Andrew Ehrenberg

8/3/2019 Andrew Ehrenberg

1/13

Brand Advertising asCreative Pubiicity

of South

lo Colin Mc-Giles Kceble, RoiUrickant Mills, John Scriven,

layton, and e$pfciallySharp for helpful com-

earlier versions, and toBullmorc for his many

wit.

Our view of brand advertising is that it mostly serves to publicize the advertisedbrand. Advertising seldom seems to persuade.Advertising in a competitive market needs to maintain the brand's broadsaliencebeing a brand the consumer buys or considers buying. This turns on brandawareness, but together with memory associations, familiarity, and brand assurance.Publicity can also help to develop such salience.This publicity view of advertising should affect both the briefs that are given toagencies (e.g., that cut-through is more important than having a persuasive sellingproposition) and how we then evaluate the results. But since few advertisementsseem actively to seek to persuade, how much do the advetisements themselves haveto change, rather than just how we think and talk about them?

BRAND ADVERTISING seems to work mainly by cre-atively publicizing the brand, without trying topersuade people that thebrand differs from otherbrands, or is better or best. Fairly few advertise-ments actually feature potentially persuasive in-ducements for their brand. Nor do they usuallyappear to change people's opinions,THREE KEY CONCEPTSThree key terms used here are now briefly out-lined, namely: Publicity, Persuasion, andSalience,They are discussed later in more detail. Implica-tions for sales are noted, and there is a concludingdiscussion.PublicityPublicity is usually defined as "Bringing X to pub-lic notice." Remarkably, this is much like tradi-tional dictionary definitions of ad\'ertising: "Mak-ing publicly known by an announcem ent in a jour-n a l , circular, etc," {OED, 2000). Historically,ad\ ertising w as often synonym ous with publicity,an d in our \ iew it still largely is.Publicity some-times conveys new information: "The preacherthis Sunday is the Reverend X." But mostly it re-mind,s already-knowledgeable people: "The m orn-ing service is (again) at 10 am," Or "Coke Is It,"

Publicity is often highly creative, to achieveimpact.

Some publicity is free. Much is paid for. Public-ity need not claim or imply differentiating valuesfor thebrand (although it may do so): "I saw youon telex ision but can't remember what you said."

The publicizing function of good brand adver-tising is all-pervasive. But it is seldom discussednowadays. Hence this paper.PersuasionMany people seem to belie\ e that advertising hasa primarily persuasi\ e function. For instance, themillennium edition of the joitrml of Marketingstated (Myers-Levy and Malaviya, 1999): "Persua-sion is the only mode [of advertising] worthy ofconsideration."

NiaU Fitzgerald, joint Chairman of Unilever, hasnoted that (1997): "Most experts and commenta-tors believe that brand ing . . . is little m ore , , , thanpersuading consumers . . . "

Tim Ambler (2000) has voiced a similar senti-ment about the United States: "The assumptionthat advertising equals persuasion is so ingrainedin the USA that to challenge it elicits much thesame reaction as questioning your partner 'sparentage."

J u l y . A u g u s t 2 0 0 2 J O U R R flL O F R O U ER T IS in G R ES ER RC R 7


2/13

BRAND ADVERTISING

To persuade someone is to give them areason or an incentive, or to induce amood, in order to change what they thinkor feel, and then perhaps do.

In strong persuasion, the advocacywou ld be m ore explicit, like a church p ro-claiming "Attend Sunday Service to SaveYour Soul," Successful persuasion wouldrequire not only the attempt but also thedeed, i.e., a "winning argument" (OED,2000).

But in brand advertising, actual at-tempts at "persuasion" are, we havefound, in the minority. Successful persua-sion is even rarer. James Best, chairm an ofDDB Needham, has said, "when it comesto persuading, not a lot of advertisingdoes," He added: "It's not meant to,"SalienceSuccessful publicity for brand X affects the"salience" of the brand, especially if tbeproduct or service is one tbat is broadlyrelevant to the recipient (including friendsand neighbors).Salience in our terms refers to the pres-

ence and richness of memory traces thatresult in the brand coming to mind in rel-evant choice situations (Romaniuk andSharp, 2002b), It is not an attitudinal con-cept, being about a relevant brand's"share of mind," But it is much more thanmere awareness of the brand in its prod-uct category (however measured).

Thus w ith awareness has to come famil-iarity and, almost inevitably, that thebrand is considered reputable or accept-able (like some other such brands ). We be-Ueve that su ch bro ad salience is \ ital for abrand to become and remain in one's"consideration set" as a brand that onemight or does buy.

Salience can develop through advertis-ing as publicity, PR, word-of-mouth, retaildisplay, sponsorsbip, and espec ia l lythrough previous brand usage.

Consumers mostly h a v e more than one

brand in their repertoire or wider consid-eration set of salient brands. For a brandto become or remain salient thereforeneed not require any unique commitment.Nor has the brand to be thought of as al-toge ther bes t , but mere ly as "goodenough,"

These three termsPublicity, Persua-sion, and Saliencetend each to be usedin a variety of different ways. But thatdoes not preclude drawing some impor-tant distinguishing lines, as we attempt todo here,CREATIVE PUBLICiTYPublicitythrowing a spotlight on the ad-vertised brandis an inescapable func-tion of effective brand advertising. Assuch, we review three aspects:1 , How adver t i sements publ ic ize tbe

brand2 , How crea t ive publ ic i ty func t ions

through bringing out or refreshingmemory traces for the brand

3 , How advertising acts as publicity, notas persuasion

How advertisements pubiicize brandsSome advertisements announce some-thing new , e,g., a price-cut or a new brand .But most advertisements are about abrand or another issue (e,g,, Drink-Drive)that the recipient is already aware of:"Man requires more often to be remindedthan informed" (Johnson, 1751),

The most heavily advertised brandslike Coke or Nike are known to billionsand have been for years, yet they stilladvertise.

Awareness may, however, be subcon-sciousnot knowing explicitly that one isawareespecially with an item of no par-ticular relevance to the recipient. The in-formation may even be left unprocessedin the mind (Heath, 2001), altbough re-peated exposures can lead to more con-

scious noting ("1 think I 've seebefore"Krugman, 1972),

Publicity often does not seem to ing to persuade consumers to cwbat they feel about the brand. It monly seeks to have consumers feel,and remember something about the at all. Some people, therefore, speak ratively of "mere publicity" (as remby Moran, 1990, and Bullmore, 1998even Emerson's better mousetrap wsell if it is not known.

