1. 1
Preface
This research is my bachelor thesis and is representing my last work as a business student
at the University of Stavanger – Handelshøyskolen i Stavanger.
This particular task was chosen because of a strong interest in marketing and especially
consumer behavior. I’ve also chosen GE Money Bank (GEMB) as a case to study as they
are a business in a complex market where businesses often struggle with bad reputation
and tough competition. For the last couple of years I’ve also been working at GEMB,
which makes them a natural choice, as it is a company that I know very well and have
strong relation to.
Firstly, I would like to give a huge thanks to my mentor, Tarjei Mandt Lasen. He has been
of great help throughout the process with good advices, creative solutions and a lot of
support.
This research would not have been possible without a collaboration with GE – Money
Bank’s marketing department either, and I would like to thank them for all the help. They
have given me access to their marketing tools and theory, and have always been available
for assistance and guidance. A special thanks to Børge Liavik, Sven-Erik Gjertsen and Pål
Skipevåg Oftedal.
I hope you enjoy reading the text.
With best regards,
Kristine Grude Nesvik
15.05, 2012

2. 2
I. Abstract
The literature on argument persuasion states that the way a message is delivered makes a
difference in how persuasive the ad is. Selecting the appropriate appeal is crucial and a
message’s effectiveness is often measured by its ability to impact attitudes and purchase
decisions amongst the consumers. The purpose of this current study is to test to which
extent consumers are persuaded better by either an economic, an emotional or a service
oriented argumentation style.
As a case in this study, GE – Money Bank (GEMB) is used. To test the presented
hypothesis a “split URL-test” was conducted on GEMB’s webpage and it measured which
argument style that was most persuasive for consumers coming to GEMB’s webpage
through banner advertisement. Collected data showed that emotional arguments worked
best as the number of received lending applications was enhanced with 157,40 % more
than the economic argument page, and with 37,25 % more than the service argument page.

3. 3
II. Table of Content
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 5
1.1 Structure of the Paper................................................................................................... 7
1.2 Assumptions and Limitations ...................................................................................... 7
2.0 Theory............................................................................................................................. 8
2.1 How to persuade?......................................................................................................... 8
2.2 The Art of Argumentation ......................................................................................... 10
2.3 Which is more effective? ........................................................................................... 11
2.4 The Role of Context................................................................................................... 13
2.5 Personality Types....................................................................................................... 14
2.6 Hypothesis.................................................................................................................. 16
3.0 Method.......................................................................................................................... 17
3.1 Subject and design ..................................................................................................... 18
3.2 Procedure ................................................................................................................... 18
3.3 Independent variables ................................................................................................ 19
3.4 Evaluating the effectiveness ...................................................................................... 21
4.0 Analysis......................................................................................................................... 22
4.1 Findings...................................................................................................................... 22
4.2 Hypothesis Testing..................................................................................................... 23
5.0 Conclusions................................................................................................................... 23
5.1 Suggestions for Further Research.............................................................................. 25
5.2 Managerial Implications ............................................................................................ 25
6.0 Reference list................................................................................................................ 26

4. 4
III. Figures and Tables
Figure 1 – Elements of Persuasion ..................................................................................... 8
Table 1 Specific Marketing Mediators of ELM ................................................................ 14
Figure 2: The DISC-Model of Human Behaviour ............................................................ 15
Figure 3: Thresholds for winning and losing variation (Screenshot “Visual Website
Optimizer) ........................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 4: Overview of test data and a cumulative chart of received applications (Screenshot
“Visual Website Optimizer) ............................................................................................... 23

5. 5
Argument Persuasiveness in Internet marketing
1.0 Introduction
Customer’s freedom of choice has been taken to a new level with the introduction of the
Internet. The consumers now have the ability to compare competing products, go for
international brands and shop around the world. With millions of different offers online,
the company’s task is now to stand out and catch the reader’s attention. A publisher
therefore needs to optimize his/her web content to be worth the reader’s interest
(McGovern, 2006, p.10). You, as an internet publisher, have so much to tell, and the
potential consumer has so little attention to give. You can look at the consumer’s attention
like an elastic band, it can be stretched, but eventually it will snap.
Marketers have to assume that the buyer knows all his/her buying options. It is therefore
vital that companies ensure that their products and services provide relevant benefits and
value for the consumers, and that they are positioned efficiently to reach the consumer. The
challenge for advertisers is therefore to understand the user’s situation and design
messages that fit the user’s needs and motivations (Hansen et al., 2011, p. 5).
The process of selecting the appropriate message strategy (either rational, emotional or a
combination of the two) in a given context is a rational planning task, based on some key
information about the receiver. A person’s presence on the Internet may vary from just
browsing to pass time, to actively searching for specific information, either by trying to
find a bargain, to be entertained, or to find others to relate to, and this means that a writer
needs to be able to satisfy the needs of all these different readers to attract interest and be
effective (Wells et al., 2011, p. 416).
It is common to look at a webpage as a way to deliver arguments to the consumers, it is
then vital for a writer to understand the audience and chose an argument type that will,
catch their attention and trigger them. An overarching research question in this text will
therefore be; which argument type is best suited when persuading via the Internet?
Obviously, this is a research question is too extensive, so to address the issue more specific
a case study is introduced. The business chosen for this purpose is the financing company
GE – Money Bank (GEMB). GEMB is an international firm that is established in over 100
different countries around the world. In Norway there are 300,000 customers using

