Content uploaded by Rachel Kennedy
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rachel Kennedy on Sep 26, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Brand Advertising
as
Creative Pubiicity
ANDREW EHRENBERG
South Bank University
ebrenba@sbu.ac.uk
NEIL BARNARD
South Bank University
RACHEL KENNEDY
University
of
South
Australia
HELEN BLOOM
Consultant
HelenBloom@
compuserve.com
We are indebted
lo
Colin
Mc-
Donald,
Giles
Kceble,
RoiUrick
White, Pant Mills,
John
Scriven,
Nigel Clayton, and e$pfcially
Bi/ron
Sharp for helpful com-
ments on earlier versions,
and to
leremy
Bullmorc
for his many
insights and
wit.
Our view of brand advertising is that it mostly serves to publicize the advertised
brand.
Advertising seldom seems to persuade.
Advertising in a competitive market needs to maintain the brand's broad
salience—being a brand the consumer buys or considers buying. This turns on brand
awareness, but together with memory associations, familiarity, and brand assurance.
Publicity can also help to develop such salience.
This publicity view of advertising should affect both the briefs that are given to
agencies
(e.g.,
that cut-through is more important than having a persuasive selling
proposition) and how we then evaluate the results. But since few advertisements
seem actively to seek to persuade, how much do the advetisements themselves have
to change, rather than just how we think and talk about them?
BRAND ADVERTISING seems
to
work mainly by cre-
atively publicizing
the
brand, without trying
to
persuade people that
the
brand differs from other
brands,
or is
better
or
best. Fairly
few
advertise-
ments actually feature potentially persuasive
in-
ducements
for
their brand.
Nor do
they usually
appear
to
change people's opinions,
THREE KEY CONCEPTS
Three
key
terms used here
are now
briefly
out-
lined, namely: Publicity, Persuasion,
and
Salience,
They
are
discussed later
in
more detail. Implica-
tions
for
sales are noted,
and
there
is a
concluding
discussion.
Publicity
Publicity
is
usually defined
as
"Bringing
X
to pub-
lic notice." Remarkably, this
is
much like tradi-
tional dictionary definitions
of
ad\'ertising:
"Mak-
ing publicly known by an announcement in a jour-
nal,
circular,
etc," {OED,
20 00 ). Historically,
ad\ ertising was often synonymous with publicity,
and
in our \
iew
it
still largely
is.
Publicity some-
times conveys
new
information:
"The
preacher
this Sunday
is the
Reverend X."
But
mostly
it re-
mind,s already-knowledgeable people: "The morn-
ing service
is
(again)
at
10 am,"
Or
"Coke
Is It,"
Publicity
is
often highly creative,
to
achieve
impact.
Some publicity
is
free. Much
is
pa id
for.
Public-
ity need
not
claim
or
imply differentiating values
for
the
brand (although
it may do
so):
"I saw you
on telex i sion
but
can't remember what
you
said."
The publicizing function
of
good brand adver-
tising
is
all-pervasive.
But it is
seldom discussed
nowadays. Hence this paper.
Persuasion
Many people seem
to
belie\ e that advertising
has
a primarily persuasi\ e function.
For
instance,
the
millennium edition
of the
joitrml
of
Marketing
stated (Myers-Levy
and
Malaviya, 1999): "Persua-
sion
is the
only mode
[of
advertising] worthy
of
consideration."
NiaU Fitzgerald, joint Chairman
of
Unilever,
has
noted that (1997): "Most experts
and
commenta-
tors believe that branding
... is
li ttle more
,,,
than
persuading consumers
..."
Tim Ambler (2000)
has
voiced
a
similar senti-
ment about
the
United States:
"The
assumption
that advertising equals persuasion
is so
ingrained
in
the USA
that
to
challenge
it
elicits much
the
same reaction
as
questioning your partner's
parentage."
July. August 2002 JOURRflL OF ROUERTISinG RESERRCR
7
BRAND ADVERTISING
To persuade someone is to give them a
reason or an incentive, or to induce a
mood, in order to change what they think
or feel, and then perhaps do.
In strong persuasion, the advocacy
would be more explicit, like a church pro-
claiming "Attend Sunday Service to Save
Your Soul," Successful persuasion would
require not only the attempt but also the
deed, i.e., a "winning argument" (OED,
2000).
But in brand advertising, actual at-
tempts at "persuasion" are, we have
found, in the minority. Successful persua-
sion is even rarer. James Best, chairman of
DDB Needham, has said, "when it comes
to persuading, not a lot of advertising
does,"
He added: "It's not meant to,"
Salience
Successful publicity for brand
X
affects the
"salience" of the brand, especially if tbe
product or service is one tbat is broadly
relevant to the recipient (including friends
and neighbors).
Salience
in our terms refers to the pres-
ence and richness of memory traces that
result in the brand coming to mind in rel-
evant choice situations (Romaniuk and
Sharp, 2002b), It is not an attitudinal con-
cept, being about a relevant brand's
"share of mind," But it is much more than
mere awareness of the brand in its prod-
uct category (however measured).
Thus with awareness has to come famil-
iarity and, almost inevitably, that the
brand is considered reputable or accept-
able (like some other such brands). We be-
Ueve that such broad salience is \ ital for a
brand to become and remain in one's
"consideration set" as a brand that one
might or does buy.
Salience can develop through advertis-
ing as publicity, PR, word-of-mo uth, retail
display, sponsorsbip, and especially
through previous brand usage.
Consumers mostly
hav e
more than one
brand in their repertoire or wider consid-
eration set of salient brands. For a brand
to become or remain salient therefore
need not require any unique commitment.
Nor has the brand to be thought of as al-
together best, but merely as "good
enough,"
These three terms—Publicity, Persua-
sion, and Salience—tend each to be used
in a variety of different ways. But that
does not preclude drawing some impor-
tant distinguishing lines, as we attempt to
do here,
CREATIVE PUBLICiTY
Publicity—throwing a spotlight on the ad-
vertised brand—is an inescapable func-
tion of effective brand advertising. As
such, we review three aspects:
1,
How advertisements publicize tbe
brand
2,
How creative publicity functions
through bringing out or refreshing
memory traces for the brand
3,
How advertising acts as publicity, not
as persuasion
How advertisements pubiicize brands
Some advertisements announce some-
thing new, e,g., a price-cut or a new brand.
But most advertisements are about a
brand or another issue (e,g,, Drink-Drive)
that the recipient is already aware of:
"Man requires more often to be reminded
than informed" (Johnson, 1751),
The most heavily advertised brands
like Coke or Nike are known to billions
and have been for years, yet they still
advertise.
Awareness may, however, be subcon-
scious—not knowing explicitly that one is
aware—especially with an item of no par-
ticular relevance to the recipient. The in-
formation may even be left unprocessed
in the mind (Heath, 2001), altbough re-
peated exposures can lead to more con-
scious noting ("1 think I've seen this
before"—Krugman, 1972),
Publicity often does not seem to be try-
ing to persuade consumers to change
wbat they feel about the brand. It mostly
only seeks to have consumers feel, think,
and remember something about the brand
at all. Some people, therefore, speak F>ejo-
ratively of "mere publicity" (as remarked
by Moran, 1990, and Bullmore, 1998), Yet
even Emerson's better mousetrap will not
sell if it is not known.
Most advertisements do not seem to
feature or imply strong selling proposi-
tions but "mere talking-points" (visual or
verbal), i.e,, creative and impactful ways of
referring to the brand to help bring it before
the public again. The following examples
illustrate this, even for what may appear
to be a "Hard
St>H"
approach (item 7).