Most advertisements do not sefeature or imply strong selling prtions but "mere talking-points" (visverbal), i.e,, creative an d impactful wreferring to the bran d to help bring it the public again. The following exaillustrate this, even for what may ato be a "Hard St>H" approach (item 71 . Proclaiming the brand. Many atisements (including billboards, T-and sponsorship) just feature the bname or current slogan distinctively

"NIKE" or "Coke Is It"(Sayitig: Here I AmRemember

It has been suggested that the b"Coke I s It" tells the consum er that Cpopular, with-it, and the genuine aBut "Bloggo I s It" wou ld not say all Bloggo, "Coke Is It" therefore does tach "popular, with-it, and originaCoca-Cola, Instead, it lets consumetach or re-attacb any such prior astions of their own to the brand, oncadvertisement has reminded theCoca-Cola again (which is what the atising c a n do).

The small print in an advertisemrarely read (or read again). But itspresence can add tone and gra\'itaclutter) to the "Here I Am,"2 . The brand as the product. Many atisements in effect say the brand is aample of the product:

8 J D O R n R L o r R O U E R T IS Id G R E S E H R C H J u l y . A u g u s t 2 0 0 2


3/13

BRAND ADVERTISING

"X Gets C lotbes Clean"{Sai/iii)(: X is a laundry detergent)

Being a laundry detergent is a good

Experienced consumers ( i .e . , most)know that X is much like other

A more assertive tagline likeDEAD"

a catchy way of saying "I'm a

even Dom estos customers are not per-

Providing information. Numerous ad-a new price:

"Intel Inside" or "$10 off"

Establishing distinctiveness. Other ad-blockbusters

"Polo, the Mint with the Hole"

Lifesavers.)

Some adver-

Because of the elapsed time between exposure and be-havior, adve rtising has to w ork through peo ple's m emo ry.mor, cute children, animals, music, beingethical, or some other warm experience:

"Nescafethe best part of waking up"Feeling good about the product and/or liking the advertisingthis is sel-dom strongly persuasive but perhapsmemorable.6. Proffering a reason. Quite a few adver-t i semen ts (a dec ided minor i ty?) dopresent a reason (other than just announc-ing a price cut) for choosing that brand(e.g., has/our airbags)."CarlsbergProbably the Best Lager in

the World"If such adspeak were accepted literally

("Best," "Unique," "New"), it loould sell,other things being equal. But experiencedusers "don't seem to buy it." They knowthat their own bra nds also taste good. Al-most nobody bothers to switch for ad-speak reasons.

Nonetheless, saying Better or Best keepsthe brand in front of the public and pro-\ ides some reassurance ("The advertisingsays it's best").7. Hard sell. Some advertisements doovertly try to coax people to buy here andnow:

"While Stock Lasts!"or

"BUY X NOW!"However, hard selling lacks many widelyreported Road-to-Damascus conversions:it seldom "sells" from scratch. But it dinact as a remindera rather intrusive wayof drawing renewed attention to thebrand.

Hard sell in (id\ ertising might help the

already persuaded to "close the sale"themselves. But so can soft sell, e.g.. Bull-more (1998) showing a bottle of POM''^'hair-restorative and asking

"GOING BALD?"rather than puffing

"POM gi\ es you a full head of hairin 6 days."

These dimensions, along which public-ity can work, stem from our initially sub-jective ("qualitative") scrutiny of a rangeof advertisements.

Formal tests of representati\'e examplesof over 100 TV, print, and outdoor adver-tisements, using some 500 consumers, a d-vertising professionals, and marketingstudents as subjects, confirmed that morethan half the advertisements were NOTseen as differentiating the brand from itscompetitors (Ehrenberg et al., 2000seealso Stewart and Furse, 1984, for otherapproaches).

How publicity functions ti i rough m emoryBecause of the elapsed time between ex-posure and behavior, advertising has towork through people's memory. The gapmay be seconds for an in-store display,two months or more for an instant coffee,or years for car or insurance campaigns. Itrequires long-term memory (LTM).

Recent developments in physiologicalmemory research suggest that synapsesneed to be consolidated (nerve cells link-ing) for information to be processed intoLTM (Franzen and Bouwman, 2001; duPlessis, 1998). More immediately action-able is the psychology of the memory pro-cess. Learning of a name, for example,mostly comes through the old-fashioned

J u l y . A u g u s t 2 0 0 2 J D U R n R L D F H D U E R T IS IO G R E 6 E H R C H 9


4/13

BRAND ADVERTISING

process of rehearsing the inp ut (e.g., Bad-deley, 1974).

To enable this for a brand , repetitive ad-vertising can provide more or less con-trolled exposures to the brand (what issaid, when, where, how often, and withwhat creative treatments).

Indeed, just repeating a brand name"mere exposure" (Zajonc, 1968, and Har-rison, 1968)is known to breed Familiar-ity, "the absolutely basic value created byadvertising," as James Webb Young al-ready stressed early in the last century.And such "mere exposure" has even beenshown to breed liking.

Consumers can also have exposures tothe brand other than by paid-for advertis-ing, though that is usually less easily con-trolled: the brand being mentioned by oth-e r s , a glimpse of the pack in a store, anempty can lying in the gutter, and espe-cially using the brand.

Even the sheer act of remembering canrefresh memory traces for the brand(Hilts, 1991; Franzen and Bouw man,2001). So can teaser advertisemen ts, suchas showing the familiar colors with "et-ton" bled into the advertisment's left-han d marg in. (It work s if it vv'orksthat isthe creative challenge.) An advertisementthat is liked may also be looked at moreoften or longer. Thus the brand may bebetter remembered (without "Liking theadvertising" having to translate into "Lik-ing the bran d," Kennedy and Sh arp, 200f).

Once a message or image is placed inour long-term memory, it seems virtuallynever to be forgotten (e.g.. Hunter, 1964;Franzen and Bouwm an, 2001). Formal rec-ognition tests and general experience havelong confirmed this (e.g., recognizing thepicture seen once 20 years ago, or the firstchord of Beethoven's Seventh for thosewho know the Seventh).

The capacity of our memory is withoutquestion vasteach of us routinely re-memb ers so much. But people do give dif-

. . . there is no evidence that advertising universallyeven generally) "converts" consumers.ferent amounts of attention to differentstimuli, leading at times to better m emoryprocessing and thus easier re-activationlater on. Some things are harder to recallthan others. So a key issue is how thememory of a specific brand can be read-ily accessed, i.e., recalled in a purchasesituation?Recall and memory associations. Mostlywe can recall things instantly, as when wetalk or thinkbut not always, as in recall-ing a (well-known) name.

It has long been known that memory iscreated, stored, and accessed \'ia associa-tions, mostly subconsciously, e.g., "Holes' Polo," "Refreshes Heineken," or thecolor red for The Economist, Coca-Cola, orVirgin (Franzen and Bouwman, 2001).

A re-exposure can also dramatically re-vive fading recall (e.g., Zielske, 1959; Mc-Donald, 1997). It can make recall easier invaried situations. But a message or imagethat is inconsistent can interfere with re-call and/or initial learning (Simon, 1947;Festinger, 1957; Baddeley, 1974; Suther-land and Sylvester, 2000; Franzen andBouwman, 2001). That is why reposition-ing, or changes in packaging, can beproblematic.