6. 6
GEMB’s services, and the lending portfolio is around 5 billion NOK. However, they only
have about 18 - 20 % of the calculated market in unsecured personal loans, and want
further growth. The banking sector faces a more complex and unstable economy than ever
before, and in order to satisfy their goals, GEMB needs to drastically increase their
consumer portfolio.
Almost all of GEMB’s received lending applications come through their webpage, and
GEMB consequently believes that they can achieve growth in an unstable economy by
making their homepage more attractive for potential consumers. The products offered by
GEMB are highly competitive as compared to its competition, but in order to harvest the
benefits of this, they need to position their products in a more persuasive manner. Based on
this information, it is now possible to formulate a more constricted research question by
asking; which argument type is best suited for GEMB on the Internet?
This question formulation is still too broad, so to focus it, attention will be given to one
specific group of visitors. Consumers can enter GEMB’s website through three different
channels; direct typing of URL (www.gemoney.no), search engine results (e.g., Google
Search) and advertising banners. These are all channels that are interesting objects to test,
but the subjects of main interest in this text will be readers coming to GEMB’s page
through banner advertisement. Online banners are one of the most popular forms of
advertising on the Internet and it has existed for almost as long as the Web has (Mynde,
2011). This channel is chosen because the high number of customers visiting through web
banners, and only last year, approximately 300.000 consumers came to GEMB site through
the banners. Also, GEMB has chosen to not advertise on TV, making banner
advertisements the main media channel used to attract new consumers. With these insights,
this entry channel was viewed as the most interesting for the study and therefore chosen.
The final research question is accordingly;
“Which argument type is best suited for consumers coming
to GE – Money Bank’s website through banners?”

7. 7
1.1 Structure of the Paper
In the second chapter theories on persuasion will be presented. The chapter will look at
different argument styles that are believed to enhance the persuasiveness of a message, and
further link argumentation persuasiveness with context and personality types. The third
chapter will present the method chosen for the research and look at both opportunities and
limitations with the chosen tool. Chapter four will present the data collected from the
research, and an analysis. Lastly, chapter five will give conclusions based on the presented
text, and with the given results address opportunities and limitations for GEMB.
1.2 Assumptions and Limitations
It is assumed that all the secondary sources are reliable and present accurate data, but one
must take caution as the resources may be inaccurate as they are based on other people’s
research. Primary research presented in the text will be exact and reliable as it is conducted
by the researcher herself and GEMB. The research is limited to received lending
applications on unsecured loans, and subjects tested are confined to readers coming to
GEMB’s webpage through banner advertising on different Google-sites.

8. 8
2.0 Theory
In this chapter, the term persuasion will be presented and explained in light of an
advertising context. Next, a model displaying all the different elements of persuasion will
be addressed and the element argument persuasiveness will be singled out. Further, the
different argument categories will be discussed in regards to both context and personality
traits.
2.1 How to persuade?
Most of advertising share a common final goal; Persuading the target consumers to adopt a
particular product, service or idea (Kotler & Keller, 2006, p. 569). In advertising context,
persuasion is the conscious intent from the advertiser to influence and motivate the
receiver of a message to believe or do something (Wells et al., 2011, p. 116). Persuasion
can come from both rational arguments and convincing emotions and is designed to change
attitudes and beliefs (Kotler & Keller, 2006, p.569). The process of persuading a consumer
is however intricate because of its dependence on a range of factors and dimensions to be
effective (Meyers-Levy & Malaviya, 1999). To understand the act of persuading the
following elements must be identified:
Figure 1 – Elements of persuasion (Wells et al., 2011, p.116)
Persuasion
A,tudes
-­‐
State
of
mind,
tendency,
propencity,
posi;on,
inclina;on
Argument
-­‐
Reasons,
proof
Involvement
-­‐
Engagement,
experiences
that
intensifies
brand
rela;onship
Mo5va5on
-­‐
Incen;ve
or
reason
to
respond
Influence
-­‐
People
or
events
that
shape
aGtudes
and
beahaviour
Convic5on
and
Preference
-­‐
Crea;ng
concidera;on
Loyalty
-­‐
Repeat
purchase,
sa;sfac;on

