Download Even though advertising has been a critical element in the marketing

1
Nothing Is Something: White Space, a Figure of Commercial Rhetoric
John W. Pracejus
G. Douglas Olsen
Thomas C. O’Guinn*
2
Author note:
* John W. Pracejus is Assistant Professor and G. Douglas Olsen is Assistant Professor,
Department of Marketing, Business Economics and Law, Faculty of Business, University of
Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, T6G 2R6. Thomas C. O’Guinn is Professor of
Advertising and Professor of Sociology, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign,
61801.The authors would like to thank Linda Scott for many helpful comments and
suggestions. The first author may be contacted via e-mail ([email protected]), phone
(780-492-2023) or fax (780-492-3325).
3
Advertising, like all social products, changes and evolves. Research, however, has not
adequately considered its increasingly visual nature. We attempt to address this shortcoming by
focusing on a single aspect of visual rhetoric: white space. Four studies measure the
correspondence in understanding of this visual element between ad producers (agency creative
directors) and consumers, and how it impacts perceptions of brands. We find that, (1) the
producers and receivers have very congruent understandings of the white space visual device,
and (2) the effect of this device on consumer brand perceptions is pretty much as assumed by the
creators of advertising. This is significant in that while calls to study the visual rhetoric of
advertising are common, actual research attention is scant. These studies should also serve as a
foil in the ever-expanding debate on the nature of “information” and its processing.
4
Even though advertising has been a critical element in the marketing mix for well over a
century, fundamental questions about its workings remain. There are many reasons for that, not
least among them: the evolutionary nature of advertising itself. Advertising, like all social
products, changes and evolves. Currently, and for quite some time, both practitioner and
academic advertising research has tended to focus on a particular style of advertising, claims
based ads. These ads rely on words to make claims about goods and services. Consumer
persuasion researchers have typically studied issues such as the impact of the number of
arguments, the strength of the arguments, and the credibility of the source on persuasion.
Consumer information processing research sharpened the focus on how these claims (words)
were stored, retrieved and sometimes used by consumers. Over the course of the twentieth
century, however, ads have changed from being copy-heavy and claims based to being image
based with little or no copy (Leiss, Klein, and Jhally 1990; Postman 1986; Schudson 1984). See
Panel A of Figure 1 for an example of the former (circa 1900), and Panel B of Figure 1 for an
example of the latter.
---------------------------------Insert figure 1 about here
---------------------------------Even though the move from words to pictures is neither complete nor universal, it is an
undeniably significant trend within print advertising (Davidson 1992; Leiss, Kline, and Jhally
1990; Messaris 1997). While studying this receding (but still important) type of advertising (i.e.
claims based ads) advances legitimate and valid research goals (Stewart et al. 1985), it is
increasingly out of synch with the modal form of contemporary print advertising: picture based
ads (Davidson 1992; Messaris 1997).
Unfortunately, even though some advertising scholars have called for the development of
5
research methods more appropriate for visual communication (Davidson 1992; Messaris 1997;
O’Guinn 2000; Scott 1994a; Scott and Batra 2003), theories and methods specifically suited to
pictures have not had a significant presence in consumer research (McQuarrie and Mick 1996;
Scott 1994a), thus limiting the study of contemporary advertising. Further, over its first century,
the social institution of advertising developed its own commercial figures of speech, its own
linguistic conventions, its own rhetoric (Davidson 1992; Messaris 1997). But for a host of
reasons, consumer researchers have rarely studied advertising as rhetoric (Davidson 1992;
Marchand 1985; McQuarrie and Mick 1996; Scott 1994a; Stern 1988), or even acknowledged the
presence of such a system (McQuarrie and Mick 1996; Scott 1994b).
Much more often, advertising is studied as information to be processed, without
consideration of form and circumstance (see below). While advertising obviously contains
information, and individual consumers just as obviously do something with this information in
the confines of their heads, one should not confuse or conflate this with the totality of human
communication, and by extension how humans create, transmit, receive, and negotiate meaning
in advertising. Just as surely as information is processed by individual consumers, so too are
rhetorical devices created and understood socially, and by convention. This article presents the
study of one such rhetorical convention, a figure of advertising speech: white space.
White space is defined here as “a figure of advertising speech used to symbolize
elegance, class, and other related attributes of distinction.” It is typically (in design terms)
“negative space,” or the absence of any other writing or picturing, typically framing the outer
border of the page extending inward toward another image or word(s). It is a term of art used
routinely in advertising practice. Designers have long known its value and function (Jewler and
Drewniany 2000; Book and Schick 1997). “But is white space, literally, nothing? The absence of
6
content? Hardly. White space can be the most important element of a composition, responsible
for a design's readability, its eye-popping contrast, its subtle strength, its balance, its beauty, its
success.” (Levine 2000, p. 1). White space is a common and important tool in the visual lexicon
of advertising (see Figure 1, Panel C for a contemporary ad that relies heavily on this visual
element).
Claim versus Image Advertising
It is important to make a clear distinction between two styles of advertising: claims based
verbal ads, and visual “image” ads. While all advertising is rhetorical in nature, not all
advertising rhetoric is verbal. In fact, most contemporary advertising operates on the visual plane
(Davidson 1992; Leiss, Klein, and Jhally 1990; Postman 1986). In their extensive content
analysis of twentieth-century American advertising, Leiss, Klein and Jhally (1990, p. 234) show
that while the use of visual representations of physical or social settings are used in only about
15% of print ads in the ‘teens, they are being used in approximately 90 percent of print ads by
the 1970’s. The same study (Leiss, Klein, and Jhally 1990, p. 231) also reveals that the
percentage of the advertising display area devoted to text declined by half over the same 60 year
period. O’Guinn, Allen and Semenik (2002, p. 436) give six reasons for this trend including legal
advantages to pictures over words, the assumed greater cross-cultural transferability of pictures,
and the inherent advantages of pictures to situate brands in social representations.
So, how has the consumer research literature reflected this important change? A content
analysis was conducted to examine the extent to which current advertising research has focused
on issues of visual concern. Articles appearing in the Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of
Marketing, and Journal of Marketing Research from 1990 to 2000 were reviewed. A total of 187
articles related to advertising were assembled, based on the presence of the words “advertising”
7
or “advertisement” in the title, key-words or abstract. Of these, 85 (45.5%) presented an
experiment that manipulated the advertisement content in some fashion. Others focused on issues
such as advertising planning, statistical issues or qualitative inquiries.
The majority of these experimental studies (68, 80.0%) only varied the verbal
information in the advertisement; 14 (16.5%) varied an image in a print advertising context; two
(2.4%) varied only strictly auditory information (music); and one varied images on a television
monitor (Kim, Allen, and Kardes 1996). Of the print advertisement manipulations, many
concentrated on the specific content contained in the visual, such as the nature of the model used
(e.g., Richins 1991), the extent to which the image reflected well on the brand (Keller 1991) the
camera angle (Meyers-Levy and Peracchio 1992, 1996), or the variation in image used in
repeated exposures to an advertisement for a given product (Unnava and Burnkrant 1991a).
Unnava and Burnkrant (1991b) also examined the impact of the presence or absence of pictures.
Studies emphasizing the joint consideration of words and the images in the
advertisements were also give some attention (e.g., Costley and Brucks 1992; Malaviya,
Kisielius, and Sternthal 1996; McQuarrie and Mick 1992; Peracchio and Meyers-Levy 1994).
But only a minority of the articles that manipulated the visual content of the advertisement
focused on issues more specifically related to design and layout (i.e., versus content of the
image), such as the use of color (Meyers-Levy and Peracchio 1995), the organization of images
on the page (Janiszewski 1990). Others studied pictures as “moderators of involvement”
(Miniard et al. 1991), “moderators of self reference” (Meyers-Levy and Peracchio 1996), the
relationship between color and black and white and “consumer’s motivation to process”
(Meyers-Levy and Perachhio 1995).
As the content analysis makes clear, independent variables in the vast majority (80%) of
8
consumer research studies reflect a dominant interest in how verbal facts and numeric
information are stored and retrieved in human memory. Even those that study pictures largely do
so from the standpoint of how pictures affect the processing of words, or other indirect impacts
on persuasion. Often, pictures are manipulated to test psychological theories or apply various
mental constructs. Pictures as socially derived rhetorical devices, not in the service of words, are
largely absent from the consumer research literature.
