Download Link to Literature Review The Power of Advertising

The Power of Advertising
Gail Patterson
It is argued by many that television is the most powerful source of advertising (Grant and
O'Connor; 2005, Jasperson and Yun, 2007) and is also the most likely form of media to be
remembered and discussed by the public (Ford-Hutchinson and Rothwell, 2002, p17). This is
confirmed by a number of studies that show a good response to television advertising, and
corresponding commercial spending; a report in the Economist found that “Television remains the
most-powerful advertising medium, with a 38% global share of spending on major media in 2004.”
(The Economist, 2005, p48)
Though for most purposes advertising expenditure indicates advertising return-on-investment,
and in turn, advertising power, but it is not the only method of measuring advertising power.
Television advertising may be powerful when appealing to certain demographics, but for certain
markets, especially niches, television advertising will not be the most powerful: “Internet and email will also grow in importance, because these ads can target specific audiences” (Metzler,
2005, p1). A new online computer game, for example, may be more successfully advertised using
internet pop-ups (though these are generally viewed as intrusive) and targeted emailing, rather
than a television slot, which may not be seen by the game-playing community (Silk, Klein and
Berndt; 2001, McCoy et al; 2007). Furthermore, sales revenue may not be the primary driving
factor behind advertising, emblazoning a company logo on t-shirts maybe a powerful method of
promoting brand awareness; direct mailers from a supermarket may be the most powerful method
of countering a local competition attack (Bawa and Shoemaker; 1987).
Ogilvy (2004) argues that the most powerful mode of advertising is that which arouses
consumer curiosity. Using this as a yardstick, it could be argued that internet advertising allows
the consumers to follow their curiosity to detailed information about the consumable, in a similar
way to infomercials on television.
Clearly television and internet advertising had no share of the market a century ago. In a 1952
study by Abrams, advertising in the press accounted for over 46% of all advertising expenditure in
1930’s Britain, rising to 53% in the 1940’s (Abrams, 1952, 259-261). Market share and overall
market size varies with time and is especially influenced by developments in technology and
communications with the advertising industry exploiting every foothold wherever possible. Adding
this dimension to the question illustrates that advertising power is very much determined by
consumer behaviour (Ogilvy; 2004). To fully understand the power of advertising it may therefore
be more useful in the long-term to consider the method of advertising rather than simply the
medium through which it is transmitted.
Ford-Hutchinson and Rothwell’s (2002) study examined public opinion of advertising and found
that television and billboards were the most popular, followed by magazines and newspapers
(p10), with ‘below the line’ media being less popular (such as direct mailers, door drops,
sponsorship, the Internet, commercial text messages and advertising in supermarkets).
Interestingly, advertising on the Internet was found to be irritating and not regarded highly,
partially due to ‘pop-ups’. Over the last five years, many companies, Google being a leading
proponent, have opted for less intrusive methods of advertising on the Internet with some
success (Bingley; 2007).
Demographics must also be considered as a number of factors (such as communication
networks, living habits etc.) influence how advertising is received. In India, for example, a Nielsen
paper found that word-of-mouth was the most popular form of advertising, followed by
newspapers (which were deemed trustworthy). The study also detailed consumers’ trust in
1
advertising and found wide variations between different countries (The Nielsen Company, 2005,
p1.).
Television accounts for the majority of world advertising expenditure, and is undoubtedly
powerful enough to generate a return-on-investment on that expenditure, but the notion of it being
the most powerful kind of advertising is only true when certain demographics and contexts are
considered.
What makes such images powerful?
In Vakratsas and Ambler’s (1999) extensive study into ‘How Advertising Works’ they pinpoint
three factors by which the power of an advert may be judged: experience, affect and cognition
(Vakratsas and Ambler, 1999, p34). The different strengths of these three aspects and how they
are combined affect how the advertisement is received. For example, they suggest that a lowinvolvement product, such as washing powder, will be advertised with a high basis on affect, with
less on cognition (Vakratsas and Ambler, 1999, p38). Hsu, Yang and Su (2007), in their study of
television and radio advertising, found that advertisements could be broken down into similar
areas, often with all three aspects producing the best results (Hsu, Yang and Su, 2007, p157).