1.
Proclaiming the brand. Many adver-
tisements (including billboards, T-shirts,
and sponsorship) just feature the brand's
name or current slogan distinctively:
"NIKE" or "Coke Is It"
(Sayitig:
Here I Am—Remember Me)
It has been suggested that the banner
"Coke
Is
It" tells the consumer that Coke is
popular, with-it, and the genuine article.
But
"Bloggo
Is
It" would not say all this for
Bloggo,
"Coke
Is It" therefore does not at-
tach "popular, with-it, and original" to
Coca-Cola, Instead, it lets consumers at-
tach or re-attacb any such prior associa-
tions of their own to the brand, once tbe
advertisement has reminded them of
Coca-Cola again (which is what the adver-
tising
can
do).
The small print in an advertisement is
rarely read (or read again). But its mere
presence can add tone and gra\'itas (or
clutter) to the "Here I Am,"
2.
The brand as the product. Many adver-
tisements in effect say the brand is an ex-
ample of the product:
8 JDORnRL or ROUERTISIdG RESEHRCH July
.
August 2002
BRAND ADVERTISING
"X Gets Clotbes Clean"
{Sai/iii)(:
X is a laundry detergent)
Being a laundry detergent is a good
thing to associate with a detergent brand
and to be reminded of again, as Moran
(1990) has stressed.
Experienced consumers (i.e., most)
would know that X is much like other
laundry detergents. But the advertising
reminds them of X: so when they need
more detergent, they can just think X.
A more assertive tagline like
"Domestos kills 99% of all known germs
DEAD"
seems like a catchy way of saying "I'm a
Disinfectant." The advertising may ap-
pear to imply that Domestos is stronger.
But even Domestos customers are not per-
suaded by this, as they mostly buy other
brands as well, over any succession of
purchases.
3.
Providing information. Numerous ad-
vertisements feature a particular attribute
or a new price:
"Intel Inside" or "$10 off"
But information can only be new at most
once.
It soon becomes a mere reminder.
4.
Establishing distinctiveness. Other ad-
vertisements (including most blockbusters
and "themed publicity") show the brand
in some creatively memorable, yet often
fairly meaningless, way (as noted in Car-
penter et al.'s award-winning paper in
1999),
e.g.,:
"Polo,
the Mint with the Hole"
In Great Britain this is memorable for
many. (It may mean more to the few who
know the U.S. version:
Lifesavers.)
5. Appealing to emotions. Some adver-
tisements command attention through
family wilucs, gorgeous scenery, sex, hu-
Because of the elapsed time between exposure and be-
havior, advertising has t o work through people's memory.
mor, cute children, animals, music, being
ethical, or some other warm experience:
"Nescafe—the best part of waking up"
Feeling good about the product and/
or liking the advertising—this is sel-
dom strongly persuasive but perhaps
memorable.
6. Proffering
a
reason. Quite a few adver-
tisements (a decided minority?) do
present a reason (other than just announc-
ing a price cut) for choosing that brand
(e.g., has/our airbags).
"Carlsberg—Probably the Best Lager in
the World"
If such adspeak were accepted literally
("Best," "Unique," "New"), it
loould
sell,
other things being equal. But experienced
users "don't seem to buy it." They know
that their own brands also taste good. Al-
most nobody bothers to switch for ad-
speak reasons.
Nonetheless, saying Better or Best keeps
the brand in front of the public and pro-
\ ides some reassurance ("The advertising
says it's best").
7. Hard sell. Some advertisements do
overtly try to coax people to buy here and
now:
"While Stock Lasts!"
or
"BUY X NOW!"
However, hard selling lacks many widely
reported Road-to-Damascus conversions:
it seldom "sells" from scratch. But it din
act as a reminder—a rather intrusive way
of drawing renewed attention to the
brand.
Hard sell in (id\ ertising might help the
already persuaded to "close the sale"
themselves. But so can soft sell, e.g.. Bull-
more (1998) showing a bottle of
POM''^'
hair-restorative and asking
"GOING BALD?"
rather than puffing
"POM gi\ es you a full head of hair
in 6 days."
These dimensions, along which public-
ity can work, stem from our initially sub-
jective ("qualitative") scrutiny of a range
of advertisements.
Formal tests of representati\'e examples
of over 100 TV, print, and outdoor adver-
tisements, using some 500 consumers, ad-
vertising professionals, and marketing
students as subjects, confirmed that more
than half the advertisements were NOT
seen as differentiating the brand from its
competitors (Ehrenberg et al., 2000—see
also Stewart and Furse, 1984, for other
approaches).
How publicity functions tiirough memory
Because of the elapsed time between ex-
posure and behavior, advertising has to
work through people's memory. The gap
may be seconds for an in-store display,
two months or more for an instant coffee,
or years for car or insurance campaigns. It
requires
long-term
memory (LTM).
Recent developments in physiological
memory research suggest that synapses
need to be consolidated (nerve cells link-
ing) for information to be processed into
LTM (Franzen and Bouwman, 2001; du
Plessis, 1998). More immediately action-
able is the psychology of the memory pro-
cess.
Learning of a name, for example,
mostly comes through the old-fashioned
July. August 2002 JDURnRL DF HDUERTISIOG RE6EHRCH
9
BRAND ADVERTISING
process of rehearsing the input (e.g., Bad-
deley, 1974).
To enable this for a brand, repetitive ad-
vertising can provide more or less con-
trolled exposures to the brand (what is
said, when, where, how often, and with
what creative treatments).
Indeed, just repeating a brand name—
"mere exposure" (Zajonc, 1968, and Har-
rison, 1968)—is known to breed
Familiar-
ity, "the absolutely basic value created by
advertising," as James Webb Young al-
ready stressed early in the last century.
And such "mere exposure" has even been
shown to breed liking.
Consumers can also have exposures to
the brand other than by paid-for advertis-
ing, though that is usually less easily con-
trolled: the brand being mentioned by oth-
ers,
a glimpse of the pack in a store, an
empty can lying in the gutter, and espe-
cially using th e brand.
Even the sheer act of remembering can
refresh memory traces for the brand
(Hilts,
1991; Franzen and Bouwman,
2001).
So can teaser advertisements, such
as showing the familiar colors with "et-
ton" bled into the advertisment's left-
hand margin. (It works if it vv'orks—that is
the creative challenge.) An advertisement
that is liked may also be looked at more
often or longer. Thus the brand may be
better remembered (without "Liking the
advertising" having to translate into "Lik-
ing the brand," Kennedy and Sharp, 200f).
Once a message or image is placed in
our long-term memory, it seems virtually
never to be forgotten (e.g.. Hunter, 1964;
Franzen and Bouwman,
2001).
Formal rec-
ognition tests and general experience have
long confirmed this (e.g., recognizing the
picture seen once 20 years ago, or the first
chord of Beethoven's Seventh for those
who know the Seventh).
The capacity of our memory is without
question vast—each of us routinely re-
members so much. But people do give dif-
... there is no evidence that advertising universally (or
even generally) "converts" consumers.
ferent amounts of attention to different
stimuli, leading at times to better memory
processing and thus easier re-activation
later on. Some things are harder to recall
than others. So a key issue is how the
memory of a specific brand can be read-
ily accessed, i.e., recalled in a purchase
situation?
Recall and memory associations. Mostly
we can recall things instantly, as when we
talk or think—but not always, as in recall-
ing a (well-known) name.
It has long been known that memory is
created, stored, and accessed \'ia associa-
tions,
mostly subconsciously, e.g., "Holes
••' Polo," "Refreshes • • Heineken," or the
color red for The
Economist,
Coca-Cola, or
Virgin (Franzen and Bouwman, 2001).