This significant mismatch between advertising research and the creative function,
however, is not solely limited to academic inquiry. Industry practice also reflects a bias toward
verbal measurement, although nowhere near as pronounced, nor as entrenched. One of the key
copy testing measures employed by industry leader Roper/Starch, for example, is the “read
most” measure, which assesses the percentage of people who “read most” of the copy. Some of
these tests of word memory linger on, even though prominent industry figures have long rejected
their appropriateness (Bernbach 1980; Frank 1998; Lois 1972; Steel 1998). This is generally
thought to be a result of pressure on the advertising agency from the client, as well as industry
inertia. Those actually making the ads have long argued that these measures were at best
irrelevant for the vast majority of contemporary ads (Bernbach 1980; Frank 1998). However,
some brand managers insist upon using these measures (e.g. Starch “read most” scores), largely
because of pressure to compare ads to normative scores or benchmarks. In industry this is,
however, changing with more and more emphasis on testing the pictorial aspects of ads in ways
more appropriate to the reality and needs of actual advertising practice (Davidson 1992; Frank
1998; Rothenberg 1994; Steel 1998).
Visual Rhetoric
This article rests on a venerable, and quite straightforward (in its essentials) theory:
9
rhetoric. The study of rhetoric is at least as old as the teachings of Aristotle. The study of rhetoric
was the original work of universities. It predates the social sciences by several centuries. Burke
(1966) defined rhetoric as symbolic action in which someone is trying to get someone else to do
something (or to think or feel something) (cited in Scott and Batra 2003, p. 7). According to
Burke and others (e.g, Barthes 1964; Goodman 1976; Mitchell 1986) persuasive communication
occurs through language acts, and that language acts are formed through social convention,
agreement by actors and publics that certain linguistic forms mean certain things. Rhetoric is
thus a socio-historical (meta)-theory. Rhetorical devices come to mean what they mean because
people, producers and receivers, come to agree upon their meaning. Young consumers learn the
conventions of advertising the same way movie audiences understand that dissolves between
scenes indicate the passage of time...not a technical problem with the film, or for that matter the
affirmative gesture made by an upraised thumb on top of a clinched fist (thumbs up). So, no
matter what is processed, communication is inherently a social act, and advertising is a rhetorical
form. Further, pictures are linguistic, not purely representational as some have asserted (see
MacInnis and Price 1987). This position is axiomatic among rhetoricians, picture theorists, and
anthropologists of many stripes (see Gombrich 1960; Goodman 1976; Goody 1968; Scott 1994a;
Mitchell 1986).
Scott (1994a) set out a program for a rhetorical approach to visual advertising. One of the
ideas was to identify and study specific rhetoric devices, conventions of advertising speech. This
article seeks to do that; white space is one such rhetorical figure of advertising. We chose it
because it is a figure of advertising speech with a long tradition, that had been seen as literally
nothing but empty space by extant consumer research, and because it will not beg questions of
picturing, representation and resemblance.
10
Form and Circumstance
Rhetoric rests on form and circumstance. In the first instance, it is concerned with what
specific forms and figures work best. But, the first question is out of bounds if the circumstance
of its use is not considered. Rhetoric depends on a socio-historical component: the social history,
its circumstance of use, is always important in rhetoric. So, we will consider both the form and
circumstance of advertising white space.
In Scott’s (1994a) terms, white space works through two aspects of rhetorical form:
arrangement and delivery. Arrangement “helps to modulate the viewer’s experience of the text in
time” (Scott 1994a, p. 266). White space is almost always found at the border of the pages and
the object of primary attention has to be located in this expanse of white. The typical large
headline, centered at the top of the page, is not usually found in a white-space ad. Instead, there
is white space. There is often no “body copy,” no smaller words at bottom center. Instead there is
something that resembles a framed and matted photograph or painting. Everything points the
reader’s eye and attention to the center. Reading left to right, as most western consumers do, we
see nothing, and look down, and see an image or word(s) framed and matted by white space.
This is no less arranged than a portrait in a museum.
The rhetorical aspect of “delivery” is also important here. In rhetorical terms, visual
delivery is akin to “intonation, selection of words, the manner of gesturing, and the accent”
(Scott 1994a, p. 267). White space sets a tone, and makes an elegant gesture to the reader (Jewler
and Drewniany 2000). The meaning of this gesture cannot be separated from its historical
circumstance. The minimal, uncluttered, “clean” look is a staple of modernity, and often an
allusion to the uncluttered, minimal, large and “white” spaces of the upper social strata (Jewler
and Drewniany 2000; Marchand 1985; Messaris 1997). The poor were often portrayed as living
11
more cluttered and “messy” existences, the wealthy occupying larger, cleaner, unencumbered
and more pristine spaces (Marchand 1985). The wealthy minimalist home (e.g., “gallery
modern”) would later in the century itself become an icon of material modernity and wealth. The
delivery of a logo, picture, or brand name with white space is an allusion to its “top drawer”
nature, as well as its concomitant modernity. It is a symbol of the clean aesthetic of modernity.
Quite simply, through its social history, and its use of arrangement and delivery to point to those
same issues of class stratification, elegance, and special-ness, the social actors of the twentieth
century consumer milieu, came, by social agreement, to think of white space in advertising as
having a set of meanings.
Like all figures of speech, white space has a social history. It came to mean what it does
today through that history. White space began to emerge as a visual advertising convention in the
1920’s. It was part of a critical decade in advertising development and mass consumer
socialization (Fox 1985; Marchand 1985). According to historian Roland Marchand (1985) it
was during this decade that most of advertising’s lexicon developed and America learned
collectively the methods and manner of consumer rhetoric. Just a decade earlier, common tropes
of the trade had not yet emerged. It is in this period that slice of life, social anxiety advertising,
and other rhetorical schemes of advertising were developed. Consumers learned how to read this
commercial language and understand its conventions. White space was one of those conventions
that has endured for some eighty years.
Social class and its stratification is a defining issue in 1920’s America, so too in
advertising of the era (Fox 1985; Marchand 1985). One way to designate higher social class was
through “atmospherics,” a style of advertising, which among other things often used white space.
To set apart brand leaders and “classy” products from the also-rans was to surround the products
12
in lots of “white space” so to indicate elegance (Jewler and Drewniany 2000) simplicity of
design, and to contrast it with the cluttered look of “pre-modern” and lower class consumers.
During the 1920’s, advertising was in the midst of its most legitimate decade: in just thirty years
it had gone from cluttered, text-heavy messages for patent medicines, to the most “modern” of
professions. During the depression, white space advertising all but disappeared due to pressures
on advertisers to fill up the space, to get every “paying inch.” It made a stunningly successful reemergence in the 1960’s through the efforts of Bill Bernbach, Leo Burnett, Mary Wells and
others (Dobrow 1984; Frank 1998; Jackson 1998). Since the 1960’s, white space has been a
steady part of the language of American advertising.
Even though white space has been used in advertisements for at least eighty years, an
exhaustive search of the information processing literature revealed that white space has either not
been treated at all, or has been treated, literally, as nothing, space between other things (usually
words). It has never been studied as the tried and true visual figure that industry creators and
consumers alike understand. Here we argue that what counts as absolutely nothing (i.e. “empty
space,” the absence of information) in the dominant approach to studying advertising in
consumer research (where alpha-numeric characters stand for information), is explicitly
recognized as highly meaningful, and therefore informative to its producers and consumers alike.
Here we take what is usually considered nothing (literally), and argue that it is indeed something,
and that that something is part of a well understood and socially negotiated visual rhetoric.
This is a first attempt at looking at a discrete rhetorical figure, and its shared meaning
between advertising makers and consumers. Our proposed contribution is thus twofold: (1) to
advance the study of specific visual rhetorical forms, and (2) to place our study in context and
relief with the extant literature and typical way of studying advertising in consumer research.
13
THE STUDIES
So given this, we have chosen to study one very specific visual rhetorical element: white
space. Our strategy was to ask these research questions: what does white space “mean” to those
making ads, what does it mean to those receiving ads, and how does it ultimately affect brand
perceptions. We, of course, recognize that there is no such thing as fixed, or context-free
meaning (Mick and Buhl 1992; Scott 1994b). At the same time, we know that communication
would be impossible if most of the conceivable meanings did not exist within certain socially
negotiated bounds (Anderson and Meyer 1989; Fish 1980).