Memory-associations for a brand are of-ten highly individualized (e.g., "My AuntElla used it," or "It's the one we b ought atSafeway") rather than a brand having justone global "image" for all consumers.

Publicizing a brand is therefore aboutwhat consumers do with the advertisingrather than what advertisements do toconsumers: "What evokes the brand, notwhat the brand evokes" (Holden andLutz, 1992; Lannon , 1993).Publicity not persuasionAs noted earlier, contemporary accounts

of advertising say that it works by p esion, or at least they imply it (e.g., insuasion testing").

But there is no e\'idence that adveruniversally (or even generally) "conconsumers. There are also many intcontradictions:1 . Persuasion is simply treated as a

evident neologism: "Advertisinmeant to be persuasiv e. Therefore an advertisement, it must be pesive. Q.E.D." Thus Nike printed T-shirt has to be "persuasive" juscause it's an advertisement!

2 . People are exposed to innumerablvertisements each day, and probnote man y or most of them at leastconsciously (Heath, 2001)but wimost n o app arent effects: "See adving and do nothing." By its ownsuasion-goal, therefore, far more the proverbial half of persuasive atising would be wasted.

3 . Adver t i sements se ldom seem structed to appear persuasive, let astrongly so ("Hea\ y Sell"). They ofimply no strong incentives, emotor rhetoric.

This is quite u nlike either court r"advocacy" or "religious converswhere advocates work hard to mexplicit that the choice options artv \ een "Guilty" (off with his head)"Not Guilty." And the incentivesLife Everlasting versus Eternal Dation (e.g., Ehrenberg, 2001).

4 . Much advertising theory seems tosume that in the absence of functibrand differentiation, the adverments have to give every consusome reason, benefit, or added valbe able to select one brand rather

1 0 J D U R R R L O F f l O y E R T I S I R G R E S E R R C H j u i y . A u g u s t 2 0 0 2


5/13

BRAND ADVERTISING

another. But in practice, consumersneed the product and seem to knowthat brands are near-look-a-likes: "Iknow these brands are all the same. Ijust have to choose [one as] the best."(Bullmore, 1998).Persuasive advertising (e.g. , strongsell) should be heavily affected bywear-out (e.g., McDonald, 1992, 1997;Pechmann and Stewart, 1989): peoplefind being repeatedly exhorted boringor even irritating. In contrast, sheerpublicity (e.g., sponsorship, Nike on aT-shir t , or "Coca-Cola" over shop-fronts) can usually be repeated almostinterminably: people seem to knowthat advertisers are just remindingthem. There can apparently be no ov cr-exposure (Hunter, 1964).that occur can hardly be due to strong"persuasion" if they are only short-term. But they can be caused by mo-mentarily refreshed brand awareness.

Basically our view is that advertise-

described as the brand having

What such Salience isHow Salience seems to developHow Salience works

4 . How it requires the brand to be "dis-tinctive" but not "differentiated" (e.g.,functionally)

What is sai ience?Salience in our sense is about the brandcoming to mind in personally relevantchoice situations (Romaniuk and Sharp,2002b). The brand has become part ofone's broad co nsideration set, a brand thatone might buy or useeither now, or inyears ahead.

This goes wel l beyond t radi t iona lawareness, or even the "strength" of suchawareness (e.g., first recall).

Salience concerns the "size" of thebrand in one's mind (Romaniuk andSharp, 2002b), i.e., all the memory struc-tures that can allow the brand to comeforward for the wide range of recall cuesthat can occur in pu rchase occasions. Withthis "share of mind" come feelings of be-ing familiar and feelings of assurance("Yes, I've heard of it. It should be allright."). That is our broad designation of" Sa l i e nc e " a w a r e ne ss a nd m e m or ytraces, plus familiarity, plus assurance.

Moran (1990) in his seminal paper al-ready stressed the role of a brand's "Pres-ence ." Simi lar ly , Bul lmore ' s "Fam e"(1999, 2002) is a colorful way of reflectingsalience. But it overstates the role of bigbrandssuccessful small brands can stillbe salient for those who use or considerthem, but hardly "famous."

Salience is not exclusive. An individualusually has a consideration set of severalcompetitive brands that he or she maychoose to buy over a series of purchases(and others not). Opting for one or an-other salient substitute on any specificpurchase occasion need then be for nospecial reason. But the choice can alsovary with the contextavailability, a de-sire for variety, a mood, an advertising orretail display, an offer, or a whim of themoment (e.g., the mother-in-law coming).

For a brand to be in a consumer's con-sideration set or to be actually chosen, thebrand does not have to be seen as "best,"but only as "good enou gh." This is the lateHerbert Simon's (1947) highly regarded"Satisf icing" cr i ter ion. In Darwinianterms, i t means "Survival of the f i tenough," not of the fittest.

Crucially, in our view, this conformswith consumers' primary need being notfor a brand but for the product. They willwant some coffee or a hotel room of theright type (by price/quali ty, location,amenities, etc.). In a competitive marketthey then have to choose one of the avail-able options of that product or service,which would typica l ly nowadays benamed or even "branded."

Consumers therefore find themselveshaving to choose between brands in theirconsideration set that are mostly "near-look-a-likes" to them, i.e., items that aredistinctively labeled but intrinsically simi-lar or even virtually identical (exceptstrictlyin how they look).

In principle, to decide, people couldsimply toss a mental penny ("Oh I don'tknowI thirJc I'll have that one"). In prac-tice, however, consumers mostly seem tofind choosing a familiar and even habitualbrand convenient and reassuring.How sal ience developsThere is as yet no clearly known path fora brand to follow so as to become salientand enter a consumer's consideration set(see Shocker et al., 1991; Roberts and Lat-tin, 1997, for reviews).

(Similarly, there is no clear evidence forhow init ial ly uncommitted embryonicstem cells settle down to become the ded-icated nerve cells which can actuallycounteract Parkinson's disease.)

Views of how consumers can be madeto choose or adopt a brand have at timesbeen oversimplified. Economists fromGalbraith (1958) downwardsand indeed

J u l y . A u g u s t 2 0 0 2 J O U R R R L O F R O O E R T IS IR G R E S E R R C H l l


6/13

BRAND ADVERTISING

many marketing peopleseem to havelong belifved that marketing or advertis-ing can simply manipulate or persuadethe consumer. Pyramidal equity modelshave replaced hierarchical-effects modelslike AIDA, Econometricians ha\ e soughtto determine "drivers" of con.sumerchoice by marketing-mix decision-models(e,g,, Leeflang et al,, 2000; Ehrenberg et al,,2001), But no clear empirical results in allthis have yet emerged.

