeners already love Levington compost, so you will too.
Because this sentence also understates their popularity, it invites you to assume they’re actually more popular than they’re letting on. That requires a little bit of thought, a little bit of you, which in turn dramatises it more.
After all the work on believability, you now readily accept this, convincing yourself they are, in fact, the best choice.
Tagline (or CTA) Analysis
I’m not entirely sure whether this is a tagline or not. Nevertheless, it acts as a call to action. It reduces the perceived effort and implies that Levington will do all the hard work for you.
I think it’s important to remember that (when cost isn’t a limiting factor), it’s hard not to choose the best when you know who they are.
So because Levington has convinced you they are, they can afford not to be pushy with their call to action. Instead, they invite you to sell yourself, which you’ve already done, giving off a sense of confidence and that they’re here to help – and not sell. Like a good friend.
Persuasive levers
So, to summarise, there are a few persuasive levers on display:
They build believability
The ad layers and progressively builds believability. They start small, build momentum and enlarge the ‘claims’. But they also nurture your confidence and connection so you don’t doubt what they’re saying. It builds trust. As Eddie Shleyner reminds us in his book Very Good Copy, “…belief garners trust, and trust compels action.”. We see that here.
They engage both brain hemispheres
The playful tone engages our right hemisphere’s love of humour and hidden messages. And the ‘matter-of-factness’ appeals to our literal loving left. It’s important to remember that the literal perception still works though!
They reduce resistance
Humour lowers our resistance to a message. The friendly language does too. Together, they help you believe what they’re saying.
They signal
By mentioning their research team, they elevate their status, reducing perceived decision-making risk and increasing perceived product quality. Together, these are a potent combination towards getting a “yes”.
An improvement, maybe?
So, yes, it’s hard to choose someone else when you know who the best is. The ad leans into this and makes sure you believe they’re the best.
But to make it even easier, the ad could have – or could not have – invited the reader to make a commitment to excellence too.
For example, Ogilvy’s “The Man in the Hathaway Shirt” did a great job of garnering a passive commitment. By simply reading on, you acknowledge and agree that it’s “ridiculous to buy good suits and then spoil the effect by wearing an ordinary, mass-produced shirt.”. You then act in accordance with this commitment, effectively making you care more about something than you did before – and increasing your propensity to buy Hathaway’s quality shirts.
Anyway, it might have helped further with this one. It might not have. Who knows. It’s worth considering in your work though.
Get the next one in your inbox
Thanks for reading. I hope you enjoyed it. If you did, consider signing up for my newsletter. It’s free, and I take some sections into more detail or share more information about the ad or campaign.
You’ll get notified every time a new one goes live too.
>> I’d like to sign up for the newsletter and get insights in my inbox.