To pursue our goals, we conducted four studies. The first examined what the actual
creators of ads (creative directors) thought white space meant, (i.e., what they thought it
conveyed to consumers. Studies 2, 3 and 4 examined how consumer brand perceptions are
influenced by the amount of white space used. We tested the meaning of one visual rhetorical
element from the perspective of image creators (i.e. advertising agency creative personnel) and
image interpreters (i.e. consumers) within the bounds of brand image communications. We do
this by focusing on one of the oldest forms of image communications, the intentional use of
white space.
STUDY 1
Respondents
Participants were creative directors at major advertising agencies in North America.
Respondents were initially interviewed via telephone to obtain their commitment to complete the
instrument and to ensure that they met inclusion criterion (e.g. that they currently conducted
work in print advertising). In order to allow enough time to consider all the meanings that they
thought the communication element conveyed, those who agreed to participate were faxed an
14
instrument that allowed ample time for reflection on the issue. The instrument was designed to
freely elicit non-directed responses. Participants were randomly selected from a list of creative
directors across Canada and the United States. Of the 54 creative directors contacted, 90.7%
agreed to participate in a fax-administered survey. Of these, 63.3% (31) completed the survey
and faxed it back.
Instrument Construction
The instrument was designed so as to allow the creative directors maximum latitude to
give their impression as to what the non-verbal device (i.e. white space) communicated to
consumers. Questions began in a completely open ended, non-leading fashion. As such, the
instrument was more like a self-administering interview guide than a traditional survey.
The instrument began with an open-ended question that asked respondents to list specific
meanings/signals that might be sent about a product through the use of white space. Individuals
were also queried as to whether the impact of white-space was a function of the size of the
advertisement and were asked to justify their response. In addition to these questions, the survey
also solicited opinions on further issues pertaining to layout that are not reported in the present
study. Finally, creative directors were asked about their experience in the advertising industry,
and with print media in particular.
Results
Respondents averaged 16.9 years of experience in the advertising industry, and reported
that on average 73% of the campaigns they worked on involved print media. Three coders, in a
two-step, iterative process, assessed responses to the “meanings/signals” listed by the creative
directors. In the first step, a coder created coherent categories from the raw responses. In the
second step, two additional coders, who had not seen the data before, coded each response as
15
belonging primarily to one of the specified categories, to an “other” category relating to brand
signal/meaning, or to the design issues category, for statements relating solely to the look of the
ad rather than a particular signal/meaning about the brand. Initial inter-rater reliability was
94.6%. Disputes were resolved through discussion and mutual agreement.
With respect to the central question of brand meanings/signals sent by the use of white
space, several major themes emerged from the responses. They are summarized in Table 1.
---------------------------------Insert table 1 about here
---------------------------------As can be seen in Table 1, creative directors had common beliefs about several brand
signals/meanings conveyed to consumers by the use of white space in ads. Five of these include
the prestige of the brand (61.3%), the market power of the brand (41.9%), the trustworthiness of
the brand (35.5%), the leadership of the brand within the industry (32.3%), and the quality of the
brand (16.1%). A few other conveyed meanings were mentioned less frequently, such as the
brand being healthful (9.7%), contemporary (12.9%), and approachable (9.7%).
Of the creative directors surveyed, the majority of respondents (58.1%) indicated that the
impact of white space increased with the size of the advertisement and 32.3% reported that they
felt size and impact were unrelated. One justifying statement prototypical of those that felt that
ad size and the impact of white space were unrelated was, “It does not matter how big or small
the ad is. It is how effective the white-space is used within the confines of that particular ad.”
Another individual commented, “No – in small ads it is equally effective. Small, tight, text based
ads just as unappealing as large ads of the same ilk.” Statements issued in support of the
relationship included, “Yes. More has a greater impact on the visual presence of the message and
the overall appeal of the advertisement,” and, “Yes, a broadsheet newspaper page in white is
16
more powerful than the same page in Reader’s Digest.”
Discussion
Clearly there is general agreement on the part of those who create advertising messages
as to the meanings attached to the non-verbal element under consideration. For effective
communication to take place, however, there must also be similar levels of agreement in the
interpretation of this non-verbal element by consumers. Study two, therefore, investigates
consumer perceptions and inferences when white space is used as a design element. We focus
this investigation on consumer reception of the top five meanings/signals mentioned by the
creative directors.
STUDY 2
Participants
One-hundred and thirty undergraduate students at a North American university
participated for research credit.
Design and Stimuli
A 2 (product category) X 2 (high/low white space) completely between-subjects design
was employed. All advertisements contained a picture of a clock, accompanied by a logo for a
fictitious brand (Hastings), along with copy designed specifically to be ambiguous enough to
apply to the two different product categories. Specifically, this text read:
“Like Clockwork. No matter what day of the week, or week of the year, there are a
myriad of things to deal with. From what to wear…to where to invest. We don’t pretend to have
all the answers to all of the demands life places on you, but we can help when it comes to
[clothing/mutual funds]. In a turbulent world where you can count on tomorrow being different
than today you can depend on us to give you consistency and comfort. Visit us on the web at
www.hastings.com or call 1-800-686-3321 today to find out where our [clothes/mutual funds]
are available.”
All advertisements were presented on an 8.5 inch by 11 inch sheet of white paper. In the
17
low white space ad, a picture of a square clock measuring 8 inches by 8 inches was present. In
the high white space condition the clock was 2 inches by 2 inches. The font size of the text
information remained constant across conditions. A fictitious logo for Hastings was presented in
the lower right hand corner (see Figure 2 for an example of the advertisements used in the
mutual fund condition).
Individuals were given thirty seconds to examine the advertisement. Respondents then
provided their level of agreement on seven point scales anchored by “strongly disagree (1)” and
“strongly agree (7)” to each of the following statements: (1) Hastings is a large company; (2)
Hastings’ clothing/mutual funds is/are of high quality; (3) It is not risky to purchase Hastings
clothing/mutual funds; (4) Hastings is a prestigious brand of clothing/mutual funds; (5) Hastings
has considerable market share; (6) It is more expensive to purchase Hastings clothing/mutual
funds relative to competitors; (7) Hastings can be trusted; (8) Hastings is a leader rather than a
follower; (9) Overall, I have a positive attitude toward Hastings; and, (10) If Hastings comes to
my region I will buy from them. Finally a series of control measures were taken regarding
knowledge of product class and frequency of purchase. Respondents were asked about purchase
behaviour of clothing/mutual funds and if they had ever traveled to Europe or England (this
measure was collected to explore whether those individuals who had been to England might
respond differently) and whether they had heard of Hastings before completing the survey.
---------------------------------Insert figure 2 about here
---------------------------------Results
Table 2 reports mean values by condition, as well as MANOVA results. Values of
Cohen’s f may also be used to examine effect sizes (see Cohen 1988; Cohen 1992). For Cohen’s
f, effect sizes are demarcated by the values 0.10 to 0.24 (small), 0.25 to 0.39 (moderate), and 0.4
18
or higher (large).
It appears that white space is, in fact, influential in consumer brand perceptions. Of more
interest to our investigation of reception and interpretation of the meaning conveyed by white
space, the meaning mentioned by the most creative directors, prestige, was significantly
conveyed to consumers through the use of white space (f = 0.27). Another meaning mentioned
by creative directors and understood by a significant number of respondents was brand
trustworthiness: white space significantly conveyed a lack of risk (f = 0.24) and that the brand
can be trusted (f = 0.28). Brand quality was found to be significantly greater under conditions of
high white space (f = 0.26), as was attitude toward the brand (f = 0.35) and purchase intention (f
= 0.18).
Not all of the meanings mentioned by the creative directors were received by the
respondents in this study. The use of white space was not seen as implying market power
(measured by “company size” and “market share”), brand leadership or expensiveness.
Product class only impacted purchase intention, with clothing ( x = 3.62) being
significantly greater than mutual funds ( x = 3.18, f = 0.20). Perhaps this is not surprising given
the relative familiarity and salience of the two categories to the sampled population. The only
significant interaction between product class and white space was on perceived expensiveness (f
= 0.35). Follow-up analysis revealed that for mutual funds, there was no impact of white space
on perceived expensiveness of the brand (t65 = 0.75, n.s.) but for the clothing category, there was
a significant impact of white space on perceived expensiveness (t61=2.03, p<.05). This makes
sense in that prestigious clothing stores are, almost by definition, quite expensive, whereas the
same may not hold true for mutual funds.