To us, the process itself looks intrinsi-cally haphazard, as has been graphicallyrecounted by Alan Hedges (1998), initially25 years ago.

Hedges spelled out houf a consumer,faced with a new b rand P (or one "new " tothat consumer), can dither on a slow pathtoward a decision (which ultimately wasnot even to try P!):

Fir,st the consumer usually has to be-come aware of the new b rand P, by nameor looks, at least subconsciously (e,g,,not really being aw are of being aware ofthe brand , as in Heath, 2001),

For example, the consumer sees aneighbor using P (although most oftenthis has no effect). The consumer thenperhaps becomes aware of an advertise-ment for P (hardly noticed explicitly be-fore), suddenly notes that the brand isactually in the stores, probably noticesanother advertisement or tv^o for thenew P, tries to relate P to his or herpresent brand(s), and hears some word-of-mouth perhaps. And so onthusmemory structures develop,

P's advertising and retail display mayalso engender some assurance for P,This may not come from what the ad-vertisements specifically say or claim.But the existence of a good deal of ad-vertising for the brand can engender afeeling, subconscious perhaps, tbat"with all that spending on advertising

(and/or on shelf-space), P must be allrigh t" (e,g,, Kay, 1993; Suth erland andFriedman, 2000),

Growing salience can then at times leadto some interest ("I wonder what that P'slike"). But mostly not. Experienced con-sumers will hardly expect the newbrand P to be very different. If it were,there would be more talk about tbat(including in the adxertising). None-theless, the consumer may consider try-ing P when next buying the category:"I've heard of P , I migbt try it," Then, orlater,

If brand P up on actual purc hase or u.s-age seems satisfactory (which often isthe case with established brands), thebrand may be bought again. Or not. Ify e s , it can become one of the brands inthat consumer's regular brand reper-toire, with an ongoing habit of buyingor using P, often formed almo st in-stantly (Ehrenberg and Goodhardt,2001), For this to occur, the new Pwould only need to seem about a > . goodas tbe other brands in the consunner'swider brand repertoire or considerationset.

This is "sntisficing" again, not "bet-ter" or "best," No unique or deep com-mitment or conversion to P is needed orlikely (McWilliam, 1997), with no strongpersuasion needed. Ongoing usage orbuying can, however, breed subsequentliking throu gh va rious processes ("MereExposure" as already mentioned, "Cog-nitive Dissonance Redu ction" as in Fest-inge r, 1957; or " I-Use -It-therefore -I-Like-It" self-identification as in Bem,1967),

Hed ges' hit-or-miss ado ption p rocess ofa brand coming into one's salient consid-eration set (or not) has boon likened to cos-mic radiation leading to a genetic muta-tion "by chance," followed by natural se-

lection, with very few of the new musurviving as "fit enough,"A brand's place In a repertoireFor any individual buyer some brandmore salient than others are, and, in aertoire, some are bought more often.will be a consequence of the many "forcers," often small, which can act ubuyer over time (Foxall, 1996), e,gpects of distribution, p roduct featurevertising, etc, E v en for highly compebrands that match each other's adtages, individ ual features d i> differ inous "minor" ways. For examplebottle-tops; the place on a retailer'sthe specif ic ingredients in part imueslis and/or their degrees of swness; or the car-door handles.

Such minor differences are seldom vidually ad\ertised. They are ofteneven consciously noticed by the sumer, or eva luated, at least not untilthe brand has already been fairly esively tried. The consumer "acts firsthinks later" (Swindells, 2000), Thereminor differences rarely influence asumer's initial choice of brand.

Such minor brand differences can, ever, lead to lasting longer-term bpreferences and subsequently fostertended use ("I like that muesli"). Theinfluence wby one brand slowly becmuch bigger than its otherwise very lar competitors.

Advertising can help in this evemerely publicizing the brand name. can remind consumers of their ownsonal reasons for considering that brHow salience works:No deep commitmentWhen a brand accumulates saliencethe consumer, it almost never is the sumer's only salient one. Over a seriepurchases, consumers are mostly polmous. Each consumer usually has sev

1 2 J o o m i f l L O F H D O E R T I S I H B B E S E R B C H . August 2002


7/13

BRAND ADVERTISING

partn ers in his or her active pur- The highly varying population responses A good deal of contempo rary consum erreperto ire or consid eration set, in the top line were misleading because adve rtising reflects brand differences

occasional flings, they merely reflect that big bran ds have that are so slight that one may wo nderIn repertoire markets, a salient brand more users, with brand users being more wheth er consum ers will consider them

seldom to play a uniqu e role for its likely to say positi\ e things about their to add d istinctive \ alue to the branddeep commitment, Loy- bran d (Barwise and Ehren berg, 1970; (Weilbacher, 1993),

(or strictly, split-loyalty) is mu ch the Franzen, 1999; Collins , 2002), There is a dan ger that in search ing forfrom brand to brand (e,g,, Ehrenberg Evaluative attitudes ("Tastes nice" or something different to say you end up

cles, 1999, and earlier references "A brand I trust") are therefore generally basing advertising on small or meaning -s just the num ber of loyal buy- fou nd to be mu ch th e sa m e amo ng less claims (Keeble, 1998),

. Each bra nd is users of competitive bran ds, with just aht quite infrequently by most of its well-established small Double Jeopard y Nonetheless, this comm odity-like simi-

(the Pareto-like predom inance trend with market sharehere from 48 '^rity of compeHHve brand s tends still tolight buye rs, e,g,, Ehrenberg, 1959), For percent for the top brand I dow n to 37 be seen as regrettable new s:

ly bought branded goods or ser- pe rce nt for IV (e,g,, Eb ren be rg and, ,, ^ ii 1. ,.1. r- ju J.. -^nn-^s Eacb marketing generation continuesa brand s customers mostly bu y the Go odha rdt, 2002), " ", , J , , , , - ^ i i n j , 1 . 1 - f i 1 , 1 J t o b e li e v e t h a t t b er e w a s , u n t i l o nl ybran ds m their repertoires m total Brand-users beliefs about their brand s ',^ ,,w . .1 ^i. c 1 Tl.- u very recently, some golden periodore often: Your customers are mostly are therefore sim ilar. This can be ex- / / o r, , , , ^ , , 1 1 1 J u lu n ^ u ^ when all prod ucts [i,e,, brands] werebran ds customers wh o occasionally plamed by the measures reflecting what ",, 1. 1- i_ . 1 J 1 riot onlv de mo ns trab ly different fromyou, cons ume rs believe abou t the prod uct- , . , , 1 1 J, J- I i_ i_ 1 / i_ j \ ./ eacb ot he r bu t also , w on dr ou sl y, be tterWhat each brand s cu sto m ers/ m about category as a wbole (i,e,, any brand ). If ', , ., , . ,, , u J . u i J .. thari each oth er (Bullm ore, 1998),bran ds tbey know and u se generally tbey use a specific brand , they tend to see

doe s not \'ary idiosyncratically from their product-beliefs as app lying to that , , , , , j j ,' ' '^ rr J a Indeed, most practitioner and academicto brand . It mav seem surprising, brand, , , , , . ,,^ " opmion IS that consum ers need a reasont com pet itive bra nd s differ little in Tbe exceptions are certain functionally , .,. , ,