A re-exposure can also dramatically re-
vive fading recall (e.g., Zielske, 1959; M c-
Donald, 1997). It can make recall easier in
varied situations. But a message or image
that is inconsistent can interfere with re-
call and/or initial learning (Simon, 1947;
Festinger, 1957; Baddeley, 1974; Suther-
land and Sylvester, 2000; Franzen and
Bouwman, 2001). That is why reposition-
ing, or changes in packaging, can be
problematic.
Memory-associations for a brand are of-
ten highly individualized (e.g., "My Aunt
Ella used it," or "It's the one we bought at
Safeway") rather than a brand having just
one global "image" for all consumers.
Publicizing a brand is therefore about
what consumers do with the advertising
rather than what advertisements do to
consumers: "What evokes the brand, not
what the brand evokes" (Holden and
Lutz, 1992; Lannon, 1993).
Publicity not persuasion
As noted earlier, contemporary accounts
of advertising say that it works by persua-
sion, or at least they imply it (e.g., in "per-
suasion testing").
But there is no e\'idence that advertising
universally (or even generally) "converts"
consumers. There are also many internal
contradictions:
1.
Persuasion is simply treated as a
self-
evident neologism: "Advertising is
meant to be persuasive. Therefore if it's
an advertisement, it must be persua-
sive.
Q.E.D." Thus Nike printed on a
T-shirt has to be "persuasive" just be-
cause it's an advertisement!
2.
People are exposed to innumerable ad-
vertisements each day, and probably
note many or most of them at least sub-
consciously (Heath, 2001)—but with al-
most no apparent effects: "See advertis-
ing and do nothing." By its own per-
suasion-goal, therefore, far more than
the proverbial half of persuasive adver-
tising would be wasted.
3.
Advertisements seldom seem con-
structed to appear persuasive, let alone
strongly
so ("Hea\
y
Sell"). The y offer or
imply no strong incentives, emotions,
or rhetoric.
This is quite unlike either court room
"advocacy" or "religious conversion,"
where advocates work hard to make
explicit that the choice options are be-
tv\
een "Guilty" (off with his head) and
"Not Guilty." And the incentives are
Life Everlasting versus Eternal Damna-
tion (e.g., Ehrenberg, 2001).
4.
Much advertising theory seems to pre-
sume that in the absence of functional
brand differentiation, the advertise-
ments have to give every consumer
some reason, benefit, or added value to
be able to select one brand rather than
1 0 JDURRRL OF flOyERTISIRG RESERRCH juiy
.
August 2002
BRAND ADVERTISING
another. But in practice, consumers
need the product and seem to know
that brands are near-look-a-likes: "I
know these brands are all the same. I
just have to choose [one as] the best."
(Bullmore, 1998).
5.
Persuasive advertising (e.g., strong
sell) should be heavily affected by
wear-out (e.g., McDonald, 1992, 1997;
Pechmann and Stewart, 1989): people
find being repeatedly exhorted boring
or even irritating. In contrast, sheer
publicity (e.g., sponsorship, Nike on a
T-shirt, or "Coca-Cola" over shop-
fronts) can usually be repeated almost
interminably: people seem to know
that advertisers are just reminding
them. There can apparently be no
ov
cr-
exposure (Hunter, 1964).
6. The short-term effects of advertising
that occur can hardly be due to strong
"persuasion" if they are only short-
term. But they can be caused by mo-
mentarily refreshed brand awareness.
Basically our view is that advertise-
ments can be effective [or "act"] simply
through publicizing the brand memora-
bly, without having to "persuade" con-
sumers that the brand is better than they
thought before. Such publicizing works
through the brand's "Salience."
SALiENCE
Why does an experienced consumer first
buy a particular brand and then continue
to buy it (often as part of a repertoire of
two or more habitual brands)? The pro-
cess may be described as the brand having
gained and then maintained what we call
Salience, in a rather broad sense of the
term. We now consider in turn:
1.
What such Salience is
2.
How Salience seems to develop
3.
How Salience works
4.
How it requires the brand to be "dis-
tinctive" but not "differentiated" (e.g.,
functionally)
What is saiience?
Salience in our sense is about the brand
coming to mind in personally relevant
choice situations (Romaniuk and Sharp,
2002b). The brand has become part of
one's broad consideration set, a brand that
one might buy or use—either now, or in
years ahead.
This goes well beyond traditional
awareness, or even the "strength" of such
awareness (e.g., first recall).
Salience concerns the "size" of the
brand in one's mind (Romaniuk and
Sharp, 2002b), i.e., all the memory struc-
tures that can allow the brand to come
forward for the wide range of recall cues
that can occur in purchase occasions. With
this "share of mind" come feelings of be-
ing familiar and feelings of assurance
("Yes, I've heard of it. It should be all
right.").
That is our broad designation of
"Salience"—awareness and memory
traces,
plus familiarity, plus assurance.
Moran (1990) in his seminal paper al-
ready stressed the role of a brand's "Pres-
ence."
Similarly, Bullmore's "Fame"
(1999,
2002) is a colorful way of reflecting
salience. But it overstates the role of big
brands—successful small brands can still
be salient for those who use or consider
them, but hardly "famous."
Salience is not exclusive. An individual
usually has a consideration set of several
competitive brands that he or she may
choose to buy over a series of purchases
(and others not). Opting for one or an-
other salient substitute on any specific
purchase occasion need then be for no
special reason. But the choice can also
vary with the context—availability, a de-
sire for variety, a mood, an advertising or
retail display, an offer, or a whim of the
moment (e.g., the mother-in-law coming).
For a brand to be in a consumer's con-
sideration set or to be actually chosen, the
brand does not have to be seen as "best,"
but only as "good enough." This is the late
Herbert Simon's (1947) highly regarded
"Satisficing" criterion. In Darwinian
terms,
it means "Survival of the fit
enough," not of the fittest.
Crucially, in our view, this conforms
with consumers' primary need being not
for a brand but for the
product.
They will
want some coffee or a hotel room of the
right type (by price/quality, location,
amenities, etc.). In a competitive market
they then have to choose one of the avail-
able options of that product or service,
which would typically nowadays be
named or even "branded."
Consumers therefore find themselves
having to choose between brands in their
consideration set that are mostly "near-
look-a-likes" to them, i.e., items that are
distinctively labeled but intrinsically simi-
lar or even virtually identical (except—
strictly—in how they look).
In principle, to decide, people could
simply toss a mental penny ("Oh I don't
know—I thirJc I'll have that
one").
In prac-
tice,
however, consumers mostly seem to
find choosing a familiar and even habitual
brand convenient and reassuring.
How salience develops
There is as yet no clearly known path for
a brand to follow so as to become salient
and enter a consumer's consideration set
(see Shocker et al., 1991; Roberts and Lat-
tin, 1997, for reviews).
(Similarly, there is no clear evidence for
how initially uncommitted embryonic
stem cells settle down to become the ded-
icated nerve cells which can actually
counteract Parkinson's disease.)
Views of how consumers can be made
to choose or adopt a brand have at times
been oversimplified. Economists from
Galbraith (1958) downwards—and indeed
July
.
August 2002 JOURRRL OF ROOERTISIRG RESERRCH
l l
BRAND ADVERTISING
many marketing people—seem to have
long belifved that marketing or advertis-
ing can simply manipulate or persuade
the consumer. Pyramidal equity models
have replaced hierarchical-effects models
like AIDA, Econometricians ha\ e sought
to determine "drivers" of con.sumer
choice by marketing-mix decision-models
(e,g,, Leeflang et al,,
2000;
Eh renberg et al,,
2001),
But no clear empirical results in all
this have yet emerged.