---------------------------------Insert table 2 about here
19
---------------------------------Discussion
It appears that consumers do receive consistent meaning from visual elements like white
space in advertising, and that the interpreted meaning is highly congruent (but not entirely) with
that intended by those creating the ads. Specifically, trust, prestige and quality, were all
significantly conveyed by the use of white space. One key meaning that 40% of the creative
directors mentioned as being conveyed about a brand through the use of white space is company
size/market power. However, participants did not decode or infer this meaning. This may be due
to the lack of a reference point (i.e. it was unclear how big the ad would be relative to the size of
the publication) in study 2. It could also be that this construct “market size/power” is simply less
salient to consumers than to those making the ads. Still, what was intended by the makers of the
ads for consumers to take away, i.e. prestige, trustworthiness, quality, and overall positive
attitude toward the brand, was taken away by consumers.
As noted in Study 1, a majority of the creative directors felt that the impact of white
space was a function of advertisement size. Hence, in Study 3 we examine how the size of the ad
might influence the interpretation of white space. Beyond the impetus provided by the creative
directors, there are two reasons for doing so. First, we increase the ecological validity of the
stimuli and thus increase mundane reality of the study (see Aronson and Carlsmith 1968). Ad
size, however, has also been shown to impact consumer perceptions of market power of the firm
(Homer 1995). We seek to replicate and extend this finding by exploring whether consumer
interpretations of white space interact with ad size, as well as comparing the relative size of the
two effects. As much as a large advertisement may send signals about the market power of the
firm, one possibility is that a large ad with high white space may magnify this perception (e.g., a
20
company which chooses to purchase a large block of space and leave much of it empty may
result in the perception that they have “money to burn”).
Furthermore, in Study 2 the advertisement is presented alone, and out of context.
Although it is approximately the same size of ad one might find in a magazine, it appeared
without any referent. Hence, while an absolute sense of the size of the advertisement would have
been present, a relative sense would not. By placing the advertisement in a “size context”, it was
thought that the impact of white space on perceived market power might be elevated.
STUDY 3
Participants
One-hundred and seventy-nine undergraduate students participated in this study for
research credit.
Design and Stimuli
A 3 X 2 between-subjects design was employed, manipulating advertisement size
(quarter-page; half-page and, full-page), and amount of white space (low vs. high). Note, that in
this study the advertisements were printed on 11 by 14.5 inch paper (the approximate size of a
tabloid newspaper). The full-page ad was 10 by 12.75 inches long, with the high white space
condition using a 3 by 3 inch image and the low white space condition using a 9.75 by 9.75 inch
image. The half-page ad was 7.5 by 9.75 inches, with a 2.25 by 2.25 inch image in the high
white-space condition and a 7.4 by 7.4 inch image used in the low white space condition. Finally,
the quarter-page ad was 5 by 6.5 inches with a 1.5. by 1.5 inch image used in the high white
space condition and a 4.9 by 4.9 inch image used in the low white space condition. For all
conditions the image was the same as that used in Study 2. It may also be noted that the halfpage ad is approximately the same size as the ads used in Study 2. See Figure 3 for a graphical
21
breakdown of conditions employed.
The cover story for the study was that we were interested in international advertising.
Participants were told they would view an actual ad for Hastings Mutual Funds that was about to
be run in “The Guardian”, a British newspaper. In order to remove a confound between the
advertisement size and the amount of information present on the same sheet (e.g., other
advertisements or news stories), with the exception of the Banner (i.e., the top portion of the
page listing the name of the paper), the remainder of the page was filled with nonsense words of
varying length from one to seven letters (a layout technique known as “greeking”), laid out in
four columns in the space surrounding the ads. The advertisement always occupied the lower
right hand corner of the page. In the full-page condition no filler text was required. As noted
above, efforts were taken to remove the possible confound between the presentation of the
advertisement and the amount of additional information presented on the page.
Obviously, in the case of the full-page advertisement, no other information would be
present. For the half-page and quarter-page advertisements this concern was of greater issue.
That is why we opted for the industry practice of using greeking in the layout. Greeking is the
practice of using nonsense words (e.g., rkdjg skm smdkfh awojd kmqw) in textual environments
to provide a feel for what the layout will look like. The use of the words (albeit meaningless),
provides the same level of contrast that might be expected in a newspaper reading environment,
excluding, of course, the presence of competing advertisements that are particularly light or dark.
In an effort to mitigate the confounding influence of competing information in the layout for the
half and quarter-page advertisements, no extraneous advertisements were included. We concede
that there are limits to the mundane realism created in this context. However, we suggest that
providing the advertisements in this context is consistent with industry practice regarding copy
22
testing and provides the viewer with a reference point to assess the meaning of the advertisement
(i.e., beyond viewing the advertisement in isolation).
In order to prevent questions regarding this filler text during the study, all participants
were first shown a mock front-page of the Guardian. A brief discussion was given regarding the
developmental process of laying out news copy and advertising in newspapers. By having the
front-page consistent: (1) the appearance was given that all participants were receiving the same
information; (2) all individuals in the study were exposed to some of the filler text; and, (3)
questions regarding the filler text that may have come up during the study were avoided. All
advertisements were viewed in a dedicated lab setting where desks were spaced so that
individuals were unable to see what other participants were reading. The dependent variables
used remained identical to those in Study 2.
Separate testing was performed to examine whether perceptions of image quality varied
with image size. A total of 48 participants, drawn from the same pool as those participating in
the experimental portion of the study, evaluated the image quality of either the large, 9.75 by
9.75 image (n=24) or small, 1.5 by 1.5 inch, image (n=24). Individuals were asked to provide
evaluations on three scales: The picture quality is, “very bad (1), very good (7)”; The resolution
of the image is, “very low (1), very high (7)”; The detail in the picture is, “very bad (1), very
good (7).” MANOVA was used to assess the extent to which each of these differed. The mean
score for picture quality was 4.46 and did not differ as a function of image size (F1, 46 = 1.26,
n.s.). The mean evaluation regarding resolution was 4.56 and did not vary with image size (F1, 46
= 1.05, n.s.). Finally, the mean score for detail was 4.94 and did not differ as a function of the
size of the image (F1, 46 = 1.12, p = 0.30).
---------------------------------Insert figure 3 about here
23
---------------------------------Results
White space is again found to be influential in consumer brand perceptions (see Table 3).
As in Study 2, quality, risk, prestige, and trust are all significantly impacted by white space. As
was previously found for mutual funds, perceived brand prestige was significantly impacted by
white space (f = 0.35), but perceived expensiveness was not. The two measures of
trustworthiness, lack of risk (f = 0.25) and brand can be trusted (f = 0.33) were again
significantly impacted by white space in the ad. Additionally, attitude toward the brand (f = 0.29)
and purchase intention (f = 0.16) are also found to be significantly influenced by the use of this
visual element.
For the first time, white space is also found to positively affect perceived brand
leadership (f = 0.25), a meaning which was mentioned by 32.3% of the creative directors.
Further, the two measures of market power, considerable market share (f = 0.27) and large
company (f = 0.28) were both significantly affected by white space in this study. Additionally,
the latter measure, large company, was also influenced by the size of the ad (f = 0.28) . The
interaction between white space and ad size, however, was not significant. Follow-up analysis of
the main effect of ad size on perceived company size revealed that company size was perceived
to be smaller for the quarter-page ad, relative to the half-page ad (t115=2.61, p < .01) and that no
difference in perceived company size was detectable between the half-page and full-page ad
conditions (t118 = 0.32, n.s.).
---------------------------------Insert table 3 about here
----------------------------------
24
Discussion
Once again, we find that consumers’ actual brand perceptions can be shaped by a simple
visual element in an ad for the brand and that the nature of this impact was well understood by
the creators of the ad. In this study, participants not only interpreted messages about prestige,
trust and quality, as others had done in previous studies, but they also “correctly” interpreted
messages about company size and brand leadership. These latter two messages were both
mentioned by a substantial number of creative directors as brand signals/meanings conveyed by
white space in an ad. Although the intent of this study was, in part, to see whether these
meanings would be inferred by participants only under some size conditions, the effects did not
interact with ad size. In fact, follow-up analysis shows that these effects obtained in each of the
three size conditions, including “half-page”, which was approximately the same size as the ads in
study 2. We propose that evidence for message inferences about market power and brand
leadership in this study is the result of the increase in mundane reality accomplished through the
placement of the ads into the mock newspaper.
In this experiment, the largest graphic in the low-white space conditions (i.e., the one in
the quarter-page advertisement), was still larger than the largest graphic in the high-white space
conditions (i.e., the full-page advertisement). Hence, one possible explanation for the effect
observed is that the impact is not due to white-space, per se, but rather, due to the size of the
graphic, with smaller graphics resulting in greater liking of the advertisement and subsequently
the advertiser. Consequently, further investigation is required to examine the impact of white
space, holding the image size constant.