9. 9
In the next few paragraphs, all the elements of persuasion will be recognized and explained
further.
An attitude represents an evaluative integration of cognitions and affects experienced in
relation to an object (Crano & Prislin, 2006). Attitudes are the evaluative judgments that
integrate and summarize these cognitive/affective reactions. Attitudes can vary in strength,
(e.g. negative, positive or neutral) which in turn will affect how one thinks about a product
or brand. Particularly strong positive- or negative attitudes can lead people to action – or
lack of action (Wells et al, 2011, p. 116). Marketing communication is used as a tool to
establish, change or reinforce these attitudes.
An argument is an attempt to persuade someone of something, by giving reasons or
evidence for accepting a particular conclusion. With the arguments presented we try to
convince others to agree with our facts, share our values, accept our argument and
conclusions, and adopt our way of thinking (Mc Govern, 2006, p.24). The arguments are
usually conveyed in sentences, statements or propositions (Wells et al., 2011, p. 117).
The element of involvement emphasises that people process information differently based
on level of involvement with the brand. If we search for information and evaluate it
critically there is a high level of involvement, and if were just browsing and evaluating the
information passively there is a low level of involvement. Many marketeers seek to
increase the level of involvement as it triggers the customers desire to learn more about the
product (Wells et al, 2011, p. 117).
Motivation is another factor in persuasion and it is about the strength of a consumers want
to acquire something (Wells et al., 2011, p.117). Every human action is motivated by
something, and the marketer’s job is to find out what motivates people to buy, and then
provide that motivation (Tracy, 2001). The higher the strength of a motivation, the higher
the possibility for an action/purchase.
The use of people or events to strengthen the persuasiveness of a product/service is called
influence. Rather than using rational arguments or logic reasons, the method may create a
link between a brand and celebrities or opinion leaders which enhances the persuasiveness
of a message (Wells et al., 2011, p.117).

10. 10
The act of persuasion leads to a conviction given by the consumers, which hopefully will
lead to a preference for the brand and an intention to buy. To get a positive conviction it is
important for the advertising message to be credible (Wells et al., 2011, p.117).
The last element of persuasion is loyalty, and it is measured in both attitude and by repeat
purchase behaviour. This response is built on customer satisfaction and it states that if a
customer is satisfied, s/he will repeat the purchase (Wells et al., 2011, p.117).
As one can see, the degree of persuasion does not only lie in the advertising message, but
also in the consumer’s particular mental process evoked by the ad. To answer to the
hypothesis, focus is placed on the element of argument persuasiveness. This is because
argument persuasiveness the best suited variable to test on GEMB’s site within the given
time and frames. It is also the most explicit element on their webpage which is given most
attention from the customers.
2.2 The Art of Argumentation
How the message is delivered makes a difference in how persuasive the ad is (Mc Govern,
2006, p.73). Selecting the appropriate argument style is crucial and message effectiveness
is often measured by its ability to impact attitudes and purchase intention among the
consumers (Holmes & Crocker, 1987). Generally a persuasive argument employs both
rational arguments and compelling emotions in its aim to persuade the consumer (Spence-
Stones, et al., 2011, p. 136). Based on content, most arguments can be divided into two
categories: (1) rational messages, where focus is placed on either factual information like
product attributes or utilitarian consequences like savings in time or money, or (2)
emotional messages, where emotions one will experience through use or ownership of a
product is the centre of attention (Bagozzi, Gopinath, Nyer, 1999).
Economic argumentation is an important form of rational messages which will be focused
on in this research. The economic arguments will try to persuade consumers by positioning
its own product/services as less costly than those of the competitors (Hansen et al., 2004).
An economic argument may convince the consumers with a pledge for low prices, price
sensitivity and the economic wellbeing of the consumers. The persuader will clearly
identify the consumer benefits with diagnostic information that consumers easily can
compare to other competitors (Hansen et al., 2004). An example of an economic argument

11. 11
could be “Buy now, save 10$ on your TV-screen” or “You are always guaranteed the
lowest prices in the market”.
Emotional arguments are messages with an affecting appeal that is meant to evoke
immediate feelings (i.e. joy, fear, laughter). The arguments directly or indirectly imply that
the consumer will experience pleasure with a purchase of the product or pain from failure
to purchase (Holmes and Crocker, 1987). Holmes and Crocker (1987) argue that with an
instant need, emotional arguments are effective because they will often generate feelings
associated with past experiences, e.g. remembrance of the pleasure from the last holiday,
or the stress you experienced by not having what you needed. Examples of emotional
arguments in advertising are “You can sleep well when knowing that your family is insured
by X” or “Look 10 years younger with X”.
For the purpose of this research, a third argument style is introduced. Hansen (et al., 2004)
uses the term service arguments in their study on argument persuasiveness, and it is an
argument style which is viewed as a mix of both rational and emotional arguments. This is
due to its appeal to your feelings (emotional) through rational arguments (rational). Service
arguments are messages portraying good features of a product or service and are focusing
on elements like customer service, expertise and organisational accomplishments (Hansen
et al., 2004). It appeals to your emotion by giving you a sense of security when choosing
the particular brand and it is rational at the same time because the arguments are based on
rational facts. Examples of service arguments are “We have been ranked as top no.1 in
hospitality!” or “- To make the journey as comfortable as possible”.
2.3 Which is more effective?
An experiment made by Hansen (et al. 2004) showed that economic advertising is more
effective when persuading customers, than marketing on emotions and/or service quality.
This is because the claimed effects of emotional and service arguments have an intangible
nature, and it is therefore hard to evaluate its dependability for a potential customer. This is
logic when seeing that you can’t measure the enjoyment of a product or the friendliness of
a customer care agent till after the purchase has been made. That said, it is also shown that
advertising containing emotional arguments generally generate more warm and favourable
feelings towards a brand, than economic arguments. Chandy (et al. 2001) suggests that