Sparkman and Locander (1980), also recognise the importance of the context of the production of
the advertisement and its reception. Using attribution theory, they pinpoint a number of similar
factors which determine how this context is used to create successful advertising.
Dyer, in her book Advertising as Communication explains that desirability plays a large part in
what makes such advertising images powerful. She suggests that its “central function is to create
desires that did not previously exist” (Dyer, 1988, p8). Generating that desire is reliant on “the
cleverness of the execution, frequent executional changes and the relevance of the message”
(Ford-Hutchinson and Rothwell, 2002, p20).
Numerous studies suggest that the ‘exposure effect’ makes advertising powerful, especially so
with television advertising (Tom et al, 2007; Ford-Hutchinson and Rothwell, 2002; Moore and
Lutz, 2000). Consumers nowadays spend a large amount of time watching television, and
programming is frequently, and intrusively, interrupted by advertising synchronised across
channels to ensure that every viewer gets their message (Ford-Hutchinson and Rothwell, 2002,
p17; Moore and Lutz, 2000).
It is also important to mention the skill in execution of advertising and how that increases the
effectiveness of an advert. There are numerous books and studies into how to develop successful
advertising, which delve into subjects such as imagery (Messaris, 1997) and music (Brown and
Volgsten, 2006). This suggests that powerful advertising images are multi-faceted and work with
a number of different factors, the strength and combination of which help determine their potency.
The impact upon attitudes and behaviour
In a recent study, Jasperson and Yun (2007) found that advertising can affect voting decisions,
though this was less influential than word of mouth (Jasperson and Yun, 2007, p1122). Kaid et al
(2007) break this correlation down into a finer level of granularity suggesting that one of the main
ways in which advertising affects voter decision is by providing voters with greater information
transferral efficacy. Their study also contained a number of interesting findings with regard to
young voters. For example, they found that advertising campaigns were received with very little
cynicism by young voters (compared to older voters), and suggest that political advertising is
such a common place occurrence that it is viewed as legitimate. It is important to note that
negative advertising has been found to be damaging to a campaign’s success (Basil et al, 1991,
p245), and that political advertising in general can be eyed with a great deal more caution than
other advertising (Rose, 1993). Furthermore, there are a large number of studies that suggest
that advertising techniques have changed over the last fifty years or so, moving from advertising
campaigns based primarily on political issues to campaigns based on improving public image
(Diamond and Bates, 1988; Boiney and Paletz, 1991).
Brand-loyalty is a common trait with consumers, who are often willing to pay extra to stick with
their brand (Tom et al, 2007, p118). Karlsson (2007) argues that advertising is often the initiator in
the buying process of a consumer, whereby the consumer interprets the information provided in
2
mass communication building up brand awareness and knowledge as they do so. The knowledge
is then translated into a greater desire and need for the product. Allenby and Lenk (1995) suggest
that following price promotions on a competitor brand, households will immediately revert to their
normal brand, suggesting that advertising and promotion may temporarily cause consumers to
switch brands, but in the long-term they maintain a brand loyalty. This is substantially backed up
with a number of other studies. They further stipulate, again, with a large number of background
studies, that advertising the brand is less effective than significantly lowering the price (Allenby
and Lenk, 1995, p281). Studies Allenby and Lenk (1995) use to reinforce their claims include:
Gupta (1988), Kumar and Leone (1988), Blattberg and Nelson (1990), Bucklin and Lattin (1991)
and Bass (1993).
There have been a number of advertising campaigns targeting specific issues, such as
underage drinking (often driven by the government, for example, the ‘Drink Aware’ campaign).