'^ " - to choo se a specific br and,w ma ny of tbe ir cu sto me rs say it "descriptive" characteristics of a particu- . - , , c -i , ,' ^ ^ Marketers, therefore, widely regardas tes N ice ," is "G oo d Va lue for lar brand, whicb tend also to be noted by , , ,,,, , . . ,/ ,brand differentiation as vital. If no func-1 Trust," Table 1 il- its non -users (like Rice Krispies "Staying , , ,,, , , ,, , . , , ,

' T J n tional differences exist, distin ct Ad deds this, crisp in milk")or a replay of som e em- , , , . , , ,, , ,^ ^ ' Values need to be specially created forFar more people say "A brand I trust" pbatic advertising slogan, , , , .. , , , ,,/

t^ ^ > r o o jj g brand different value s for eacb dif-tbe leading brand tban for tbe sixth ,Dlstinctiveness , not brand differentiation ferent brand:(27 percent versus 6 percent), Tbese Tbe perceived sameness of competitivere wba t most mar ketin g ^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^ . This use of ad ve rtisin g-to add a sub-

to note, but tbey are mislead- ^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^ . ^ j , , , , , , 3 , , , ^, ^^e product -becomesusers of eacb ^^^ ^ ^ ce nt ur v ' increasingly imp ortan t (Young, 1923),

are mucb more similar, Tbe second ' , H is obviou s tbat consu mer percep -of Table 1 sbow s tbat typically about Tbe trends in our tecbnology lead to tions of differences b etw een b ran ds

percent of users for any brand say tbat compe ting prod ucts being more and cau sed by ad ve rtis in g are [widelybran d is one tbey trust, more tbe same (Young, 1923), tho ugh t to be] tbe essence of tbe adNer-tising opportunity (Weilbacber, 1993),

^ . . . . . . . ^ . , _ . . ^ The orthodox \ iew therefore seems to


8/13

BRAND ADVERTISING

Yet wben we deconstructed and testedadvertising messages as noted earlier,tbey were often seen as only providing"talking-points"^vvays of saying some-tbing about tbe brand and creatively pub-licizing itand no t "selling points," seenas differentiating tbe brands.

As stressed by Moran (1990), creativeadvertising people tbemselves often donot subscribe to tbe notion tbat consumersneed a persuasive message or differentiat-ing "brand values," Many of tbe adver-tisements that tbey produceand tbattbeir m anagements and clients accept andrundo not explicitly articulate strongbrand differentiation. Instead, tbey mostlysay, "Coke Is It," "X Gets Clotbes Clean,"or sbow a car driven along a mountainroad.

As briefly illustrated in Table 1, tbere islittle ev idence tbat tbeir users as sucb seebra nds as posse ssing differentiatingadded values. Even tbe protagonists of tbebrand- values tbeories do not seem to giveoperational definitions or substantiatedexam ples (e,g,, Aaker et al,, 1992; Am bler,2000see also McD onald, 1992; Feldwick,1998),

Cboosing between competitive brandsis tberefore usually quick and easy (e,g,.Miller and Berry, 1998; Heatb, 2001) com-pared witb tbe quite difficult choices be-tween functionally different product vari-ants (a coupe or a SUV, a faster versusa less costly processor , a lemon ormango flavor, e tc) . We believe tbat is wbyadvertising as a weak force (i,e,, merepublicity) can actually influence brandcboice at allit is a cboice between closesubstitutes,SALES EFFECTSBrand maintenance as the main outcomeTbe main aim of advertising is usuallytaken to be "Growtb," Tbe looked-for ad-vertising effectiveness is tberefore almostalways identified witb extra sales, higher

. . . enduring growth beyond tha t of the m arket seldomever, m aterializes. Not every brand can grow its shamargins, added values, or more favorableattitudes.

This may seem businesslike. After all,bow can a marketing plan ask for mil-lions and not promise a dded sales or prof-its to pay for it? But enduring growtb be-yond tbat of the market seldom, if ever,materializes. Not every brand can grow itssbare.

Yet growtb as tbe target has mostly re-mained unquestioned. And so advertisingbas famously remained unaccountable:"Advertising is bewildering because cur-rently [sic!], no one knows what advertis-ing really does in the market place" (Li-lien, Kotler, and Mo orthy, 1992), But Kot-ler and his colleagues continued, ratherexceptionally: "Wbat advertising is sup-posed to do is fairly clear, ,,, to increasecompany sales and/or profits over wbattbey would otberwise be,"

Tbis means to us tbat competit ivebrands sbould mostly not lose sales if tbeyare advertised. But few commentatorsopenly acknowledge sucb an apparentlynegative (i,e,, nonpositive) goal.

Advertising m a y at times be followed bya sales increase (e,g,, Abrabam and Lo-disb , 1987; Franzen, 1999; McDonald,1997), But tbese tend to be sbort-lived ups-and-downs, since few advertised brands'market sbares increase for long, Sucb"sbort-term" advertising does not pay foritself (Epbron, 2001), otberwise advertis-ers would advertise more.

Our conjecturewbicb could be testedis tbat tbe extra sbort-term sales are due tobriefly refresbed brand awareness, Tbiswould mostly occur If tbe brand was al-ready in tbat consumer's brand-repertoire(advertising being noticed and liked farmore by brand users tban non-users).

Occasional ly a cam paign wi l l cu t

tbrougb and seem to greatly boost sathe stuff of cre ati\ e ad\'C'rtising a waoften contains no selling propositionJones (1997) notes, with apparent sur"Tbe advertiseme nts shown to bave est effect we re certainly not bard-se lltbe conventional sense, Tbey wereable ,,, visual ratber tban verbal,"

But if advertising of established bseldom increases long-term sales, wbdo brands have big-budget adverand marketing support? The simplswer is "Competition," Tbe expectattbat competitors will gain if you dmarket your own brand effectively.

If your brand bas 10 percent t)f tbeket (wbich is quite a lot), it nonethbas 90 percent of tbe market againTbat means rougbly 90 percent of adistribution efforts, display, advertpromotion, word-of-moutb, after-service, added values, quality-cosales training, CRM, etc, in tbe cateAll of tbese are putting competitive sure on your own sales.