12. 12
when the consumer is uneducated with a product or service, advertising writer’s needs to
provide emotional arguments that may reduce the purchase risk and differentiate the
products/services from its competitors. Consequently, if a consumer has existing
knowledge about a product, an emotional ad may be viewed as irrelevant and irritating
(Chandy, et al., 2001). On the contrary, Chandy (et al., 2001) also suggests that if an
uneducated consumer is exposed to an emotional ad, it is also possible that the person will
not find the ad credible or convincing, seeing that it will not educate the consumer enough
to persuade them into buying the product. Therefore, the emotional arguments in an
advertisement may be distracting the consumer from critical product content and benefits
Service arguments are believed to work best when aiming at consumers that have
experienced poor service from other suppliers in the past. When advertising on service, the
potential customer will evaluate his/her previous experiences from their supplier against
the arguments from the new competitor (Hansen et al., 2004). If the customer sees a gap in
favour of the new product or service, the likeliness of buying is enhanced. However,
argument claims about service are, as mentioned, intangible, and this may result in two
different customers having a completely different perception of the service provider’s
quality. The fact that the service quality will also differ due to diverse quality amongst the
employees, makes the issue even more intricate. In the service market, the core offering
itself, will often be perceived as standardised, and an upfront evaluation will therefore
mainly be based on beliefs and evaluation of the tangible assets of the service, where the
price (portrayed in economic arguments) is the most apparent one (Hansen, et al., 2004).
Based on the previous, Hansen (et al., 2004) therefore argues that it is easier for the
consumers to relate to a price argument where the customers know exactly what they get,
and can measure it against competing firms. Disregarding personality types, they also
conclude that an economic argument is generally more persuasive and is found slightly
more relevant amongst the subjects tested.
There is a great deal of literature that emphasizes on the importance of context and
personality types when choosing the right argument style. Theory about context and
personality types will therefore be presented to understand how and why a consumer gets
persuaded by certain arguments.

13. 13
2.4 The Role of Context
Both Mazzotta (et al. 2001) and Chandy (et al 2008.) suggests that the strength of an
argument strategy, whether it is economic, emotional or service oriented, will depend on
the context in which the message is being delivered. As an example one can see that an
advertisement about house interior will be much more persuasive if it is seen by a person
that wants to renovate his/her house and is looking for special offers, than to a person that
has no immediate thoughts of renovating.
The elaboration likelihood model (ELM) of persuasiveness, developed by Petty and
Cacioppo, is a model used to explain how attitudes are formed and changed in different
contexts. Petty (et al., 1983) divides the quest for persuasion in different contexts into two
distinct routes. The first one is called the central route and it claims that attitudes will
change when the consumer evaluates the pros and cons of an issue and by careful
consideration builds an attitude on the subject. The second approach is the peripheral route
to attitude change, and it suggests that attitudes will change when a person is persuaded by
a product/service because of coincident, rather than considerations in advance (Petty, et al.,
1983). Consumers have different levels of involvement and engagement when concerning
purchase decisions and attendance to an ad. High involvement or engagement means that a
product/service, or information about it, is important and personally relevant. In low
involvement, the issue is not particularly important to the person, however if it is apparent
that an adaption will maximize the immediate situational rewards, it is (Petty & Cacioppo,
1979). Advertisers can distinguish products, messages, and media on the basis of the level
of involvement they require from the consumer (Spence-Stones, et al., 2011, p. 136).
Which of these two routes is the most effective relies on a number of factors that influence
the amount of cognitive resources that a person devotes to thoughtful, elaborative
processing of a message (e.g., message relevance, prior knowledge, available time)
(Meyers- Levy, Malaviya, 1999). The magnitude of financial, social, or physical risk
perceived by the consumer can also enhance or reduce their engagement, as well as the
level of importance for the consumer (Spence-Stones, et al., 2011, p. 136). The ELM-
model suggests that when customer involvement is low (due to low motivation, low need
for cognition or weak arguments), one should use emotional arguments (peripheral ques)
in the communication, as the emotional arguments are better suited as they appeal to
feelings which is more likely to be processed also under low involvement. If the consumer