Austin et al (2006), argue that connections between good advertising campaigns and the drinking
habits of young people do exist, and attribute this, in part, to mediated reference groups. They
state that “if children admire a mediated reference group such as models in an advertisement,
they will tend to expect that imitating the models’ behaviors will bring positive results” (Austin et
al, 2006, p376). It is often argued that advertising and marketing of drinks (Collins et al, 2007) has
a strong persuasive effect on young people, which may counter advertising campaigns seeking to
lessen underage drinking. However, Moschis and Moore (1982) argue that advertising is more
likely to change attitudes and opinions than reinforce them (Moschis and Moore, 1982, p280).
Are we affected?
Obermiller and Spangenberg (1998) argue, in their study on advertising scepticism, that a
person’s attitude toward an advertisement is connected to their persuasion knowledge (Friestad
and Wright; 1994)* and their ad scepticism. The distinction being that people with high persuasion
knowledge may be persuaded by an advertisement, albeit difficultly, but people with high ad
scepticism would be unlikely to believe the advertisement at all (Obermiller and Spangenberg,
1998, p163). Bargh (2002), however, argues for the case that certain aspects of receptiveness to
advertising maybe automatic and nonconscious, rather than fully-considered choices (Bargh;
2002, Tom et al; 2007). Thus inferring that certain demographics may not be entirely in control,
irrespective of how they view their own susceptibility, and cannot ignore their impulsivity toward
advertising (Bargh, 2002, p280-282). In addition to this, a number of other factors can be added
to the mix to understand people’s susceptibility and scepticism, including social structural
variables (sex, education etc.), socialisation agents (peers, parents), age, learning properties and
learning processes (Moschis and Moore, 1982, p280). A number of other studies have found
correlations between self-esteem, intelligence and advertising susceptibility (McGuire, 1968;
Rhodes and Wood, 1992). Age is also considered an important factor, with increasing age and
experience increasing the resistance and scepticism (Gaeth and Heath; 1987, Obermiller and
Spangenberg; 1998).
Considering the wide variety of factors influencing the consumer’s scepticism and
susceptibility, including certain automatic responses, it could be argued that a consumer is not
entirely in control of how they respond to advertising (Bargh, 2002, p280). However, it is
important to consider how the consumer believes they respond to advertising. Gender is used
below to highlight one aspect of how consumers assess their susceptibility.
The last fifty years has seen a large shift in female body ideals, and over the last few years
similar shifts have been occurring in the perceived male body ideal (Grogan, 1999, p.77). Eagly
and Steffen (1984) using social role theory, suggest that men, who are encouraged to be
dominant and assertive, often consider themselves as having a good degree of self-control.
Women, they argue, “are more likely to be encouraged to play social roles involving
agreeableness and support for others” (Obermiller and Spangenberg, 1998, p165). This serves to
illustrate how consumers may view their susceptibility with respect to how they view their role in
society; judging oneself as susceptible may be undesirable for men, but harmless for women.
*persuasion knowledge refers to learning that consumers use ‘to interpret, evaluate and respond
to influence attempts from advertisers and salespeople’ (Friestad and Wright, 1994, p1).
3
Bibliography
ABRAMS, M. (1952). The Sources and Nature of Statistical Information in Special
Fields of Statistics: Statistics in Advertising. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 115
(2), 258-264.
ALLENBY, G.M. and LENK, P.J. (1995). Reassessing Brand Loyalty, Price Sensitivity,
and Merchandising Effects on Consumer Brand Choice. Journal of Business & Economic
Statistics, 13 (3), 281-289.
AUSTIN, E. W. CHEN, M-J. and GRUBE, J.W. (2006). How does alcohol advertising
influence underage drinking? The role of desirability, identification and skepticism.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 38 (4), 376–384.
BARGH, J.A. (2002). Losing Consciousness: Automatic Influences on Consumer
Judgment, Behaviour, and Motivation. Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (2), 280-285.
BASIL, M. SCHOOLER, C. and REEVES, B. (1991). Positive and Negative Political
Advertising: Effectiveness of Ads and Perceptions of Candidates. In: BIOCCA, F. (ed)
Television and Political Advertising, Volume One, Psychological Processes. New Jersey,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 245-262.