To us, the process itself looks intrinsi-
cally haphazard, as has been graphically
recounted by Alan Hedges (1998), initially
25 years ago.
Hedges spelled out houf a consumer,
faced with a new brand P (o r one "new" to
that consumer), can dither on a slow path
toward a decision (which ultimately was
not even to try P!):
• Fir,st the consumer usually has to be-
come
aware
of the new brand P, by name
or looks, at least subconsciously (e,g,,
not really being aware of being aware of
the brand, as in Heath, 2001),
For example, the consumer sees a
neighbor using P (although most often
this has no effect). The consumer then
perhaps becomes aware of an advertise-
ment for P (hardly noticed explicitly be-
fore),
suddenly notes that the brand is
actually in the stores, probably notices
another advertisement or tv^o for the
new P, tries to relate P to his or her
present brand(s), and hears some word-
of-mouth perhaps. And so on—thus
memory structures develop,
• P's advertising and retail display may
also engender some assurance for P,
This may not come from what the ad-
vertisements specifically say or claim.
But the existence of a good deal of ad-
vertising for the brand can engender a
feeling, subconscious perhaps, tbat
"with all that spending on advertising
(and/or on shelf-space), P must be all
right" (e,g,, Kay, 1993; Sutherland and
Friedman, 2000),
• Growing salience can then at times lead
to some
interest
("I wonder what that P's
like").
But mostly not. Experienced con-
sumers will hardly expect the new
brand P to be very different. If it were,
there would be more talk about tbat
(including in the adxertising). None-
theless, the consumer may consider try-
ing P when next buying the category:
"I've heard of
P,
I migbt try it," Then, or
later,
• If brand P upon actual purchase or u.s-
age seems satisfactory (which often is
the case with established brands), the
brand may be bought again. Or not. If
yes,
it can become one of the brands in
that consumer's regular brand reper-
toire,
with an ongoing habit of buying
or using P, often formed almost in-
stantly (Ehrenberg and Goodhardt,
2001),
For this to occur, the new P
would only need to seem about
a>.
good
as tbe other brands in the consunner's
wider brand repertoire or consideration
set.
This is "sntisficing" again, not "bet-
ter" or "best," No unique or deep com-
mitment or conversion to P is needed or
likely (McWilliam,
1997),
wit h no strong
persuasion needed. Ongoing usage or
buying can, however, breed subsequent
liking through various processes ("Mere
Exposure" as already mentioned, "Cog-
nitive Dissonance Reduction" as in Fest-
inger, 1957; or "I-Use-It-therefore-I-
Like-It" self-identification as in Bem,
1967),
Hedges' hit-or-miss adoption process of
a brand coming into one's salient consid-
eration set (or not) has boon likened to cos-
mic radiation leading to a genetic muta-
tion "by chance," followed by natural se-
lection, with very few of the new mutants
surviving as "fit enough,"
A brand's place In a repertoire
For any individual buyer some brands are
more salient than others are, and, in a rep-
ertoire, some are bought more often. This
will be a consequence of the many "rein-
forcers," often small, which can act upon a
buyer over time (Foxall, 1996), e,g,, as-
pects of distribution, product features, ad-
vertising, etc,
Ev
en for highly competitive
brands that match each other's advan-
tages,
individual features
di>
differ in vari-
ous "minor" ways. For example, the
bottle-tops; the place on a retailer's
shelf;
the specific ingredients in particular
mueslis and/or their degrees of sweet-
ness;
or the car-door handles.
Such minor differences are seldom indi-
vidually ad\ertised. They are often not
even consciously noticed by the con-
sumer, or evaluated, at least not until after
the brand has already been fairly exten-
sively tried. The consumer "acts first and
thinks later" (Swindells, 2000), Therefore,
minor differences rarely influence a con-
sumer's initial choice of brand.
Such minor brand differences can, how-
ever, lead to lasting longer-term brand
preferences and subsequently foster ex-
tended use ("I like
that
muesli"). They can
influence wby one brand slowly becomes
much bigger than its otherwise very simi-
lar competitors.
Advertising can help in this even by
merely publicizing the brand name. This
can remind consumers of their own per-
sonal reasons for considering that brand.
How salience works:
No deep commitment
When a brand accumulates salience for
the consumer, it almost never is the con-
sumer's only salient one. Over a series of
purchases, consumers are mostly polyga-
mous.
Each consumer usually has several
1 2 JoomiflL OF HDOERTISIHB BESERBCH
. August 2002
BRAND ADVERTISING
serious partners in his or her active pur- The highly varying
population
responses • A good deal of contemporary consumer
chasing repertoire or consideration set, in the top line were misleading because advertising reflects brand differences
plus occasional flings, they merely reflect that big brands have that are so slight that one may wonder
In repertoire markets, a salient brand more users, with brand users being more whether consumers will consider them
seems seldom to play a unique role for its likely to say positi\ e things about their to add distinctive \ alue to the brand
customers—no deep commitment, Loy- brand (Barwise and Ehrenberg, 1970; (Weilbacher, 1993),
alty (or strictly, split-loyalty) is much the Franzen, 1999; Collins, 2002), • There is a danger that in searching for
same from brand to brand (e,g,, Ehrenberg Evaluative attitudes ("Tastes nice" or something different to say you end up
and Uncles, 1999, and earlier references "A brand I trust") are therefore generally basing advertising on small or meaning-
tbere)—it's just the number of loyal buy- found to be much the same among less claims (Keeble, 1998),
ers that varies greatly. Each brand is users of competitive brands, with just a
bought quite infrequently by most of its well-established small Double Jeopardy Nonetheless, this commodity-like simi-
customers (the Pareto-like predominance trend with market share—here from 48 '^rity of compeHHve brands tends still to
of light buyers, e,g,, Ehrenberg, 1959), For percent for the top brand I down to 37 be seen as regrettable news:
frequently bought branded goods or ser- percent for IV (e,g,, Ebrenberg and
, ,, ^ ii 1. ,.1. r- ju J..