14. 14
is under high involvement (issue-relevant thinking is high) then the consumers will
conduct a largely rational process, where the pros and the cons of the issue will be
considered and emotions has little or no influence and one should use rational arguments
(central ques) (Petty & Cacioppo, 1979).
It is presumed that the central route to persuasion produces more enduring judgements,
based on extensive and critical elaboration of message claims, while the peripheral route
which is grounded in simple intuitive conclusions only involve some elaboration, the
judgements are relatively temporary (Meyers-Levy, Malaviya, 1999).
Bitner and Obermiller (1985) have created a table showing specific marketing influencers
based on the ELM-model. It displays how people in diverse contexts respond to arguments
differently.
Situational
variables
Elaboration
likelihood Why? Exceptions
Therefore
persuasion via
“Shopping”
orientation
High Motivated If not able Central cues
“Browsing”
Orientation
Low Not motivated - Peripheral cues
Knowledgeable High Able, motivated If not motivated Central cues
Ignorant Low Not able - Peripheral cues
Table 1 Specific Marketing Mediators of ELM (Bitner & Obmiller, 1985)
As one can see, to be most effective, peripheral cues are preferred when consumers have
little or no knowledge about the product/service, and the central cues when consumers are
well educated and know what they want.
2.5 Personality Types
Mazzotta (et al., 2008) suspects that the determinants of the effectiveness of a persuasion
attempt lies not only in message and context, but also in the source and the receiver’s
features (personality). This means that the reader’s characteristics (e.g. impulsive, careful
or trusting) will also influence the effect of the arguments. For instance, rational people is

15. 15
thought to be more easily persuaded by an economic argument, while humanistic and
impulsive people might be more easily persuaded by an emotional argument (Mazzotta et
al., 2008).
One way to understand how persuasion works in regards to personality types is the DISC-
model. The model divides individuals into four different personality types, the dominant,
the inspiring, the supportive and the cautious. It was developed by Dr. William M.
Marston, in the 1920’s, and is based on the assumption that people tend to develop a self-
concept based on one of the four types. It argues that people acts predictable based on
which personality type they belong to (Harris, 2010). The model is commonly used as a
tool for learning how to communicate with - and understand how people think in a more
effective way (Harris, 2010). Most people are however a mix of all the elements but with a
main foundation in one of them (Gjertsen, 2011).
Figure 2: The DISC-Model of human behaviour (Gjertsen, 2011).
When communicating to the dominant segment one would be most effective when
focusing on logical and straight foreword arguments like results and bottom-line numbers,
while the inspiring segment respond better to stories and experiences, supportive

16. 16
individuals to the arguments are focused on peace and harmony while cautious people is
more persuaded by facts and rules (Harris, 2010).
2.6 Hypothesis
In light of Hansen’s (et al., 2004) research it is fair to assume that consumers generally
respond better to economic arguments than to emotional and service oriented arguments,
but if the consumer’s personality type is also taken into account, it is believed that the
outcome may alter.
The subject that is of interest for this research is consumers coming to GEMB’s webpage
through banners. A research made by GEMB found that “banner clickers” are presumed to
have less pre-existing knowledge of the product (context) and be more emotional (personal
traits) than consumers accessing GEMB’s pages through other platforms of entry
(Gjertsen, 2011). Based on the theory presented, it is reasonable to believe that emotional
argumentation will be more persuasive than service arguments and economic arguments. It
is also believed that service arguments will be more persuasive than economic arguments.
The reason for placing service arguments before economic argument is because service
arguments are viewed as more emotional than economic arguments. The variable that
determines the rankings is therefore the degree of rationality in the argument style. The
theory presented has now given us a preliminary answer to the research indicating that in
the given context and with the known personality types, these consumers favour emotional
arguments, and based on these assumptions, the hypothesis is accordingly:
“Consumers coming to GEMB’s webpage through banners
respond more favourably to emotional arguments than to service
arguments and economical arguments, and they respond more
favourably to service arguments than to economical arguments.”

17. 17
An important notion to the hypothesis is that it can be interpreted in two different ways due
to the ambiguity of the word “respond”. One can split the hypothesis into one weak and
one strong form, where the weak interpretation suggests that the emotional arguments will
enhance the number of received applications the most, while the strong one suggest that
the emotional arguments will enhance the actual booked sales the most.

18. 18
3.0 Method
The purpose of the current research is to test to which extent customers are persuaded by
either an economic, emotional or service oriented arguments style. This chapter will
present the chosen method for the research, and a justification for the selection. It will
afterwards explain how the method works and evaluate its effectiveness and limitations to
the technique.
3.1 Subject and design
In the process of choosing the right method for the study, various research-tools were
evaluated. Interviews, focus groups, surveys, email questionaries and “split URL-testing”
were amongst the methods considered, but since split URL-testing is the most cost-
effective, time saving and genuine, it was chosen. The method is considered more genuine
because the data collected leaves no room for misunderstandings, as customers clicking
trail often can reflect preferences and are more reliable than statements that they offer to
market researchers (Wells et al., 2011, p.190)
The split-test is an empirical experiment that makes the researcher able to split a current
website into multiple variations and measure the effectiveness of each. In this research it
was used to measure whether manipulation of arguments on GEMB’s webpage would lead
to an increase in received lending applications, and where knowledge was gained through
visitor-tracking on GEMB’s webpage. The subjects tested were consumers visiting
GEMB’s webpage’s through clicking on banners from different Google websites.
3.2 Procedure
To perform the split URL-test the split testing software “Visual Website Optimizer” was
chosen. The program makes you able to create multiple variations of your website in a
visual designer, and then automatically split the traffic amongst the various variations so
that you can assess their individual effectiveness.
The program provides you with a graph showing the conversion rate/sales for your pages
as it evolves over time. The test also gives you a summary list with the conversion