BASS, F. M. (1993). The Future of Research in Marketing: Marketing Science, Journal
of Marketing Research, 30 (1), 1-6.
BAWA, K. and SHOEMAKER, R. W. (1987). The Effects of a Direct Mail Coupon on
Brand Choice Behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 24 (4), 370-376.
BINGLEY, L. (2007). Google Keeps Coining It In. [Online]. Last Accessed on 9
January 2008 at URL: http://lembingley.itweek.co.uk/2007/02/google_keeps_co. html.
BLATTBERG, R. C. and NELSON, S. A. (1990). Sales Promotion, New Jersey,
Prentice-Hall.
BOINEY, J and PALETZ, D.L. (1991). In Search of the Model Model: Political Science
Versus Political Advertising Perspectives on Voter Decision Making. In: BIOCCA, F. (ed)
Television and Political Advertising, Volume One, Psychological Processes. New Jersey,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 3-26.
BUCKLIN, R. E. and LATTIN, J. M. (1991). A Two Stage Model of Purchase Incidence
and Brand Choice. Marketing Science, 10 (1), 24-39.
BROWN, S. and VOLGSTEN, U. (2006). Music and Manipulation: On the Social Uses
and Social Control of Music. New York, Berghahn Books.
COLLINS, R.L. ELLICKSON, P.L. MCCAFFREY, D. and HAMBARSOOMIANS, K.
(2007). Early Adolescent Exposure to Alcohol Advertising and Its Relationship to
Underage Drinking. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40 (6), 527–534.
COMPEAU, L.D. and GREWAL, D. (1998). Comparative Price Advertising: An
Integrative Review. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 17(2), 257-273.
DIAMOND, E. and BATES, S. (1988). The Spot: The Rise of Political Advertising on
Television, Cambridge MA, MIT Press
DRINK AWARE [Online]. Last Accessed 21 January 2008 at URL: http://www.drink
4
aware.co.uk/
DYER, G. (1988). Advertising as Communication. London, Routledge.
EAGLY, A. and STEFFEN, V.J. (1984). Gender Stereotypes Stem from the Distribution
of Men and Women into Social Roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46
(4), 735-754.
THE ECONOMIST. (2005). Back on the Up: A Revival in Advertising Spending,
Economist, 374 (8407), 48-49.
FORD-HUTCHINSON, S. and ROTHWELL, A. (2002). The Public’s Perception of
Advertising in Today’s Society. [Online]. Last accessed on 04 January 2008 at URL:
http://www.asa.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/A351FFA3-22D2-4A03942EF653A70
0B6EC/0/ASA_Public_Perception_of_Advertising_Feb_2002.pdf.
FRIESTAD, M. and WRIGHT, P. (1994). The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How
People Cope with Persuasion Attempts, Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (1), 1-31.
GAETH, G. and HEATH, T. (1987). The Cognitive Processing of Misleading
Advertising in Young and Old Adults: Assessment and Training. The Journal of
Consumer Research, 14 (1), 43-54.
GRANT, M. and O'CONNOR, J. (2005). Corporate social responsibility and alcohol: The
need and potential for partnership. In: BURKITT, H. (ed) Are Alcohol Advertisers Drinking
in the Last Chance Saloon? New York, Routledge, 133-137.
GROGAN, S. (1999). Body Image: Understanding body dissatisfaction in men, women
and children. London, Routledge.
GUPTA, S. (1988). Impact of Sales Promotions on When, What and How Much to Buy.
Journal of Marketing Research, 25 (4), 342-355.
HSU, J L. YANG, S-A. and SU, L-C. (2007). Who is Watching TV? Who is Listening to
Radio? Consumer Perceptions of TV and Radio Advertising Information. Social
Behaviour and Personality, 35, (2), 157-168.