Indeed, faced witb widely dispand be a\ ily promoted competitive lolikes, even customer loyalty seemerode sligbtly (i.e,, a "somewbat bucket"East and Hammond, 1996)it mostly does so slowly, because ofs u m e r s ' a n d a l s o r e t a i l e r s ' westablisbed babitual buying proptiesre-ordering ratber tban makingdecisions.

Hence we tbink tbnt advertisinneeded to try and maintain botb sal(penetration), and customer retentionalso to give tbe brand a cbance of catits fair sbare of "the leaks,"

Keeping eacb brand in compenear-equilibrium or even stalemate hbe tbe main realistic marketing aim f

1 4 J O U R R R L O F R D U E R T I S IR G R E S E R R C R J u l y . A u g u s t 2 0 0 2


9/13

BRAND ADVERTISING

whatever marketers tend to saya bonus for a fortunate few perbaps

"get e\ erytbing right," not justBrand maintenance may not appear

because of tbe lack of obvious longer-

Tbe concept of salience bas implications

adequate, as no matter bow tbese areimplemented ("top of mind," etc), tbeyonly tap tbe link between tbe brandname and the product category cue (Ro-maniuk and Sharp, 2002a),Instruments tbat seek to docum ent bowwell tbe brand's image conforms tosome ideal make unwarranted causalassumptions about tbe effects of wbatbuyers feel about tbe brand and wbattbey do,Mu lti-attribute attitudina l models largelyassume salience ratber than diagno se it,wboUy reflect refresbed awareness,More attention needs to be paid to bowmany relevant consumers think of tbebrand, and how often or how likely tbeyare to do s o , ratber tban to what tbey feelabout it (wbicb will not differ mucbfrom brand to brand, for brand users).

Mucb work is needed on advertisingevaluation: to remove tbe sole focus ongrowtb for every advertiser, to sbake offtbe yeshges of 1960s attitude psychology(Foxall, 1996), and to develop adequatemeasures of salience.

For such measures to be useful in ad-\ertising evaluation tbere needs to besome evidence of links to botb advertising(i,e,, sensitivity to cbanges in advertising)and to subsequent buyer bebavior, Tbismay be tecbnicaUy bard. But tbe biggestburdle is for "no-cbange" brand mainte-nance to become accepted as tbe basic cri-terion of advertising success: "Having torun hard to stand still,"CONCLUDING DISCUSSIONTbe publicity perspective of advertising,wbicb we bave sougbt to outline in tbispaper, does not of course explain cvery-tbing. But it can unify many of advertis-ing's diverse aspects,

Witbin tbis framework, advertisingtbeory and practice bang togetber better,and botb make more sense, Tbus tbe tra-ditional advertising goal of effective per-suasionprevai l ing upon people tochange their attitudes or feelingshaslong been found very difficult to acbieve(e,g,, Moran, 1990), It, therefore, bardlymakes sense to try to do so by a 30-secondcommercial or two.

Few will, bowever, question tbat evenfive seconds' publicity for a brand cansuccessfully remind people of it. And tbat30 seconds can probably do so better, witbmore impact on refresbing memory tracesfor tbe brand, or even perbaps enbancingtbem or linking up a new one.

Ongoing and substantial cbange withsustained growtb in market sbaretbesupposed outcome of persuasiv e ad\ ertis-ingis rarely reported for establisbedbrands. It is, in any case, impossible foreven/ brand. Consumers tbemselves ha\'elong felt free to say that tbey have "never

been influenced by adxertising," sinceonly rarely do tbey cbange wbat tbey feelor do about establisbed brands,

Nonetbeless, botb academic textbooksand practitioners' pronouncements con-tinue to say or imply tbat cbanging u'hatpeople feel is what advertising is sup-posed to do. Hence, persuasive brand ad-vertising bas mostly failed wben it isjudged by its own goal, i.e., growtbthrough persuasion. The advertising in-dustry, as well as management generally,ought to face up to that and cbange tbegoalposts, Witb profitable brand mainte-nance as a goal, everyone can win, witboccasionally tbe bonus of some lasting ex-tra sales perbaps.

Brand advertising seen as creative pub-licity can succeedand often does. An dtbis success bas to be measured and e\ alu-ated, even if only as "No cbange,"

Even for an establisbed brand, publicitycan successfully remind tbe experiencedconsumer of tbe brand and belp tocounter i ts many competitors ' over-wbelming availability, at mucb tbe samequality and prices. In tbis tbreateningcompetitive context, publicity can belp tomaintain tbe number of people to wbomthe brand is broadly "Salient," tbe termwe are using for tbe brand coming tomind, being familiar, safe, and satisficing(i.e., being "good enougb").Advertising's differing tasi


10/13

BRAND ADVERTISING

Tbere are also tbe different tasks of tbebrand motivating its own (sales) stafftbrougb its advertising, as well as entbus-ing its suppliers and its retailers. Yet dif-fering advertising tasks can be involvedwben pursuing investors, sponsors, busi-ness-to-busint'ss customers, e-commerce,politicians, or general PR,

Witb tbe persuasive view of adv ertisingtbese different tasks would seem to re-quire different strategies, tactics, copy,and execution perbaps (e,g,, Anscbuetz,2002), In contrast, the publicity perspec-tive can, we believe, address all sucb dif-fering tasks witb its single overarcbinggame plan. It can tell and remind peopleof tbe brand, letting tbem bring their ownassociations and needs to the issue, "Al-ways Coca-Cola" could be said in tbesame breatb to existing customers, pro-specti\'e ones, and tbe trade.

And it could be said over and over andover again witb little if any wear-out, un-like bard sell (e,g,, "Wbile stock lasts"),Tbe tactics of sucb publicity would, bow-e\er, vary prodigiously^witb specificconcepts and tbe bigbly varied creati\'fexecutions tbat we all know.

Some people fear tbat tbis "mere pub-licity" stance is unbelpful to creatives. Butwe suggest tbat tbe exact opposite is thecase. Advertising a better mousetrap isfairly fasy if it is in fact a bit better. Onecan, for instance, just say so. But having tocenter your advertising on ad ding y ear af-ter year some indiscernible "Wbiter andBrigbter" product-boon can restrict thekind of creativity tbat aims at memorableimpacts for tbe brand.

In contrast, publicizing a brand gi\'esample scope for imaginative insigbts("Tbe Big Idea") and for disciplined mar-keting-communication skil ls ("AlwaysCoca-Cola"), Tbis can stimulate creativity,i,e,, making distinctive and memorablepublicity for tbe bran d o ut of next to notb-ing, Tbis seems tbe hallmark of good ad-

. . . we should accept that advertising mostly needsrefresh, and may occasionally enhan ce acceptance o f brand as one to buy and/or to consider.vertising as we kn ow it. We tbink sHll tbatadvertising a competitive brand meansjust "Telling a brand story well" (Ebren-berg, 1974), witbout there being just onesolution, Tbere is buge scope tbe cam-paign need not be bemmed in by tbebrand's "selling proposition,"

It is not tbat consumers' feelings or ra-tional tbougbts about the brand do notmatter. But tbat tbey cannot be easily in-fluenced, as tbey tend to be much tbesame among users of each competitivebrand, ("Users of brand A tbink or feelabout A mucb w bat users of brand B tbinkor feel about B,") Wbat seems to differ be-tween different brands is not wbat tbeirusers feel about tbem, but bow manypeople feel it.