19. 19
numbers and visitors for each variation, and it includes statistics about the expected
conversion rate range, % improvement over original webpage, and chance to beat the
original.
For all the variations in the test, the program calculates a metric called “Chance to Beat the
Original” (value between 0 – 100%). It indicates the confidence the program has for the
variation performing better compared to the control page. A winning variation is declared
if one of the variations has a score of 95% or above. A losing variation is announced when
a variation has a default value of 5% or below. It is required a minimum of 20 visitors
before one can announce a winning/losing.
Figure 3 - Thresholds for winning and losing variation (Screenshot “Visual Website
Optimizer)
3.3 Independent variables
For the purpose of the research, three different variations of GEMB’s page were created,
each representing one of the various argument styles presented earlier (economic, service
and emotional). GEMB’s original webpage was representing the economic argumentation,
and two modified versions were created to represent the service oriented - and the
emotional argumentation. By looking at which of the versions that had lead to the most
received web-applications, one could conclude on which of the argument types was the
most persuasive for the “banner clickers” and improved results the most. The variations
were as follows; Economic page (see attachment 1), Service Page (see attachment 2) and
Emotional page (see attachment 3).
The economic page (original webpage) is centralized around the benefits of price if
choosing GEMB as a supplier. It can be classified as an economic profile because it
includes arguments like “New low interest rate, loans from 7, 9 %” and “You can pay the

20. 20
whole loan or parts of it, whenever you want without any extra costs”, clearly focusing on
economic benefits of choosing the product. The language is also more clear and concise
than in the other variations, due to the fact that the dominant segment of the DISC-model,
focus on results and numbers and are generally more persuaded by arguments that are
straight forward and bottom-line angled.
The service profile is based on arguments that claim good service and stability when
choosing at GEMB. The arguments fit the description of service arguments because of its
focus on the strengths of GEMB’s history and years of experience. With this, the aim is to
persuade people to trust GEMB because of the “testimonials” provided in the arguments. It
includes arguments stating that there are 300.000 current customers in Norway and that
“Since 1946 we have helped Norwegians with financing. Today we are one of the leaders
on unsecured loans in Norway”. It also declared that GEMB will be the best option for you
as they have a “... international history, local knowledge and many years of experience ...”
It is therefore indirectly implied that GEMB has a big customer base so you should trust
them and expect them to be experts in what they do.
The last version with emotional arguments is focusing on making the consumer feel that
borrowing money from GEMB is a good experience and will give you time to focus on
other things than living on a tight budget. It can be classified as an emotional argument site
because of its focus on the communication of emotions rather than pure facts and numbers.
It includes arguments like “Do you need money for a new renovating project? Is your car
at auto service, or did you get an unexpected dental bill?” - Implying that you can use a
loan from GEMB to fulfil your every need. Another argument is “If you have any
questions, you are more than welcome to contact us ...” – With a direct encouragement to
contact us, making it less intimidating to apply for a loan. The arguments used were meant
to have an emotional approach, appealing to the inspiring segment of the DISC-model
which is more persuaded by the communication of emotion rather than communication of
facts.
Apart from the argument type, the picture displayed on the webpages is also changed to
match the message. In the economical version the picture displays the interest rate as its
centre attention, on the service page there is an employee in front of the corporate GE-

21. 21
logo, linking back to GE’s international history and success, and the emotional page has a
picture showing a smiling customer service agent. In addition to this, all the diverse
variation has a lending example on how much a loan costs, and in the economical version
this is displayed on the top right of the page, making the benefits of price more visible for
the reader than in the other versions.
3.4 Evaluating the effectiveness
The benefits of using the split URL-test in “Visual Website Optimizer”, is that it provides
real time data with no lags in visitor conversion data. It also makes you able to efficiently
assess genuine results based on consumers “clicking trails”. Therefore, it instantly allowed
GEMB to measure the communication effect of the different webpages based on the
number of received lending applications generated by the diverse pages.
As earlier mentioned, the hypothesis can be interpreted in two various ways. One
limitation to the split URL-testing was that it could only test the weak hypothesis, seeing
that the method used only provides numbers of received applications, and not booked
sales. If however, combined with other numbers like booked lending applications in
general or the common rejection rate on GEMB’s applications, one can argue that the
research can be used to strengthen or weaken the strong hypothesis as well.