-^nn-^s
Eacb marketing generation continues
\ices,
a brand s customers mostly buy the Goodhardt, 2002), " "
, , J,,, , -^ii nj ,1.1-fi 1,1 J to believe that tbere was, until only
other brands m their repertoires m total Brand-users beliefs about their brands •'
,^ ,,w . .1 ^i. c • 1 Tl.- u very recently, some golden period
more often: Your customers are mostly are therefore similar. This can be ex- //or
^, , , , ^ , ,11 1 • J u lu n ^ u ^ when all products [i,e,,
brands]
were
otber brands customers who occasionally plamed by the measures reflecting what "^
, ,, 1. 1- i_ . 1 J 1 riot onlv demonstrably different from
buy you, consumers believe about the product- •
,.,, 1 1 J, J- I i_ i_ 1 /• i_ j\ ./• eacb other but also, wondrously, better
What each brand s customers/m about category as a wbole (i,e,, any brand). If •'
^, , , ., , . ,, ^, •£• u J .^u i J .. thari each other (Bullmore, 1998),
the brands tbey know and use generally tbey use a specific brand, they tend to see
also does not \'ary idiosyncratically from their product-beliefs as applying to that , , , , , j j ,
•' •' '^ rr J a Indeed, most practitioner and academic
brand to brand. It mav seem surprising, brand, , , , , . ,,
^ " opmion
IS
that consumers need a reason
but competitive brands differ little in Tbe exceptions are certain functionally , .,. , ,
'^ "^ -^ to choose a specific brand,
bow many of tbeir customers say it "descriptive" characteristics of a particu- .- , , c -i , ,
' • ^ ^ Marketers, therefore, widely regard
"Tastes Nice," is "Good Value for lar brand, whicb tend also to be noted by , , ,,,, , . . • ,/ ,
brand differentiation as vital. If no func-
Money," or "A Brand
1
Trust," Table 1 il- its non-users (like Rice Krispies "Staying , , ,,,, , ,, , „. , , ,
' T J n tional differences exist, distinct Added
lustrates this, crisp in milk")—or a replay of some em- ,, , „ . , , ,, , ,
^ ^ •' Values need to be specially created for
Far more people say "A brand I trust" pbatic advertising slogan, , , , ..„ , , , ,,/
t^ ^ •> r o o jj^g brand— different values for eacb dif-
about tbe leading brand tban for tbe sixth ,
Dlstinctiveness,
not
brand differentiation
ferent brand:
brand (27 pe rcent versus 6 pe rcen t), TbeseTbe perceived sameness of competitive
differences are wbat most marketing ^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^ . This use of advertising-to add a sub-
people seem to note, but tbey are mislead- ^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^
. ^
j,,,,,
,3,,, ^, ^^e product-becomes
ing, Tbe reactions of tbe users of eacb ^^^ ^^^^ centurv ' increasingly important (Young, 1923),
brand are mucb more similar, Tbe second • ' , H is obvious tbat consumer percep-
line of Table 1 sbows tbat typically about • Tbe trends in our tecbnology lead to tions of differences between brands
45 percent of users for any brand say tbat competing products being more and caused by advertising are [widely
tbeir brand is one tbey trust, more tbe same (Young, 1923), thought to be] tbe essence of tbe adNer-
tising opportunity (Weilbacber, 1993),
TABLE 1
.^.......^ . ,_ ..^ The orthodox \iew therefore seems to
A Typical Attitudinal Response to Large and Small Brands u .u , A ^ ^ K ^
i^- — — be tbat advertisements sbould carry or im-Top 6 Brands: I 11 III IV V VI ply "selling-points" (i,e,, tbey sbould
prof-
„" fer added values), wbicb will enable con-% of pop. saying "A brand I trust 27 16 10 8 6 6 sumers to cboose between brand A and% of users of brand X saying this 48 44 43 47 39 37 br d B
July
.
August 2002 JOURDHL OF HDUERTISinG RESERRCH
1 3
BRAND ADVERTISING
Yet wben we deconstructed and tested
advertising messages as noted earlier,
tbey were often seen as only providing
"talking-points"^vvays of saying some-
tbing about tbe brand and creatively pub-
licizing it—and not "selling points," seen
as differentiating tbe brands.
As stressed by Moran (1990), creative
advertising people tbemselves often do
not subscribe to tbe notion tbat consumers
need a persuasive message or differentiat-
ing "brand values," Many of tbe adver-
tisements that tbey produce—and tbat
tbeir managements and clients accept and
run—do not explicitly articulate strong
brand differentiation. Instead, tbey mostly
say, "Coke Is It," "X Gets Clotbes Clean,"
or sbow a car driven along a mountain
road.
As briefly illustrated in Table 1, tbere is
little
ev
idence tbat tbeir users as sucb see
brands as possessing differentiating
added values. Even tbe protagonists of tbe
brand- values tbeories do not seem to give
operational definitions or substantiated
examples (e,g,, Aaker et al,, 1992; Ambler,
2000—see also McDonald, 1992; Feldwick,
1998),
Cboosing between competitive brands
is tberefore usually quick and easy (e,g,.
Miller and Berry, 1998; Heatb, 2001) com-
pared witb tbe quite difficult choices be-
tween functionally different product vari-
ants (a coupe or a SUV, a faster versus
a less costly processor, a lemon or
mango flavor, etc). We believe tbat is wby
advertising as a weak force (i,e,, mere
publicity) can actually influence brand
cboice at all—it is a cboice between close
substitutes,
SALES EFFECTS
Brand maintenance as the main outcome
Tbe main aim of advertising is usually
taken to be "Growtb," Tbe looked-for ad-
vertising effectiveness is tberefore almost
always identified witb extra sales, higher
... enduring growth beyond that of the market seldom, if
ever, materializes. Not every brand can grow its share.
margins, added values, or more favorable
attitudes.
This may seem businesslike. After all,
bow can a marketing plan ask for mil-
lions and not promise added sales or
prof-
its to pay for it? But enduring growtb be-
yond tbat of the market seldom, if ever,
materializes. Not every brand can grow its
sbare.
Yet growtb as tbe target has mostly re-
mained unquestioned. And so advertising
bas famously remained unaccountable:
"Advertising is bewildering because cur-
rently
[sic!],
no one knows what advertis-
ing really does in the market place" (Li-
lien, Kotler, and Moorthy, 1992), But Kot-
ler and his colleagues continued, rather
exceptionally: "Wbat advertising is sup-
posed
to do is fairly clear, ,,, to increase
company sales and/or profits over wbat
tbey would otberwise be,"
Tbis means to us tbat competitive
brands sbould mostly not
lose
sales if tbey
are advertised. But few commentators
openly acknowledge sucb an apparently
negative (i,e,, nonpositive) goal.
Advertising
may
at times be followed by
a sales increase (e,g,, Abrabam and Lo-
disb,
1987; Franzen, 1999; McDonald,
1997),
But tbese tend to be sbort-lived ups-
and-downs, since few advertised brands'
market sbares increase for long, Sucb
"sbort-term" advertising does not pay for
itself (Epbron, 2001), otberwise advertis-
ers would advertise more.
Our conjecture—wbicb could be tested—
is tbat tbe extra sbort-term sales are due to
briefly refresbed brand awareness, Tbis
would mostly occur If tbe brand was al-
ready in tbat consumer's brand-repertoire
(advertising being noticed and liked far
more by brand users tban non-users).
Occasionally a campaign will cut
tbrougb and seem to greatly boost sales—
the stuff of creati\ e ad\'C'rtising awards. It
often contains no selling propositions. As
Jones (1997) notes, with apparent surprise:
"Tbe advertisements shown to bave great-
est effect were certainly not bard-selling in
tbe conventional sense, Tbey were like-
able ,,, visual ratber tban verbal,"
But if advertising of established brands
seldom increases
long-term
sales, wby tben
do brands have big-budget advertising
and marketing support? The simple an-
swer is "Competition," Tbe expectation is
tbat competitors will gain if you do not
market your own brand effectively.
If your brand bas 10 percent t)f tbe mar-
ket (wbich is quite a lot), it nonetheless
bas 90 percent of tbe market against it,
Tbat means rougbly 90 percent of all the
distribution efforts, display, advertising,
promotion, word-of-moutb, after-sales
service, added values, quality-control,
sales training, CRM, etc, in tbe category.
All of tbese are putting competitive pres-
sure on your own sales.
Indeed, faced witb widely displayed
and bea\ ily promoted competitive look-a-
likes,
even customer loyalty seems to
erode sligbtly (i.e,, a "somewbat leaky
bucket"—East and Hammond, 1996), But
it mostly does so slowly, because of con-
sumers' and also retailers' well-
establisbed babitual buying propensi-
ties—re-ordering ratber tban making new
decisions.
Hence we tbink tbnt advertising is
needed to try and maintain botb salience
(penetration), and customer retention, and
also to give tbe brand a cbance of catcbing
its fair sbare of "the leaks,"
Keeping eacb brand in competitive
near-equilibrium or even stalemate has to
be tbe
main
realistic marketing aim for es-
1 4 JOURRRL OF RDUERTISIRG RESERRCR July
.