Two additional aspects of the visual also require further consideration. First, given that
the low-white space ads in the full-page and half-page conditions portray a clock that is likely to
25
be perceived as “larger than life” it is possible that this awkward size contributed to the effect.
Second, in the first two experiments the visual has not been directly related to the product
category. It is not clear whether the impact of white-space will be mitigated by an image relevant
to the product category. One possibility is that a product relevant image will result in a
diminished impact of white space, given that the presence of the larger image may serve to stress
the qualities of the product.
A further issue for investigation relates to the nature of the responses provided. While the
survey questions used were premised on the signals sent by using white-space, it may be the case
that the evaluations provided by respondents reflect some global impression regarding the
advertisement. The addition of items unrelated to the white-space signals would help to better
understand whether a general response bias is occurring. Study 4 is presented to examine the
impact of white space, controlling for image size, and to investigate the potential impact of
image-product relatedness.
STUDY 4
Participants.
One hundred and eighty-four undergraduate students participated in this study for
research credit.
Design and Stimuli.
A 2 X 3 full-factorial, between-subjects design was used, manipulating the product
category (furniture vs. mutual funds) and the nature of the advertisement (full-page, low white
space; full-page, high white space; and, fifth-page low white space). The latter condition permits
an investigation of the impact of white space controlling for image size (i.e., the image size used
in the fifth-page advertisement is the same as the image size used in the full-page low-white
26
space advertisement). Hence, if effects are witnessed in contrasts between the full-page highwhite space ad and the full-page low white space ad, advertisement size would be ruled out as a
causal variable. Further, if effects are witness in contrasts between the full-page high-white space
ad and the fifth-page low-white space ad, image size may be ruled out.
The procedure and general format of presentation remained identical to study 3, with the
exception that the cover and the layout of the second page (in the case of the fifth-page ad)
contained five columns of greeked material. The advertisement was similar to previous
advertisements, however, a photograph of an arm-chair was used. As in Study 3, the full-page ad
was 10 by 12.75 inches. The image in the full-page, low white space ad was 9.75 X 9.75 inches,
whereas the high white space version had an image 3.5 by 3.5 inches. The fifth-page
advertisement was 5 by 6.5 inches in dimension and employed an image that was 3.5 by 3.5
inches. Although the brand (Hastings) was carried over to this experiment, the copy was altered
slightly.
Sit for a while. No matter what day of the week or week of the year, there are many things that
we have to deal with. From what to wear…to where to invest [buy furniture]. We don’t pretend
to have the answers to all of life’s demands, but we can help when it comes to mutual funds
[furniture]. In a world where every day is different you can depend on us to give you consistency
and comfort. Visit us on the web at www.hastings.com or call 1-800-686-3321 today to find out
where our mutual funds are [furniture is] available.
The same dependent variables used in studies 2 and 3 were also employed in this study.
Two additional items were also included to rule out a general response bias explanation (i.e., that
people in the high white space condition generally respond positively to all scales placed before
them). The two additional items not mentioned by creative directors as a meaning of white space
were: “Hastings promotes equality in the work-place”, and “Hastings donates considerable
money to the community”. As with other items, these were assessed on a seven-point scale
anchored by 1= “Strongly Disagree” and 7 = “Strongly Agree”. Further, image quality was also
27
assessed using the same scales reported in Study 3.
Results
An initial MANOVA was used to assess the attitude measures, using the product category
and nature of ad as dependent variables (see Table 5). The product category demonstrated a
number of main effects, with the furniture product category demonstrating higher values on the
quality (f = 0.16), not risky (f = 0.27), expensiveness (f = 0.25), general attitude toward the brand
(f = 0.16) and purchase intention (f = 0.19). This is likely due to greater product relevance (e.g.,
people could actually assess the value of the product by looking at the picture). Product category,
however did not interact with the type of the advertisement.
For cases where the type of the advertisement differed, contrasts were conducted to
examine the source of the difference. In order to demonstrate that the level of white-space was
having an effect, it is necessary to see a significant difference between the full-page low white
space ad and the full-page high white space ad (i.e., to rule out advertisement size) and also a
significant contrast between the full-page high white space ad and the fifth-page low white space
ad (i.e., to rule out image size). Note that this is a very conservative test criterion. Based on the
initial MANOVA results (i.e., those reported in Table 5), significant effects were observed for
the type of advertisement along the following dimensions: quality (f = 0.36), low risk (f = 0.30),
prestige (f = 0.28), market share (f = 0.29), trust (f = 0.36), leadership (f = 0.28) and attitude
toward the brand (f = 0.16). Based on the supplemental, preplanned contrasts (see Table 6), the
following observations can be made: similar to Studies 2 and 3, white space is found to
significantly contribute to perceptions of higher quality, lower risk, higher prestige, increased
trust, and a higher general evaluation of the brand. Similar to Study 3, white space was found to
contribute to perceptions that Hastings is a leader. Unlike Study 3, white space is not found to
significantly impact on the perceived size of the company or the perceived market share.
28
Furthermore, although purchase intention was found to vary in Studies 2 and 3, it is not found to
vary in the present context. It is important to note that neither of the “extraneous” items (i.e., the
perception of equality in the work-place and donation of money to the community) were
significantly influenced by either of the independent variables.
A separate MANOVA was conducted to examine whether the size of the image impacted
perceived image quality. Perceived resolution for the large image ( x = 5.33) was found to differ,
at marginal levels of significance, from the smaller image ( x = 4.89, F1,178 = 3.43, p < .10), but
this is in a direction opposite to what one would expect if resolution was driving the other
effects. The perceived level of detail in the larger image ( x = 5.23) did not differ significantly
from the smaller image ( x = 4.90, F1,178 = 2.35, n.s.). Further, the perceived picture quality for
the large image ( x = 5.13) relative to the smaller image was not significant ( x = 4.83, F1,178 =
1.94, n.s.).
---------------------------------Insert table 4 about here
------------------------------------------------------------------Insert table 5 about here
---------------------------------Discussion
The purpose of Study 4 was to determine whether the white space results in previous
studies might be explained by image size alone. A further motivating factor underlying this
experiment was to examine whether the effect of white space would be attenuated by the use of
an image-related product (in this case furniture) versus an image-unrelated product (mutual
funds). One possibility would have been that the larger image in the image-related condition
would tend to be more effective because of a greater visual presence of product relevant cues in
29
the image. This is not found to be the case. White space was equally effective at conveying
meaning whether the image it surrounded was related to the product or not.
Results from this study generally affirm the findings from the prior two experiments.
White space is again found to positively impact on perceptions of quality, low risk, prestige,
trust, leadership, and brand attitude. While measures of quality, low risk, increased
expensiveness, attitude toward the brand, and purchase intentions were greater for the product
category related to the image (i.e., the furniture company) relative to the mutual fund condition,
no interactions between white space and product category were observed. That is, the meanings
conveyed by white space were equivalent for both products.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
This paper is about visual rhetoric and employs social science methods. It makes the
argument that one promising way to study advertising is by treating it as rhetoric. It points to the
paucity of research on advertising visuals, particularly given the well documented trend toward
visual advertising. Its empirical efforts are supported by a very straightforward theoretical
foundation in visual rhetoric. We chose the white space trope due to its particular properties, and
its rhetorical appropriateness for this argument: something understood by advertising
professionals and consumers alike, but literally seen as nothing (the absence of information) in
the extant consumer research literature. Unlike other debates about pictures, representation and
information, there can be little ambiguity about the amount of white space in an ad. This makes
white space different from pictures of objects where resemblance to a “real” analogue becomes a
point of debate (see Scott 1994a; Mitchell and Olson 1981). We chose this specific figure to
make a point, in fact several points. First among them being that advertising possesses a well
established rhetorical system, much of it visual in nature and understood by the people who make
30
the ads and the people who read them. We also point to this being overlooked by the extant
literature, and suggest taking a much broader view of “information” and advertising. We believe
our data support this thesis.