This differs from Dr, Jobnson's muchquoted but m istaken \ iew tbat "Prom ise,large Promise, is tbe soul of an advertise-ment" (even if be just meant puffery). Itdiffers also from James Webb Young'smore recent decree in 1923 that for "Ad-vertising to add a subjective value to tbeproduct becomes increasingly important,"

Finally, it differs from Gardner andLevy's opening of tbeir 1955 classic: "Basicto many of tbe problems of advertisingand selling is tbe question of tbe consum-er's ,,, conception of tbe brand,"

Our contrary tbesis is tbat advertisingand selling do not depend on consumersseeing tbe brand as different, but u pon tbebrand being seen at all, i,e,, as broadly sa-lient and tberefore being in tbe consum-ers' individual consideration sets, Tbatbas long been treated as a necessary con-dition for cboosing a brand (from sayHoward and Sbeth, 1969, onwards).

Our overall conclusion is tbat from tbe

publicity perspective, a d\ ertising prneed generally not cbange. The n"Creative Publicity" alreadx seems flect what most advertising in fact d

What would need to change is theadvertising is generally thoug ht of, tabout, and evaluated, Tbat woultbeory coming into line v\'itb practic

Instead of trying to persuade exenced consumers tbat every adverbrand is better or best, we should atbat advertising mostly needs to reand may occasionally enh ance, accepof tbe brand as one to buy and/consider,ANDREW EHRENBERQ is professor of marketing at SBank University, London, He is chairman of the initiative. H e was at the London Business Schoover 20 years and in industry for 15 years. ProfEhrenberg is a frequent speaker and active conon both sides of the Atlantic.

N E I L BARNARD, Ph,D,. is a consultant in marketanalysis and advertising evaluation, including aBank University, His previous position s have incmarketing and advertising analyst at Young &Rubicam, Kellogg s Research Fellow at the LondBusiness School, and analysis section managerBeecham Products,

RACHEL KENNEDY, Ph,D,, is a senior research assat The Marke ting Science C entre at the UniversSouth Australia, Adelaide. She has also consultSouth Bank University, She has published and intemationally on advertising and consumer beh

HELEN BLDOM is an intemational management ancommunications consultant who has worked wiAndrew Ehrenberg on consumer behavior sinceBased in Brussels, she now specializes in Diverand Cultural Orientations issues.

1 6 J O U R n R L O F R D U E R T IS IR G R E S E R R C R J u l y A u g u s t 2 0 0 2


11/13

BRAND ADVERTISING

D, A,, R, BArRA, and I. G, MYER S , Ad-

I'nglevi'ood Cliffs, NJ:1992,

M, M,, and L, M, L ODISH, "Pro-AnAut omat ed Pr omot i on E val uat i on

Marketing Science 6, 2 (1987): 101-23 ,

I:R, T, "Per suas i on , Pr i de and Prejudice:w Ads W or k." International ]ournal of Ad-

19,3 (2000): 219-315 ,

N , "Why a Brand's Most ValuableIs theN e x t One It A d d s , " journal of

42, 1 (2002): 15-^21.

l I "1, A, D,ThePsychology of Memory.York: Basic Books, 1^74,

P,, and A, E HRE NBE RG, Television andAudience. London: Sage , 1970,

D , J, "Self -Percept ion: An Alternat iveof Cogni t i ve Di ssonance Phe-

Psychological Review 74, 3, (1967):

J, Behind theScenes in Advertising,ed, Henl ey- on- Thames: Admap Publ i ca-

1998,

- , "Adver t i s i ng and Its A u d i e n c e : Aof Two Hal ves , " International journal of

IS,3, (1999): 275-84.

, "Posh Spice and Persi l ," Market LeaderSpring, (2002): 40-46,

M . "Anal yzi ng Br and I mage Dat a , "14,2 (2002): 33-3 6,

PLESSIS, E , " M e m o r y andLikeabilit>: KeysAdEffects," Admap 33 , 7

42-lfi.

HA S I , R,, and K, H A M M O N D , "The Erosion ofRepeat-Purchase Loyal ty." Marketing Letters 7,1 (1996): 163-71,

EHRENBERG, A, "The Pat tern of C o n s u m e r Pur-chases , " Applied Statistics 8, 1 (1959): 26- 41 ,

, "Repet i t ive Adver t ising and the Con-s u m e r , " Journal ofAdvertising Research 14, 2(1974): 25-34, (Also in Jones, 1998, and re-pr i n t ed inJAR 40,6,2000,)

, "Persuasion: Taci t Suggest ion VersusFuU-Front. il Ad vocacy ," International Journal ofAdvertising 19, 3 (2000): 417-21.

, and M. UNCLES, "UnderstandingDi r i ch l e t - Type Mar ket s . " W or ki ng paper .South Bank U niversi ty, 1999,

, and G, J, GOODHARDT, "New Brands:N ear - I ns tan t Loyal t y , " Journal of Targeting,Measurement andAnalysis for Marketitig 10, 1(2001): 9-16,

- , and - . "Double Jeopardy Revis-i ted, Again," Marketing Research 14, 1 (2002):40-42.

EPHRON, E, "Recession Fears Cal l for StrategySpendi ng Scar ce Ad Dollars Now to Lift Prof-i t s Tomorrow Is a Tough Sel l ," AdvertisingAge, Febr uar y 26, 2001,

FELDWICK, P, "ABrief Guided Tour throught he Copy- Test i ng Jungl e , " Pre-testing Advertis-ing. Admap Semi nar , 1998,

, L , A Tlieory of Cognitive Dissonance.Stanford, CA: Stanford Press, 1957,

FITZGERALD, N , "Lif e and Deat h in the Worldof Brands," Market Leader 14, Spring (2001):17-22,

Fox.\LL, G, Consumers inContext: The BPM Re-search Program. London: Rout l edge , 1996,

FRANZEN, G , Brands andAdvertising. Henl ey-on-Thames: Admap Publications, 1999.

, and M. BOUWM \ \ . TheMental World ofBrands. W AR C, U ni t ed Ki ngdom: W or ld Ad-ver t ising Research Centre, 2001,

GALBRAITH, J, K, The Affluent Society, 5th ed,London: Pengui n , 1958,

G A R D N E R , B, B,, and S, J, LEVY, "The Productan d the Br and," Hanmrd Business Revieio 33 , 2(1435): 33-34.

