Abstract

Marketing ZFP is a platform for the academic dialog between marketing science and marketing practice. It offers critical depictions of the newest developments in the central areas of marketing science and marketing practice. Thereby, Marketing ZFP dedicates itself particularly to the transfer of methodological knowledge into practice.

Articles published in Marketing ZFP are peer-reviewed and written in either German or English. English abstracts are available for all articles.

The scientific quality of Marketing ZFP has been ranked highly: In the VHB-JOURQUAL Ranking of the German Association for Business Research, the journal is listed among the top five German journals in business research. In GeMark, the German Marketing-Journal Ranking, it is listed in category B.

For more information for authors and subscribers, see www.marketing-zfp.de.

Abstract

Benefit arguments can be defined as appeals that marketers use to emphasise the advertised product’s benefits. These arguments differ in strength and type. The strength of arguments causes favourable or unfavourable product evaluations. The type of benefit argument used influences viewers’ thoughts to be either promotion or prevention oriented. Combined with other situational factors or elements of advertisements that also elicit promotion or prevention oriented thoughts, conditions result where thoughts are congruent (fit condition) or incongruent (nonfit condition). First, we provide evidence that product evaluations are more extreme in the fit condition than in the nonfit condition. Second, we show that feeling right, engagement, fluency, and the perceived strength of arguments are affected by regulatory fit, providing support for a suggested theoretical framework that describes the role of fit in the process of product evaluation.