Our first study demonstrated that creative directors had very similar beliefs about the
meaning of white space. Surrounding a good or service with white space is held by the actual
makers of ads to indicate greater prestige, trustworthiness and quality. Study 2 demonstrates that
when the amount of white space is experimentally manipulated, participants who see an ad that is
high in white space assume the company to be more prestigious, trustworthy and of higher
quality than those who see the same ads without this visual element. In study 1, a number of
professionals (58.1%) thought that size of the ad should interact with white space, in other
words, white space worked best in bigger ads. A substantial minority, however, thought that ad
size would make no difference in the effectiveness of white space. Study 3 was designed to test
this potential interaction of white space and ad size. It was found that size did not interact with
white space. We did, however, find evidence of consumers inferring white space to mean market
power and brand leadership, which were the other two brand meanings mentioned by a large
number of creative directors. Study 4 found that the effect is not simply an artifact of the
relevance of the image to the product category, or the physical size of the image. Taken together
these findings indicate that the producers and receivers have very congruent understandings of
white space as a visual figure of speech: it means power, prestige, quality, leadership and trust.
The finding of a shared meaning from something previously considered to be “nothing”
demonstrates that it is not only not nothing, it is part of a shared commercial language, a visual
rhetoric.
It should be noted that while we find a quite coherent pattern of results with respect to
31
prestige, trustworthiness and quality, the constructs of leadership and market power were a bit
mixed. White space was found to convey leadership in both studies 3 and 4, where the ads were
placed into a mock newspaper. We believe the replication across two studies using different
brands and visuals supports the contention that this effect may not have been observed in study 2
due to the lack of context.
Market power is a different matter. We only observed white space leading to perceptions
of market power in study 3. Since the effect did not replicate in study 4, which also placed the
ads into mock newspapers, we are left questioning the degree to which white space conveys
market power to consumers. It appears, therefore, that while creative directors think white space
conveys market power, consumers may not always share this view. Future research may wish to
explore the factors which may moderate this relationship.
Additionally, our results call attention to the critical need for the study of a visual rhetoric
(Scott 1994a) and for research methods and measures that are sensitive to the type of visual
communication which makes up most of the ads in the contemporary world. There is wide
potential for the application of these visual communication findings: from copy testing more in
line with practice to better informed public policy makers who have demonstrated a concern for
the meaning associated with visual presentations in advertisements (e.g., the recently mandated
restrictions on visuals in tobacco and alcohol advertising). The need for visual communication
methodology should be abundantly clear.
This article also offers implications for the larger scholarly discourse on what it means to
live in a consumer society, how the language of consumption is largely one of visual rhetoric.
The commercial visual is at the very eye of the storm in contemporary social theory (e.g.:
Adorno 1967; Baudrillard 1988; Berger 1972; Bourdieu 1979, Eco 1975; Ewen 1988; Foucault
32
1988; Willamson 1978; Wollen 1993). Contemporary social thought argues that a sea of images
(mostly commercial) are the defining aspect of our culture and our epoch. Leiss, Kline and Jhally
(1986, p. 231) argue that it’s not just pictures replacing words, but the formation of a whole new
way of thinking about how ads work. “The shift away from text (the dominant field of
representation before the commercialization of media) is important because it indicates new
relationships are being forged between language and visual image within the basic codes of
advertising.” We argue that these basic codes of advertising have barely been mentioned in the
consumer research literature.
This is, of course, one of the modernist biases which many linguists and many critics
bemoan: that language and picturing, in western thought, are so peculiarly divided. W. J. T.
Mitchell’s invocation of Ludwig Wittgenstein is particularly apropos: “A picture held us captive.
And we could not get outside it, for it lay in our language and language seemed to repeat it to us
inexorably” (Wittgenstein 1953, cited in Mitchell 1980, p. 271).
It is in our view good for consumer researchers to take note of, and even study what is
one of the major socio-cultural event-streams of our day. Advertising, in no small part, works
when and because it makes contact with this stream, swims in it, immerses the product in it. To
read the extant consumer research literature, we would not even know the stream was there. We
argue for attention to the reality and relevance of advertising’s visual rhetorical system.
But let us be clear on another point: we do not dispute for a moment that consumers
process information, or that the study of consumer information processing is wrongheaded or
useless. To the contrary, in fact, we argue that a visual figure of speech is information that has to
be processed. We simply take an approach that is socially, historically and rhetorically grounded.
The studies presented here have some limitations. For one, we studied one visual
33
rhetorical device and one device only. While making for a “cleaner” set of experiments, not all
ads operate with the aid of a single visual device, although quite a few do. Second, we fully
acknowledge the fact that consumers exposed to ads in these artificial exposure conditions may
not operate like those in a more natural ecology. Third, the scales we used to assess betweengroup differences in brand perceptions may have cued respondents in a somewhat artificial
manner. Future research might explore the degree of spontaneity with which these perceptions
are evoked. Of course, we offer this work not as a definitive effort, but as an illustrative
empirical beginning for the type of work Scott (1994a) called for, and what actual practice
demands: the systematic exploration of devices of visual advertising rhetoric.
In conclusion, we believe that we have at least opened a research path that is potentially
very important to both practice and academic inquiry. We need to conceive of advertising as a
complex, rhetorical, and socially situated phenomenon resulting in negotiated meaning between
producers and receivers of paid communication. We need to think of information more broadly,
and advertising more rhetorically.
34
REFERENCES
Adorno, Theodor (1967), Prisms, London: Spearman.
Anderson, James A. and Timothy P. Meyer (1989), Mediated Communication: A Social
Interaction Perspective, Newbury Park, Cal.: Sage.
Aronson, Elliot E., and J. Merrill Carlsmith (1968), “Experimentation in Social Psychology,” in
Gardner Lindzey and Elliot Aronson (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology (2nd
ed.), Vol. 2,. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1-79.
Barthes, Roland (1964), Elements of Semiology, Translated by Annette Lavers and Colin Smith,
London: Cape.
Baudrillard, Jean (1988), “Simulacra and Simulations,” in Selected Writings, Mark Poster (ed.),
Stanford: Stanford University Press, 166-184.
Berger, John (1972), Ways of Seeing: New York: Penguin.
Bernbach, William (1980), “Facts are Not Enough,” Paper From the 1980 AAAA Annual
Meeting. New York: American Association of Advertising Agencies.
Book, Albert C. and C. Dennis Schick (1997), Fundamentals of Copy and Layout (3rd Edition):
Lincolnwood, Ill.: National Textbook Company.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1979), Symbolic Power, Translated by R. Nice: Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Burke, Kenneth (1966), Language as Symbolic Action, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Cohen, Jacob (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd Edition). New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
Cohen, Jacob (1992), “A Power Primer,” Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159.
35
Costley, Carolyn L. and Merrie Brucks (1992), “Selective Recall and Information Use in
Consumer Preferences,” Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (March), 464-474.
Davidson, Martin (1992), The Consumerist Manifesto: Advertising in Postmodern Times,
London: Routledge.
Dobrow, Larry (1984), When Advertising Tried Harder, The Sixties: The Golden Age of
American Advertising, New York: Friendly.
Eco, Umberto (1975), A Theory of Semiotics, Bloomington: University of Indiana Press.
Ewen, Stewart (1988), All Consuming Images: The Politics of Style in Contemporary Culture,
New York: Basic Books.
Fish, Stanely (1980), Is There a Text in This Class?, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Foucault, Michel (1988), Politics, Philosophy, Culture; Interviews and Other Writings, 19771984, L. Kritzman (ed.), New York: Routledge.
Fox, Stephen (1985), The Mirror Makers: A History of American Advertising and Its Creators,
New York: Vintage Books.
Frank, Thomas (1998), The Conquest of Cool: Business Culture, Counterculture, and the Rise of
Hip Consumerism, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gombrich, Ernst H. (1960), Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial
Representation, Princeton: NJ: Princeton University Press.
Goodman, Nelson (1976), Language of Art, Indianapolis: Hacket.
Goody, Jack (1968), Literacy in Traditional Societies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Homer, Pamela M. (1995), “Ad Size as an Indicator of Perceived Advertising Costs and Effort:
The Effects on Memory and Perceptions,” Journal of Advertising, 24 (4), 1-12.
Jackson, Lesley (1998), The Sixties, Decade of Design Revolution, London: Phaidon.
36
Janiszewski, Chris (1990), “The Influence of Print Advertisement Organization on Affect
Toward a Brand Name,” Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (June), 53-65.
Jewler, A. Jerome and Bonnie L. Drewniany (2000), Creative Strategy in Advertising (7th
Edition), Belmont, Ca.: Wadsworth Publishing Co.
Keller, Kevin Lane (1991), “Memory and Evaluation Effects In Competitive Advertising
Environments,” Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (4), 463-477.