JASPERSON, A.E. and YUN, H.J. (2007). Political Advertising Effects and America's
Racially Diverse Newest Voting Generation. American Behavioral Scientist, 50 (9), 11121123.
KAID, L.L. POSTELNICU, M, LANDREVILLE, K, YUN, H.J and LEGRANGE, A.G.
(2007). The Effects of Political Advertising on Young Voters. American Behavioral
Scientist, 50 (9), 1137-1151.
KARLSSON, L. (2007). Advertising Theories and Models. How well can these be
transferred from text into reality? [Online]. Last accessed on 12 January 2008 at
URL: http://dspace.hh.se/dspace/bitstream/2082/1206/1/Hela%252006112.pdf.
KUMAR, V. and LEONE, R. P. (1988). Measuring the Effect of Retail Store Promotions
on Brand and Store Substitution. Journal of Marketing Research, 25 (2), 178-185.
MESSARIS, P. (1997) Visual Persuasion: The Role of Images in Advertising. London,
Sage Publications.
MCCOY, S. EVERARD, A. POLAK, P and GALLETTA, D.F. (2007) The Effects of
5
Online Advertising. Communications of the ACM, 50 (3), 84-88.
MCGUIRE, W.J. (1968). Personality and Susceptibility to Social Influence. In:
BORGATTA, E.F. and LAMBERT, W.W. (eds). Handbook of Personality Theory and
Research. Chicago, Rand McNally, 171-196.
METZLER, N.T. (2005). A shift from DTC television ads: the industry will move more
towards cultural and educational campaigns. Pharmaceutical Executive, 25 (5), 32.
MONK-TURNER, E. KOUTS, T. PARRIS, K and WEBB, C. (2007). Gender Role
Stereotyping in Advertisements on Three Radio Stations: Does Musical Genre Make a
Difference? Journal of Gender Studies, 16 (2), 173–182.
MOORE, E.S. and LUTZ, R.J. (2000). Children, Advertising, and Product Experiences:
A Multimethod Inquiry. The Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (1), 31-48.
MOSCHIS, G.P. and MOORE, R.L. (1982). A Longitudinal Study of Television
Advertising Effects. The Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (3), 279-286.
THE NIELSEN COMPANY. (2005). Online Global Consumer Study [Online]. Last
Accessed on 07 January 2008 at URL: http://www.nielsen.com/media/2007/pr_07
1001.html.
OBERMILLER, C. and SPANGENBERG, E.R. (1998). Development of a Scale to
Measure Consumer Scepticism toward Advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7
(2), 159-186.
OGILVY, D (2004). Confessions of an Advertising Man, 2nd ed, London, Southbank.
RHODES, N. and WOOD, W. (1992). Self-esteem and Intelligence Affect
Influenceability: The Mediation Role of Message Reception. Psychological Bulletin, 111
(1), 156-171.
RISKEY, D.R. (1997). How T.V. Advertising Works: An Industry Response. Journal of
Marketing Research, 34 (2), 292-293.
ROSE, J. (1993) Government Advertising in a Crisis: The Quebec Referendum
Precedent. Canadian Journal of Communication, 18 (2). [Online]. Last Accessed
on 20 January 2008 at URL: http://www.cjc-online.ca/viewarticle.php?id=166&
layout=html
SILK, A.J. KLEIN, L.R. and BERNDT, E.R. (2001). The Emerging Position of the
Internet as an Advertising Medium, Netnomics, 3 (2), 129-148.
SPARKMAN, R.M. and LOCANDER, W.B. (1980). Attribution Theory and Advertising
Effectiveness, Journal of Consumer Research, 7 (3), 219-224.
TOM, G. NELSON, C. SRZENTIC, T and KING, R. (2007). Mere Exposure and the
Endowment Effect on Consumer Decision Making. The Journal of Psychology, 141 (2),
117–125.
VAKRATSAS, D. and AMBLER, T. (1999). How Advertising Works: What Do We
Really Know? Journal of Marketing, 63 (1), 26-43.
6
7