22. 22
4.0 Analysis
After 13 days of testing, a winner was announced by the system. The total subjects tested
in the study were 1749 unique visitors, and the test ran from the 15th
till 28th
of March. Of
the people visiting the site through banners 26 submitted an application for a loan. In this
chapter, data collected from the test will be presented and analysed. The results will be
interpreted and measured against the hypothesis to see if it has been supported or
undermined by the research, and an analysis of why the results are as they are.
4.1 Findings
The findings from the test showed that the site with emotional arguments was a clear
champion (see figure 3.2). With an improvement in sales with 157,40% from the economic
(original) and a 97% chance to beat it, the system could safely declare the test winner. The
conversion rate of the emotional version was 12/593 which is 2,02% of the total visitors.
The service site came in second with an enhancement in received applications from the
original with 120,15%. Of the 520 visitors, there were 9 submitted applications, making
the conversion rate 1,73%. The chance to beat original was 92%. This means, by the
definition from the method, that the version is not over the threshold for a substantiated
winner (95%). The loosing variation was the original and economic website. It had 636
visitors and converting only 5 of them into sales, making the percentage of sent
applications 0,79 % of the overall visitors.

23. 23
Figure 4: Overview of test data and a cumulative chart of received applications.
4.2 Hypothesis Testing
As was assumed in the hypothesis, the consumers responded more favourably to emotional
arguments than to service arguments and to economical arguments, and they responded
more favourably to service arguments than to economical arguments, and the hypothesis
has therefore been substantiated by this research. Even though, it is important to note that
only the weak hypothesis was strengthened (the emotional approach will enhance received
applications the most). The research cannot conclude that the strong version of the
hypothesis is substantiated (the emotional application will enhance the actual booked sales
the most) because the actual sales was not measured in the test. By looking at how many
applications that in general is returned and booked we can however predict whether the
strong hypothesis has been strengthened or weakened.
Numbers of received applications from GEMB shows that only 61% of the sent
applications are converted into actual sales, which means that 39% of the sent applications
are withdrawn. The percentage of sales is relatively low and we can therefore not
substantiate the strong hypothesis with these numbers. In addition to this, it is also assumed
that the percentage of booked sales from banner clickers will be even less, as this segment
is believed to be more spontaneous and less likely to follow up to their impulsive
submission.

24. 24
5.0 Conclusions
In this last chapter the main points from the research will be highlighted. Theoretical and
practical consequences and suggestions for future research will be presented and a
recommendation for GEMB will be given on the foundation of the findings.
This research has shown a link between persuasiveness, personality types and context, and
based on the findings it is clear that the consumers were more persuaded by emotional
arguments than service or economical arguments, and service arguments rather than
economical arguments. This supports the theory presented on both context and personality
types, stating that all must be taken into account when measuring persuasiveness of a
message. In Hansen (et al., 2004) research, they suggested that future studies should
include personality types in their research because the outcome is then presumed to alter.
This has then been proven by the findings in this research, and the importance of this
phenomenon was shown when the results were turned up side down when compared to
Hansen’s (et al. 2004) (economic arguments work better than service and emotional
arguments).
In the introduction of this research, three different research questions were presented. The
chosen research question asked “Which argument type is best suited for consumers coming
to GE – Money Bank’s website through banners?” Based on the findings of this research,
we can conclude that the emotional arguments are better suited when persuading GEMB’s
consumers coming from banners, and this is because the site containing emotional
arguments improved the received lending applications with 157.40 % more than the
economic (original) page and 36,9 % over the service page.
The second question formulation asked “which argument is best suited for GEMB on the
Internet”. Because consumers coming to GEMB’s website through banners is thought to
be very unlike from the other consumers visiting GEMB’s site via different entering
platforms, this research question could not be answered by the test results. What we can
conclude on is however, that different argument strategies should be selected for different
entering channels as the context and personality types will differ between the different
entry channels.
The overarching research question was “which argument type is best suited when
persuading via the Internet?”. The test performed with GEMB as a case could not

25. 25
conclude on which of the argument styles that is more persuasive on the Internet in
general. This is because the data presented in this research comes from a “niche segment”
and the test is performed on a “niche website” which is neither representative nor true for
all consumers and websites online. One thing we can conclude on is however that the
argument style one should choose must always be based on the target consumers, where
both context and personality types are key variables to look for.
5.1 Suggestions for Further Research
For further studies it is recommended that the test will be performed on a broader range of
potential consumers, as it is assumed that the outcome will differ when shifting the test
segment from “banner clickers” to all consumers visiting a webpage, or to other specific
entry channels. This is because this research gave no grounds for concluding that
consumers that come to the webpage through entry channels like Google Search are
rational customers and respond better to economic arguments.
5.2 Managerial Implications
One aim of this research was to give a substantiated recommendation on how GEMB could
use argument persuasiveness on their webpage to increase sales. This research presents
some initial results indicating that GEMB should always take context and personality types
into account when writing for the web, as this will make it more persuasive for potential
customers.
As shown in the collected data, different consumers are trigged by different cues, and it is
therefore recommended that GEMB should generally use different variations of their
webpage depending on which channel that is used as entry, e.g. the economic version to
the consumers coming from Google Search Engine. This will give the consumers a far
more personalised experience by making the messages on the page both relevant and
appealing, which in turn is now known to enhance consideration of a product and hence
most likely booked sales.
This is a belief that could be utilized in other areas of GEMB’s communication towards
their potential and actual consumers as well. As an example, it could be interesting to take