Kim, John, Chris T. Allen and Frank R. Kardes (1996), “An investigation of the Mediational
Mechanisms Underlying Attitudinal Conditioning,” Journal of Marketing Research, 33
(August), 318-328.
Leiss, William, Steven Kline and Sut Jhally (1990), Social Communication in Advertising:
Persons, Products and Images of Well-Being, Toronto, Methuen.
Levine, Kim (2000), “Do Nothing,” Critique. p. 1.
Lois, George (1972), George, Be Careful; A Greek Florist's Kid in the Roughhouse World of
Advertising, New York: Saturday Review Press.
Malaviya, Prashant, Jolita Kisielius, and Brian Sternthal (1996), “The Effect of Type of
Elaboration on Advertisement Processing and Judgment,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 33 (4), 410-421.
Marchand, Roland (1985), Advertising the American Dream, Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
McQuarrie, Edward F. and David Glen Mick (1992), “On Resonance: A Critical Pluralistic
Inquiry into Advertising Rhetoric,” Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (2), 180-198.
----- (1996), “Figures of Rhetoric in Advertising Language,” Journal of Consumer Research, 22
(4), 424-438.
37
Messaris, Paul (1997), Visual Persuasion: The Role of Images in Advertising: Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage.
Meyers-Levy, Joan and Laura A. Peracchio (1992), “Getting an Angle in Advertising: The effect
of Camera Angle on Product Evaluations” Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (4), 454462.
----- (1995), “Understanding the Effects of Color: How the Correspondence Between Available
and Required Resources Affects Attitudes,” Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (4), 448460.
----- (1996), “Moderators of the Impact of Self-Reference on Persuasion,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 22 (4), 408-424.
Mick, David Glen and Buhl, Claus (1992), “A Meaning-Based Model of Advertising
Experience,” Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (3), 317-338.
Miniard, Paul W., Sunil Bhatla, Kenneth R. Lord, Peter R. Dixon and H. Rao Unnava (1991),
“Picture Based Persuasion Processes and the Moderating Role of Involvement,” Journal
of Consumer Research, 18 (June), 92-107.
Mitchell, Andrew A. and Jerry C. Olson (1981), “Are Product Attribute Beliefs the Only
Mediator of Advertising Effects on Brand Attitude?” Journal of Marketing Research, 18
(3), 318-332.
Mitchell, W. J. T. (1980), “Spatial Form in Literature: Toward A General Theory,” in W.J. T.
Mitchell (ed.), The Language of Images, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 271-300.
Mitchell, W. J. T. (1986), Iconology: Image, Text, Ideology, Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
38
O’Guinn, Thomas C., “Advertising Effects (2000),” in Michael Schudson (volume editor),
“Applications,” in Neil Smelser and Paul Bates (eds.), International Encyclopedia of the
Social and Behavioral Sciences, London: Elsevier Science.
O’Guinn, Thomas C., Chris Allen, and Richard J. Semenik (2002), Advertising and Integrated
Brand Promotion, Cincinnati: South-Western, 2002.
Petty, Richard E., John T. Cacioppo, and David Schumann (1983), “Central and Peripheral
Routes top Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 10 (September), 135-146.
Postman, Neil (1986), Amusing Ourselves to Death: London: William Heinemann.
Peracchio, Laura and Joan Meyers-Levy (1994), “Understanding How Ambiguous Cropped
Objects Can Influence Product Evaluations,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (1), 190205.
----- (1997), “Evaluating persuasion-enhancing techniques from a resource-matching
perspective,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (2), 178-191.
Richins, Marsha L. (1991), “Social Comparison and the Idealized Images of Advertising.”
Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (1), 71-84.
Rossiter, John R. and Larry Percy (1978), “Visual Imaging Ability as a Mediator of Advertising
Response,” in Advances in consumer Research, H. Keith Hunt (ed.), vol. 5, Ann Arbor,
MI: Association for Consumer Research, 621-629.
Rothenberg, Randall (1994), Where the Suckers Moon: An Advertising Story: New York: Knopf.
Schudson, Michael (1984), Advertising, The Uneasy Persuasion: Its Dubious Impact on
American Society: New York: Basic Books.
39
Scott, Linda M. (1994a), “Images in Advertising: The Need for a Theory of Visual Rhetoric,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (September), 252-273.
----- (1994b), “The Bridge from Text to Mind: Adopting Reader-Response Theory to Consumer
Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21(December), 461-480.
Scott, Linda M. and Rajeev Batra (2003), Persuasive Imagery: A Consumer Response
Perspective, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Steel, Jon (1998), Truth, Lies and Advertising: The Art of Account Planning, New York: John
Wiley and Sons.
Stern, Barbara (1988), How Does an Ad Mean? Language in Services Advertising, Journal of
Advertising, 17 (Summer), 3-14.
Stewart, David W., Connie Pechmann, Srinvasan Ratneshwar, Jon Stroud, and Beverly Bryant
(1985), “Methodological and Theoretical Foundations of Advertising Copytesting: A
Review,” Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 8 (2), 1-74.
Unnava, H. Rao and Robert E. Burnkrant (1991a), “Effects of Repeating Varied Ad Executions
on Brand Name Memory,” Journal of Marketing Research 28 (November), 406-416
----- (1991b), “An Imagery Processing View of the Role of Pictures in Print Advertisements,”
Journal of Marketing Research 28 (May), 226-231.
Williamson, Judith (1978), Decoding Advertisements: Ideology and Meaning in Advertising,
New York: Marion Boyars.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1953), Philosophical Investigations, Oxford: Oxford University Press,
cited in W. J. T. Mitchell (ed.), The Language of Images (1980), Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, p. 271
40
Wollen, Peter (1993), Raiding the Icebox: Reflections on Twentieth-Century Culture,
Bloomington: University of Indiana Press.
41
TABLE 1
CREATIVE DIRECTORS BELIEFS ABOUT BRAND SIGNALS/MEANINGS
CONVEYED BY WHITE SPACE (N=31)
Category Number
Meaning/Signal
% of Respondents
1
Prestigious/Upscale/Expensive/High-End
61.3%
2
Confidence/Power/Financial Strength
41.9%
3
Trust/Stability
35.5%
4
Leadership/Cutting Edge
32.3%
5
Quality
16.7%
6
Fashionable/Contemporary
12.9%
7
Healthy/Good for Environment
9.7%
8
Approachable
9.7%
9
Other Signal/Meaning
9.7%
42
TABLE 2
EFFECT OF PRODUCT CATEGORY AND WHITE SPACE ON BRAND PERCEPTIONS (STUDY 2)
Statement
Mean Evaluation by Conditiona
Clothing
Mutual Fund
Low
High
Low
High
White Space
White Space
White Space
White Space
(n=31)
(n=32)
(n=33)
(n=34)
Analysis of Variance (F-Value)
White Space
(WS)
Main Effect
Product (P)
Main Effect
WS X P
Interaction
Hastings is a large company.
4.35
4.56
4.45
4.32
---
---
---
Hastings mutual funds/clothes are of high quality.
4.55
5.13
4.39
5.00
8.56 **
---
---
It is not risky to purchase Hastings mutual funds/clothes.
4.45
4.91
4.18
4.88
7.23 **
---
---
Hastings is a prestigious brand of mutual funds/clothes.
4.19
4.88
3.94
4.71
9.04 **
---
---
Hastings has considerable market share.
3.90
3.94
3.97
4.24
---
---
---
It is more expensive to purchase Hastings mutual
funds/clothes, relative to competitors.
4.26
4.84
4.03
3.82
---
9.83 **
3.96 ***
Hastings can be trusted.
4.35
4.69
4.45
5.25
9.58 **
---
---
Hastings is a leader rather than a follower.
4.19
4.63
4.06
4.71
---
---
---
Overall, I have a positive attitude toward Hastings.
3.77
4.41
3.85
4.91
15.30 ***
---
---
If Hastings comes to my region I will buy from them.
3.42
3.81
2.97
3.38
4.01 **
---
---
0.859*
(10, 117)
0.787***
(10, 117)
0.934
(10, 117)
Overall MANOVA Modelb
a Mean
b
of seven point scale anchored by 1= “Strongly Disagree” and 7 = “Strongly Agree”.
Values for effects are Wilks’ Lambda, with Hypotheses Degrees of Freedom and Error Degrees of Freedom reported in parentheses beneath.