August 2002
BRAND ADVERTISING
tablisbed brands. It is what mostly hap-
pens,
whatever marketers tend to say
about growtb. The occasional larger gain
is a bonus for a fortunate few—perbaps
tbose who "get e\ erytbing right," not just
tbeir advertising.
Brand maintenance may not appear
very macbo as a goal. But top manage-
ment continues year after year to allo-
cate—perbaps reluctantly—big advertis-
ing budgets in markets tbat remain stub-
bornly steady, Tbis seems to recognize
advertising's primarily defensi\ e role.
Evaluating advertising
It is because of tbe lack of obvious longer-
term sales gains tbat marketers put in
place detailed tracking systems to try to
evaluate their advertising effecti\'eness:
"U&A" and brand image tracking, or, in
modern parlance, equity monitors,
Tbe concept of salience bas implications
for sucb researcb:
• Traditional awareness measures are in-
adequate, as no matter bow tbese are
implemented ("top of mind," etc), tbey
only tap tbe link between tbe brand
name and the product category cue (Ro-
maniuk and Sharp, 2002a),
• Instruments tbat seek to document bow
well tbe brand's image conforms to
some ideal make unwarranted causal
assumptions about tbe effects of wbat
buyers feel about tbe brand and wbat
tbey do,
• Multi-attribute attitudinal models largely
assume salience ratber than diagnose it,
• "Persuasion sbifts" may largely or
wboUy reflect refresbed awareness,
• More attention needs to be paid to bow
many relevant consumers think of tbe
brand, and how often or how likely tbey
are to do
so,
ratber tban to
what
tbey feel
about it (wbicb will not differ mucb
from brand to brand, for brand users).
Mucb work is needed on advertising
evaluation: to remove tbe sole focus on
growtb for every advertiser, to sbake off
tbe yeshges of 1960s attitude psychology
(Foxall, 1996), and to develop adequate
measures of salience.
For such measures to be useful in ad-
\ertising evaluation tbere needs to be
some evidence of links to botb advertising
(i,e,,
sensitivity to cbanges in advertising)
and to subsequent buyer bebavior, Tbis
may be tecbnicaUy bard. But tbe biggest
burdle is for "no-cbange" brand mainte-
nance to become accepted as tbe basic cri-
terion of advertising success: "Having to
run hard to stand still,"
CONCLUDING DISCUSSION
Tbe publicity perspective of advertising,
wbicb we bave sougbt to outline in tbis
paper, does not of course explain cvery-
tbing. But it can unify many of advertis-
ing's diverse aspects,
Witbin tbis framework, advertising
tbeory and practice bang togetber better,
and botb make more sense, Tbus tbe tra-
ditional advertising goal of effective per-
suasion—prevailing upon people to
change their attitudes or feelings—has
long been found very difficult to acbieve
(e,g,, Moran, 1990), It, therefore, bardly
makes sense to try to do so by a 30-second
commercial or two.
Few will, bowever, question tbat even
five seconds' publicity for a brand can
successfully remind people of it. And tbat
30 seco nds can probably do so better, witb
more impact on refresbing memory traces
for tbe brand, or even perbaps enbancing
tbem or linking up a new one.
Ongoing and substantial cbange with
sustained growtb in market sbare—tbe
supposed outcome of persuasiv e ad\ ertis-
ing—is rarely reported for establisbed
brands. It is, in any case, impossible for
even/
brand. Consumers tbemselves ha\'e
long felt free to say that tbey have "never
been influenced by adxertising," since
only rarely do tbey cbange wbat tbey feel
or do about establisbed brands,
Nonetbeless, botb academic textbooks
and practitioners' pronouncements con-
tinue to say or imply tbat cbanging u'hat
people feel is what advertising is sup-
posed to do. Hence, persuasive brand ad-
vertising bas mostly failed wben it is
judged by its own goal, i.e., growtb
through persuasion. The advertising in-
dustry, as well as management generally,
ought to face up to that and cbange tbe
goalposts, Witb profitable brand mainte-
nance as a goal, everyone can win, witb
occasionally tbe bonus of some lasting ex-
tra sales perbaps.
Brand advertising seen as creative pub-
licity can succeed—and often does. And
tbis success bas to b e measured and e\ alu-
ated, even if only as "No cbange,"
Even for an establisbed brand, publicity
can successfully remind tbe experienced
consumer of tbe brand and belp to
counter its many competitors' over-
wbelming availability, at mucb tbe same
quality and prices. In tbis tbreatening
competitive context, publicity can belp to
maintain tbe number of people to wbom
the brand is broadly "Salient," tbe term
we are using for tbe brand coming to
mind, being familiar, safe, and satisficing
(i.e.,
being "good enougb").
Advertising's differing tasi<s
Advertising is generally expected to fulfill
several very different tasks, sometimes
more or less simultaneously:
1,
To promote a new brand
2,
To entice additional recruits to an es-
tablisbed brand
3,
To encourage tbat brand's existing cli-
entele to stay
4,
To tempt tbese existing customers to
buy it more
5,
To encourage buyers to pay more
July. August 2002 JOURRRL OF RDUERTISinG RESERRCR 15
BRAND ADVERTISING
Tbere are also tbe different tasks of tbe
brand motivating its own (sales) staff
tbrougb its advertising, as well as entbus-
ing its suppliers and its retailers. Yet dif-
fering advertising tasks can be involved
wben pursuing investors, sponsors, busi-
ness-to-busint'ss customers, e-commerce,
politicians, or general PR,
Witb tbe persuasive view of advertising
tbese different tasks would seem to re-
quire different strategies, tactics, copy,
and execution perbaps (e,g,, Anscbuetz,
2002),
In contrast, the publicity perspec-
tive can, we believe, address all sucb dif-
fering tasks witb its single overarcbing
game plan. It can tell and remind people
of tbe brand, letting tbem bring their own
associations and needs to the issue, "Al-
ways Coca-Cola" could be said in tbe
same breatb to existing customers, pro-
specti\'e ones, and tbe trade.
And it could be said over and over and
over again witb little if any wear-out, un-
like bard sell (e,g,, "Wbile stock lasts"),
Tbe
tactics
of sucb publicity would, bow-
e\er, vary prodigiously^—witb specific
concepts and tbe bigbly varied creati\'f
executions tbat we all know.
Some people fear tbat tbis "mere pub-
licity" stance is unbelpful to creatives. But
we suggest tbat tbe exact opposite is the
case.
Advertising a better mousetrap is
fairly fasy if it is in fact a bit better. One
can, for instance, just say so. But having to
center your advertising on adding year af-
ter year some indiscernible "Wbiter and
Brigbter" product-boon can restrict the
kind of creativity tbat aims at memorable
impacts for tbe brand.
In contrast, publicizing a brand gi\'es
ample scope for imaginative insigbts
("Tbe Big Idea") and for disciplined mar-
keting-communication skills ("Always
Coca-Cola"), Tbis can stimulate creativity,
i,e,, making distinctive and memorable
publicity for tbe brand out of next to notb-
ing, Tbis seems tbe hallmark of good ad-
... we should accept that advertising mostly needs to
refresh,
and may occasionally enhance acceptance of the
brand as one to buy and/or to consider.
vertising as we know it. We tbink sHll tbat
advertising a competitive brand means
just "Telling a brand story well" (Ebren-
berg, 1974), witbout there being just one
solution, Tbere is buge scope— tbe cam-
paign need not be bemmed in by tbe
brand's "selling proposition,"
It is not tbat consumers' feelings or ra-
tional tbougbts about the brand do not
matter. But tbat tbey cannot be easily in-
fluenced, as tbey tend to be much tbe
same among users of each competitive
brand, ("Users of brand A tbink or feel
about A mucb wbat users of brand
B
tbink
or feel about B,") Wbat seems to differ be-
tween different brands is not wbat tbeir
users feel about tbem, but bow many
people feel it.