26. 26
the concept further to GEMB’s online bank, where customers could get personalised
greetings and special offers based on their personality types and customer history. For
example, when advertising for insurances in their online bank, the arguments displayed for
the cautious personality types would focus on stories from consumers that have needed the
insurance, while the dominant/rational personality types would get price information and
straight foreword facts as arguments. When applying this to customers that are already in
their portfolio, they have the advantage of knowing the customers in advance. With both
general info (age, gender, job, income) and special info (payment historic, previous
accepted offers, usage pattern) available in their systems, they have all the information
needed to make an offer more persuasive for the consumers.
Optimally (and if possible), these personalized variations should apply for every aspect
where customers are in contact with GEMB (e.g. in E-mails, newsletters, monthly bills and
coupons).
In the future, GEMB should also find a method that can also reinforce the strong
hypothesis. This will make them able to verify the effects of argument persuasiveness more
precisely and analyse the results more specific.

27. 27
6.0 Reference list
Bitner, Mary J.; Obermiller, Carl, 1985, "The Elaboration Likelihood Model: Limitations
and Extensions in Marketing”, Advances in Consumer Research Volume 12
Brader, T., 2005, “Striking a Responsive Chord: How political Ads Motivate and Persuade
Voters by Appealing to Emotions, American Journal of Political Science”, Vol. 49, No. 2
Chandy, Rajesh K.; Tellis, Gerard J.; Macinnis, Devorah J.; Thaivanich, Pattana, 2001,
“What to Say: Advertising Appeals in Evolving Markets”, Journal of Marketing Research
Crano, William D.; Prislin, Radmila, 2006, “Attitudes and Persuasion”, Annual Reviews
Psychology
Gjertsen, Sven-Erik, 2011, “Test of different entry channels to GEMB’s pages”, internal
memo, GE – Money Bank
Hansen, Håvard; Samualsen, Bendik M.; Lorentzen, Bengt G., 2004, “Is Being Good
Better Than Being Cheap, or is Being Cheap Better Than Being Good?”, Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol 31
Harris, Guy, 2010, ’The DISC Model of Human Behavior – A quick Overview”, The
Recovering Engineer, retrieved 14.03.12 from http://recoveringengineer.com/disc-
model/the-disc-model-of-human-behavior-a-quick-overview/
Kotler, Philip; Keller, Kevin L., 2006,”Marketing Management 12e”, Pearson Education,
Upper Saddle River New Jersey
McGovern, Garry, 2006, “Killer Web Content”, A & C Black Publishers, London, England
Meyers-Levy, J.; Malaviya, P., 1999, “Consumers' Processing of Persuasive
Advertisements: An Integrative Framework of Persuasion Theories”, Journal of Marketing
Mynde, 2011,”Everything you Need to Know about Web Banners”, Online Advertising
HubPages, retrieved 04.05.12 from http://mynde.hubpages.com/hub/Everything-you-need-
to-know-about-web-banners
Pagozzi, Richard P.; Mahesh, Gopinath, Nyer; Prashanth U., 1999, “The Role of Emotions
in Marketing, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science”, Vol 27, No. 2

28. 28
Petty, Richard E.; Cacioppo, John T.; Schumann, David, 1983, “Central and Peripheral
Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement”, Vol.10,
Journal of Consumer Research
Petty, Richard E.; Cacioppo, John T., 1979, “Issue involvement can increase or decrease
persuasion by enhancing message relevant cognitive responses”, Vol 37, No. 10, Journal of
personality and social Psychology
Pornpitakpan, Chanthika, 2004, “The Persuasive Effect of Circadian Arousal, Endorser
Expertise, and Argument Strength in Advertising”, Vol 17, issue 2-3, Journal of Global
Marketing
Schiffman, Leon G.; Kanuk, Leslie L.; Hansen, Håvard, 2011, “Consumer behaviour: A
european outlook” Pearson Education, Harlow, England
Tracy, Brian, 2001, “Become a master of Persuasion – Earning the support of others”, E-
Coach, retrieved 02.05.12, at
http://www.1000ventures.com/business_guide/crosscuttings/persuading_people_bybt.html
Wells, William; Spence-Stones, Ruth; Crawford, Robert; Moriarty, Sandra; Mitchell,
Nancy, 2011, “Principles and practices – Advertising”, Australian Edition 2, Pearson
Australia