*
p<0.05
p<0.01
***
p<0.001
**
43
TABLE 3
EFFECT OF AD SIZE AND WHITE SPACE ON BRAND PERCEPTIONS (STUDY 3)
Statement
Mean Evaluation by Conditiona
Low White Space
High White Space
Small
Medium
Large
Small
Medium
Large
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
(n=28)
(n=28)
(n=29)
(n=31)
(n=30)
(n=33)
Analysis of Variance (F-Value)
White Space
(WS)
Main Effect
Size (S)
Main Effect
WS X S
Interaction
Hastings is a large company.
4.07
4.64
4.76
4.71
5.43
5.45
14.25***
5.91**
---
Hastings mutual funds/clothes are of high quality.
4.46
4.36
4.41
4.81
5.03
5.21
15.23 ***
---
---
It is not risky to purchase Hastings mutual funds/clothes.
3.89
3.89
4.10
4.42
4.73
4.58
10.45 ***
---
---
Hastings is a prestigious brand of mutual funds/clothes.
3.79
3.93
4.28
4.52
4.97
4.91
20.45 ***
---
---
Hastings has considerable market share.
3.61
4.14
4.17
4.42
4.67
4.64
12.50 ***
---
---
It is more expensive to purchase Hastings mutual
funds/clothes, relative to competitors.
3.29
3.50
3.93
3.84
3.73
3.82
---
---
Hastings can be trusted.
4.25
4.18
4.31
4.87
5.07
4.76
18.97 ***
---
---
Hastings is a leader rather than a follower.
4.00
4.43
4.41
4.68
4.93
5.06
10.76 ***
---
---
Overall, I have a positive attitude toward Hastings.
4.25
4.32
4.00
4.81
5.03
4.79
15.58 ***
---
---
If Hastings comes to my region I will buy from them.
3.14
3.36
3.07
3.74
3.60
3.42
4.67 *
---
---
0.808***
(10, 164)
0.877
(20, 328)
0.931
(20, 328)
Overall MANOVA Modelb
aMean
of seven point scale anchored by 1= “Strongly Disagree” and 7 = “Strongly Agree”.
Values for effects are Wilks’ Lambda, with Hypotheses Degrees of Freedom and Error Degrees of Freedom reported in parentheses beneath.
* p<0.05
** p<0.01
***p<0.001
b
---
44
TABLE 4
EFFECT OF AD SIZE AND WHITE SPACE ON BRAND PERCEPTIONS (STUDY 4)
Mean Evaluation by Conditiona
Mutual Funds
1/5
Full-page
1/5
Full-page
Page
Low WS
Full-page
Page
High WS
Low WS
(n=31)
High WS
Low WS
(n=32)
(n=30)
(n=31)
(n=30)
4.45
4.53
4.58
4.60
4.03
MANOVA (F-Value)
Furniture
Statement
Full-page
Low WS
(n=30)
Hastings is a large company.
4.53
Hastings promotes equality in the work-place.
4.03
4.00
4.17
4.03
4.17
4.00
Hastings furniture is/mutual funds are of high quality.
4.57
5.38
4.93
4.32
5.27
4.23
It is not risky to purchase Hastings furniture/mutual funds.
4.83
5.53
4.73
4.23
4.90
Hastings is a prestigious brand of furniture/mutual funds.
4.47
5.03
4.13
4.26
Hastings has considerable market share.
4.43
4.28
3.57
Hastings donates considerable money to the community.
3.50
3.78
It is more expensive to purchase Hastings furniture/mutual
funds, relative to competitors.
4.43
Hastings can be trusted.
Ad (A)
Product (P)
AXP
Interaction
---
---
---
---
---
---
10.56 ***
4.35 *
---
4.07
8.34 ***
13.06 ***
---
4.63
3.83
7.00 ***
---
---
4.13
4.10
3.63
7.45 ***
---
---
3.70
3.90
3.90
3.77
---
---
---
4.59
4.17
3.61
4.00
3.93
---
10.68 ***
---
4.60
4.94
4.20
4.35
5.37
4.33
11.45 ***
---
---
Hastings is a leader rather than a follower.
4.40
5.22
4.03
4.06
4.77
3.83
9.21 ***
---
---
Overall, I have a positive attitude toward Hastings.
Attitude toward the Brand
4.90
5.31
4.43
4.42
4.93
4.07
6.95 ***
4.56 *
---
If Hastings comes to my region I will buy from them.
Purchase intention
Overall MANOVA Modelb
4.03
4.03
3.57
3.29
3.77
3.37
2.16 *
6.56 *
---
aMean
of seven point scale anchored by 1= “Strongly Disagree” and 7 = “Strongly Agree”.
Values for effects are Wilks’ Lambda, with Hypotheses Degrees of Freedom and Error Degrees of Freedom reported in parentheses beneath.
* p<0.05
** p<0.01
***p<0.001
b
0.678***
(24, 332)
0.754***
(12, 166)
0.873
(24, 332)
45
TABLE 5
CONTRASTS OF ADVERTISEMENT CONDITIONS (STUDY 4)
Statement
Mean Evaluation by Conditiona
Furniture
Full-page
Full-page
1/5-page
Low WS
High WS
Low WS
(1)
(2)
(3)
MANOVA (F-Value)
Contrast
(1) vs. (2)
Contrast
(1) vs. (3)
Contrast
(2) vs. (3)
Hastings is a large company.
4.56
4.56
4.28
---
---
---
Hastings promotes equality in the work-place.
4.03
4.08
4.08
---
---
---
Hastings furniture is/mutual funds are of high quality.
4.44
5.32
4.58
19.39 ***
---
13.14 ***
It is not risky to purchase Hastings furniture/mutual funds.
4.52
5.23
4.40
10.51 ***
---
14.08 ***
Hastings is a prestigious brand of furniture/mutual funds.
4.36
4.84
3.98
4.71 *
---
12.09 ***
Hastings has considerable market share.
4.28
4.19
3.60
---
14.71 ***
9.34 ***
Hastings donates considerable money to the community.
3.70
3.84
3.73
---
---
---
It is more expensive to purchase Hastings furniture/mutual
funds, relative to competitors.
4.02
4.31
4.05
---
---
---
Hastings can be trusted.
4.48
5.15
4.27
13.15 ***
---
19.97 ***
Hastings is a leader rather than a follower.
4.23
5.00
3.93
9.17 **
---
18.28 ***
Overall, I have a positive attitude toward Hastings.
Attitude toward the Brand
4.66
5.13
4.25
4.19 *
---
12.84 **
If Hastings comes to my region I will buy from them.
Purchase intention
3.66
3.90
3.47
---
---
5.11 *
aMean
of seven point scale anchored by 1= “Strongly Disagree” and 7 = “Strongly Agree”.
* p<0.05
** p<0.01
***p<0.001
46
FIGURE 1
SAMPLE ADVERTISEMENTS
Panel A
Panel B
Panel C
47
FIGURE 2
EXPERIMENTAL STIMULI (STUDY 2)*
Like Clockwork. No matter what day of the week or week of the year, there are a myriad of
Like Clockwork. No matter what day of the week or week of the year, there are a myriad of
things to deal with. From what to wear…to where to invest. We don’t pretend to have all the
things to deal with. From what to wear…to where to invest. We don’t pretend to have all the
answers to all of the demands life places on you, but we can help when it comes to mutual
answers to all of the demands life places on you, but we can help when it comes to mutual
funds. In a turbulent world where you can count on tomorrow being different than today you can
funds. In a turbulent world where you can count on tomorrow being different than today you can
depend on us to give you consistency and comfort. Visit us on the web at www.hastings.com or
depend on us to give you consistency and comfort. Visit us on the web at www.hastings.com or
call 1-800-686-3321 today to find out where our mutual funds are available.
call 1-800-686-3321 today to find out where our mutual funds are available.
Hastings
Hastings
Panel A: Low White Space Ad
Panel B: High White Space Ad
* Stimuli presented here are for the Clothing condition. The stimuli for the Mutual Fund condition were identical, with the exception that “Mutual Funds” was replaced by “Clothes”.
Note: Image quality has been reduced to minimize file size. A high resolution image was used in the study, and is available on request.
48
FIGURE 3
EXPERIMENTAL STIMULI (STUDIES 3 & 4)
Study 3
Full Page
Low White Space
Half Page
Low White Space
Quarter Page
Low White Space
Full Page
High White Space
Half Page
High White Space
Quarter Page
High White Space
Full Page
High White Space
1/5 Page
Low White Space
Study 4*
Full Page
Low White Space
* This experiment employed a 3 x 2 full factorial design manipulating the amount of white space and advertisement size (diagramed here)
as well as product category (mutual funds versus furniture).