This differs from Dr, Jobnson's much
quoted but mistaken \ iew tbat "Promise,
large Promise, is tbe soul of an advertise-
ment" (even if be just meant puffery). It
differs also from James Webb Young's
more recent decree in 1923 that for "Ad-
vertising to add a subjective value to tbe
product becomes increasingly important,"
Finally, it differs from Gardner and
Levy's opening of tbeir
1955
classic:
"Basic
to many of tbe problems of advertising
and selling is tbe question of tbe consum-
er's ,,, conception of tbe brand,"
Our contrary tbesis is tbat advertising
and selling do not depend on consumers
seeing tbe brand as different, but upon tbe
brand being seen at all, i,e,, as broadly sa-
lient and tberefore being in tbe consum-
ers'
individual consideration sets, Tbat
bas long been treated as a necessary con-
dition for cboosing a brand (from say
Howard and Sbeth, 1969, onwards).
Our overall conclusion is tbat from tbe
publicity perspective, ad\ ertising practice
need generally not cbange. The notion
"Creative Publicity" alreadx seems to re-
flect what most advertising in fact does.
What would need to change is the way
advertising is generally thought of, talked
about, and evaluated, Tbat would be
tbeory coming into line v\'itb practice.
Instead of trying to persuade experi-
enced consumers tbat every advertised
brand is better or best, we should accept
tbat advertising mostly needs to refresb,
and may occasionally enhance, acceptance
of tbe brand as one to buy and/or to
consider,
ANDREW EHRENBERQ
is professor of marketing at South
Bank University, London, He is chairman of the R&D
initiative. He was at the London Business School for
over 20 years and in industry for 15 years. Professor
Ehrenberg is a frequent speaker and active consultant
on both sides of the Atlantic.
NEIL
BARNARD,
Ph,D,. is a consultant in market
analysis and advertising evaluation, including at South
Bank University, His previous positions have included
marketing and advertising analyst at Young &
Rubicam,
Kellogg s Research Fellow at the London
Business School, and analysis section manager at
Beecham Products,
RACHEL KENNEDY,
Ph,D,, is a senior research associate
at The Marketing Science Centre at the University of
South Australia, Adelaide. She has also consulted at
South Bank University, She has published and spoken
intemationally on advertising and consumer behavior,
HELEN BLDOM
is an intemational management and
communications consultant who has worked with
Andrew Ehrenberg on consumer behavior since 1972,
Based in Brussels, she now specializes in Diversity
and Cultural Orientations issues.
1 6 JOURnRL OF RDUERTISIRG RESERRCR July
•
August 2002
BRAND ADVERTISING
REFERENCES
AAKER,
D, A, , R, BArRA, and I. G ,
MYERS,
Ad-
vertising Management. I'nglevi'ood Cliffs,
NJ:
Prentice-Hall,
19 92,
ABRAHAM,
M, M, , an d L, M,
LODISH,
"Pro-
moter:
An
Automated Promotion Evaluation
System," Marketing Science
6, 2
(1987): 101-23,
AMHI
I:R,
T , "Persuasion, Pride
and
Prejudice:
How
Ads
Work." International ]ournal
of Ad-
vertising
19,
3
(2000): 219-315,
ANSCHUETZ,
N,
"Why
a
Brand's Most Valuable
Consumer
Is t h e
N ex t
One
It
Adds," journal of
Advertising Research
42, 1
(2002):
15-^21.
B ADDEl
I
"1,
A, D ,
The
Psychology
of
Memory.
New York: Basic Books,
1'^'74,
BARWISE,
P,, and A,
EHRENBERG,
Television and
U<
Audience. London: Sage,
1970,
BEM,
D,
J,
"Self-Perception:
An
Alternative
Interpretation
of
Cognitive Dissonance
Phe-
nomena," Psychological Review
74, 3,
(1967):
183-200,
BULLMORE,
J,
Behind
the
Scenes
in
Advertising,
2"''
ed,
Henley-on-Thames: Admap Publica-
Hons,
1998,
-, "Advertising
and
Its
Audience:
A
Game
of
Two Halves," International journal of
Advertising
IS,
3 ,
(1999): 275-84.
, "Posh Spice
and
Persil," Market Leader
16,
Spring, (2002): 40-46,
COLLINS,
M. "Analyzing Brand Image Data,"
Marketing Research
14,
2
(2002): 33-36,
Dl
PLESSIS,
E, "Memory
and
Likeabilit>: Keys
to Understanding
Ad
Effects," Admap 33,
7
(1998):
42-lfi.
HASI,
R,, a nd K,
HAMMOND,
"The Erosion of
Repeat-Purchase Loyalty." Marketing Letters
7,
1 (1996):
163-71,
EHRENBERG,
A,
"T he
Pattern
of
Consumer
Pur-
chases," Applied Statistics
8, 1
(1959):
26-41,
, "Repetitive Advertising
and the Con-
sumer," Journal
of
Advertising Research
14,
2
(1974):
25-34, (Also
in
Jones, 1998,
and
re-
printed
in
JAR 40,
6,
2000,)
, "Persuasion: Tacit Suggestion Versus
FuU-Front.il Advocacy," International Journal of
Advertising
19,
3
(2000):
417-21.
,
and M.
UNCLES,
"Understanding
Dirichlet-Type Markets." Working paper.
South Bank University,
19 99,
,
and G, J,
GOODHARDT,
"New
Brands:
Near-Instant Loyalty," Journal
of
Targeting,
Measurement
and
Analysis
for
Marketitig
10,
1
(2001):
9-16,
-,
and
•
-. "Double Jeopardy Revis-
ited, Again," Marketing Research
14, 1
(2002):
40-42.
EPHRON,
E, "Recession Fears Call
for
Strategy
Spending Scarce
Ad
Dollars
Now
to
Lift
Prof-
its Tomorrow
Is a
Tough Sell," Advertising
Age, February
26,
2001,
FELDWICK,
P,
" A
Brief Guided Tour through
the Copy-Testing Jungle," Pre-testing Advertis-
ing. Admap Seminar, 1998,
, L,
A
Tlieory
of
Cognitive Dissonance.
Stanford, CA: Stanford Press,
1957,
FITZGERALD,
N, "Life
and
Death
in
the
World
of Brands," Market Leader
14,
Spring (2001):
17-22,
Fox.\LL,
G,
Consumers
in
Context:
The BPM Re-
search Program. London: Routledge,
19 96,
FRANZEN,
G, Brands
and
Advertising. Henley-
on-Thames: Admap Publications, 1999.
,
and M.
BOUWM
\ \ . The
Mental World of
Brands. WARC, United Kingdom: World
Ad -
vertising Research Centre, 2001,
GALBRAITH,
J, K,
The Affluent Society,
5th
ed,
London: Penguin,
19 58,
GARDNER,
B, B, , an d S, J,
LEVY,
"The Product
and
the
Brand," Hanmrd Business Revieio 33,
2
(1435):
33-34.
HARRISCIN,
A.
A,
"Response Competition,
Fre-
quency, Exploratory Beha\
ior an d
Liking,"
Journal
of
Personality
and
Socinl Psychologi/
9,
4
(1968):
363-68,
HEATH,
R, The Hiddai Power of Advertising:
Low Involvement Processing. Hciiley-on-
Thames: World Advertising Research Centre,
2001,
HEDC;I:s.