HARRISCIN, A . A, "Response Compet i t i on , Fre-quency, Exploratory Beha\ ior and Liking,"Journal of Personality and Socinl Psychologi/ 9, 4(1968): 363-68,

HEATH, R , The Hiddai Power of A dvertising:Low Involvement Processing. Hcii ley-on-Thames: W or l d Adver t i s i ng Resear ch Cent r e ,2001,

HEDC;I:s. A,Testing; to Destruction, 2nd ed, Lon-don: Inst i tute of Pract i t ioners in Adver t i s i ng ,1998,

HILTS, P , J, "ABrain Un i t Seen as Index forRecal l ing Memories," The Nezv York Times,Sept ember 24, 1991,

Hoi DEN, S,J,S,, andR, J. Lur z , "Ask NotW h a t the Bran d l\ oke s; Ask W h a t Can E voket he Br and, " InAdi>ances inConsumer Research,J, F,Sher r y and B, St emt hal , eds, 19 (1992):101-07,

HOWARD, J,, and J,SHITH, Tlxe Tlieory of BuyerBehavior. New Y or k, NY : Wiley, 1969,

HUNTER, I,M, L, Memory. London: Pengui n ,1964.

J u l y . A u g u s t 2 0 0 2 J D U R n R L O F R R U E R T I S IR G R E S E R R C R 1 7


12/13

BRAND ADVERTISING

N, S, TheRambler. London, 1751,

J O N E S , J, P, "Is Adver t ising St i l l Salesman-sh ip ?" Journal of Advertising Research 37, ,3(1997): 9-15,

, Hoiv Adi'crtiiirtg Works. T h o u s a n dO a k s, CA: Sage Publ icat ions, 1998,

K A Y , J , Fouihiotions ofCorporate Success: HowBusiness Strategies Add Value. O xford : O xfordUniversitv' Press, 1993

K i I Bi,F, G, "Tho Weak, the S t r o n g , and theCreat ive Depar tment , " Admap 33 , 7 (]M')f ,Marketing Models. E nglewoo d Cl i ffs, NJ: Pren-tice H>\ALD, C, How Adivrtisitig Works. Hen-l ey-on-Thames: NTC Books, 1992,

, Pre-testing Advertisements. Henley-on-Thame s: Ad map Publ i cat ions, 1997,

MCWILLIAM, G , " L O W I n v o K e m e n t B r an d s , "Marketing Intelligettce & Planning 15 , 2/3(1997): 60-70,

MILLER, S ,, AN D L , BERRY, "Brand Salience ver-sus Brand Image: The Theor ies ofAd\ er t isingEffect iveness," Journal ofAdvertising Research38, 5 (1998): 77-82,

M I L L S , P,, A, E H R E N B E R G , R, K E N M E D V , and T,ScHLAEPPi, "The Forms Adver t i sement s Take(FAT)," EMAC Conference Proceedings, Rotter-dam, 2000 ,

, R , , A, E H R E N B E R G , and T,SCHLAEPPi, "The Forms that TV Ads Take , "ESOMAR/ARF TV Audience Measurement Con-ference, Bal H a r b o r , FL, 2000,

M O R A N , W , T , "Brand P resence and the Per-cep tual Frame, " Journal of Advertising Research20 , 5 (1990): 9-16,

M Y H R S - L L V Y , J,, and P, M A U ^ V I Y A . "Consum-ers' Processing ofPer suas ive Adver t i sement s :An Integrativ L Framework of PersuasionTheor i es , " Journal of Marketing 63, special is-sue (1999): 4,S-60,

OED. "Per suas ion , " TheShorter Oxford EnglishDictionary, 2000, third ed,

P E C H M A N N , C , and D, S T E W ART , "AdvertisingRepet i t ion: A Cri t ical Review of Wear in andW e a r o u t , " In Current Issues & Research in Ad-vertising 1988, Jam es H, Leigh and C l a u d e R,Mart in, Jr,, eds, ,'\nn Arbor , MI:Uni\ crsLty ofMichigan, 1989,

R O B E R T S , J, H,, and J, M, L A T I I N , "Consider-

at ion: Review of Research and Prospects forFuture Ins igh t s , " Joumal of Marketing Research34, 3, (1997): 406-10,

RoMANiLK, J,, and B, SHARP, "The C o n c e p t ofBrand Sal ience and Impl icat ions for Measure-ment , " In Proceedings of the European MarketingAcademy Conference, Braga, Por tugal : Univer-sitv of Mino, 2002a,

tomer Defect ion in Subscr ip t ion MarketJournal of Marketing Managettient, for thco(2002b).

S H A N K A R , V., G, C A R P I N T E K , and L, K R I S\AMURTH: "The A d v a n t a g e s of Fntry inG r o w t h S t ag o of the P r o d u c t I ife CycleE mpi r i ca l Analys i s , " Journal of Marketingsearch 36,2 (1999): 269-76,

S H O C KFR A, D,, M, B E N - A K I V A , B, BotvAan d P,N E D U N C \Di , "Considerat ion Set Iences on Consumer Deci s ion-Making anChoice : I ssues , Model s , and Sugges t ionsMarketitig Utters 2, 3 (1991): 181-97,

S IM O N , H , Administrative Behavior. NewNY : McMi l lan , 1947,

STKVVAKI, D , W , , and D, H, FuRSE, "A nalthe Impact of Rxccut ional Factors on Adtising Performance," Journal of Advertisinsearch 24,6 (1984): 23-26,

- , and - . "Brand Sal ience and Cus-

D, M,, and A, S I L V E S T E R , Adveattd theMind cf the Consumer, 2"'' ed, Aulia: Allen & Unwin , 2000 ,

, and L, FRIEDMAN, "Do You ModA w a r e n e s s or Advertising A w a r e n e s s ? " Jof Advertising Research 40,5 (2000): 32-36SWINDELLS, A, "The Invisible MechanicsC o n s u m p t i o n , " In Proceedings of the MarResearch Society Conference, Austral ia, 20WEILBACHER, W , M , Bratid Marketing. Linw o o d , IL: NTC Books, 1993,Y ouN( ., J, W, How to Become an /Wivr/;smMan. Chicago , IL:Adver t ising Publ icat iI n c , 14h3, (Based on lectures in 1923),Z A IO N C, R, B , "The Attitudinal Effects ofE x p o s u r e , " Journat of Personality and Socichology y, 2 (1968): 1-27,

ZiLi sKE, H, "The R e m e m b e r i n g and Forgot Ad\ er t ising," Journal of Marketing 23 ,(1959): 239-43 ,

1 8 J D U R n R L o r H D U E R T IS in G R E S E flR C H j u i y . A u g u s t 2 0 0 2


13/13

Andrew Ehrenberg

Documents

Transcript of Andrew Ehrenberg