A,
Testing;
to
Destruction,
2nd ed, Lon-
don: Institute
of
Practitioners
in
Advertising,
1998,
HILTS,
P,
J, "A
Brain Unit Seen
as
Index
for
Recalling Memories," The Nezv York Times,
September
24,
1991,
Hoi
DEN,
S,
J,
S,,
an d
R,
J.
Lurz,
"Ask Not
What
the
Brand l£\ okes;
Ask
What
Can
Evoke
the Brand,"
In
Adi>ances
in
Consumer Research,
J,
F,
Sherry
and B,
Stemthal,
eds, 19
(199 2):
101-07,
HOWARD,
J,, and
J,
SHITH,
Tlxe
Tlieory
of
Buyer
Behavior.
New
York,
NY
:
Wiley,
19 69,
HUNTER,
I,
M, L,
Memory. London: Penguin,
1964.
July. August 2002 JDURnRL OF RRUERTISIRG RESERRCR
1 7
BRAND ADVERTISING
N,
S, The
Rambler. London, 1751,
JONES,
J,
P,
"I s
Advertising Still Salesman-
ship?"
Journal
of
Advertising Research
37,
,3
(1997):
9-15,
, Hoiv Adi'crtiiirtg Works. Thousand
Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications,
19 98,
KAY,
J, Fouihiotions
of
Corporate
Success:
How
Business Strategies
Add
Value. Oxford: Oxford
Universitv' Press,
1993
Ki
I
Bi,F,
G, "Tho
Weak,
the
Strong,
and the
Creative Department," Admap 33,
7
(]M')f<):
38-41,
Y,
R,, and
B,
SHARP,
"Attitude
Is Not
Necessary:
A
Look
<it A d
Likeability without
It," European Marketing Acadertty Conference,
Bergen, Norway,
May
8-11,
2()01,
KRUGMAN,
H,
"Why
Three Advertisements
May
Be
Enough," journal
of
Advertising
Re-
search 12,6(1972): 11-14,
LAN\t)N,
J,
"Branding Essentials
and the Now
Environment," Adniap, June 1993,
LEI
11
ANG, P, S, H,, D, R, Wn
IINK,
M,
WIDEI,,
and
P,
NAERT,
Building Models
for
Marketing
Decisions. Boston, MA: Kluwer, 2000,
LILIEN,
G,, P ,
KOTLER,
and K, S,
MCX)RTH>,
Marketing Models. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ:
Pren-
tice H<ill,
1992,
Mcr>>\ALD,
C,
How Adivrtisitig Works.
H en -
ley-on-Thames:
NTC
Books,
1992,
, Pre-testing Advertisements. Henley-on-
Thames: Ad m ap Publications,
199 7,
MCWILLIAM,
G,
"LOW
InvoKement Brands,"
Marketing Intelligettce
&
Planning 15,
2/3
(1997):
60-70,
MILLER,
S,,
AND
L,
BERRY,
"Brand Salience ver-
sus Brand Image:
The
Theories
of
Ad \
ertising
Effectiveness," Journal
of
Advertising Research
38,
5
(1998): 77-82,
MILLS,
P,, A,
EHRENBERG,
R,
KENMEDV,
and T,
ScHLAEPPi,
"The
Forms Advertisements Take
(FAT),"
EMAC Conference Proceedings, Rotter-
dam, 2000,
, R,,
A,
EHRENBERG,
and T,
SCHLAEPPi,
"The
Forms that
TV Ads
Take,"
ESOMAR/ARF
TV
Audience Measurement
Con-
ference,
Bal
Harbor,
FL,
2000,
MORAN,
W, T, "Brand Presence
and the Per-
ceptual Frame," Journal
of
Advertising Research
20,
5
(1 990) :
9-16,
MYHRS-LLVY,
J,, and P,
MAU^VIYA.
"Consum-
ers'
Processing
of
Persuasive Advertisements:
An Integrativ
L'
Framework
of
Persuasion
Theories," Journal
of
Marketing 63, special
is-
sue (1999): 4,S-60,
OED. "Persuasion,"
The
Shorter Oxford English
Dictionary, 2000, third
e d,
PECHMANN,
C , and D,
STEWART,
"Advertising
Repetition:
A
Critical Review
of
Wearin
and
Wearout,"
In
Current Issues
&
Research
in
Ad-
vertising 1988, James
H,
Leigh
and
Claude
R,
Martin,
Jr,, ed s, ,'\nn
Arbor,
MI:
Un i\ crsLty
of
Michigan,
19 89,
ROBERTS,
J, H,, and J, M,
LATIIN,
"Consider-
ation: Review
of
Research
and
Prospects
for
Future Insights," Joumal
of
Marketing Research
34,
3,
(1997): 406-10,
RoMANiLK,
J,, and B,
SHARP,
"The
Concept
of
Brand Salience
and
Implications
for
Measure-
ment,"
In
Proceedings
of
the European Marketing
Academy Conference, Braga, Portugal: Univer-
sitv
of
Mino, 2002a,
tomer Defection
in
Subscription Markets,"
Journal
of
Marketing Managettient, forthcoming
(2002b).
SHANKAR,
V., G,
CARPINTEK,
and L,
KRISH-
\AMURTH:
"The
Advantages
of
Fntry
in
the
Growth Stago
of
the
Product
I ife
Cycle:
An
Empirical Analysis," Journal
of
Marketing
Re-
search
36,
2
(1999): 269-76,
SHOC
KFR, A, D,, M,
BEN-AKIVA,
B, BotvARA,
and
P,
NEDUNC
\Di, "Consideration
Set
Influ-
ences
on
Consumer Decision-Making
and
Choice: Issues, Models,
and
Suggestions,"
Marketitig Utters
2,
3
(1991): 181-97,
SIMON,
H, Administrative Behavior.
Ne w
York,
NY: McMillan,
1947,
STKVVAKI,
D,
W,,
and D, H,
FuRSE, "Analysis
of
the Impact
of
Rxccutional Factors
on
Adver-
tising Performance," Journal
of
Advertising
Re-
search
24,
6
(1984): 23-26,
-,
and
-. "Brand Salience
and Cus-
D,
M,,
and A,
SILVESTER,
Advertising
attd
the
Mind
cf
the Consumer,
2"'' ed ,
Austra-
lia: Allen
&
Unwin, 2000,
,
and L,
FRIEDMAN,
"Do You
Model
Ad
Awareness
or
Advertising Awareness?" Journal
of Advertising Research
40 ,
5
(2000): 32-36,
SWINDELLS,
A, "The
Invisible Mechanics
of
Consumption,"
In
Proceedings
of
the Market
Research Society Conference, Australia, 2000.
WEILBACHER,
W, M , Bratid Marketing. Lincoln-
wood,
IL: N TC
Books, 1993,
YouN(.,
J, W, How to
Become an /Wivr/;smg
Man.
Chicago,
IL:
Advertising Publications
Inc,
14h3, (Based
on
lectures
in
1923),
ZAIONC,
R,
B,
"T he
Attitudinal Effects
of
Mere
Exposure," Journat
of
Personality
and
Social
Psy-
chology
y,
2
(1968):
1-27,
ZiLi
sKE,
H,
" Th e
Remembering
and
Forgetting
ot
Ad\
ertising," Journal
of
Marketing 23,
1
(1959):
239-43,
1 8 JDURnRL or HDUERTISinG RESEflRCH juiy. August 2002
