ArticlePDF Available

Measuring Affective Advertising: Implications of Low Attention Processing on Recall


Abstract and Figures

This article is about affective advertising, defined as that which works more on our emotions and feelings than on our knowledge and beliefs. This sort of advertising can be processed effectively at relatively low levels of attention and as a result does not always perform well on recall measures. We compare the most popular recall-based metric claimed advertising awareness against an approach that deduces effectiveness from recognition and find claimed advertising awareness seriously underestimates the effectiveness of the advertising tested.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Measuring Affective Advertising: Implications of
Low Attention Processing on Recall
Robert Heath & Agnes Nairn
University of Bath
School of Management
Working Paper Series
This working paper is produced for discussion purposes only. The papers are expected to
be published in due course, in revised form and should not be quoted without the author’s
University of Bath School of Management
Working Paper Series
University of Bath School of Management
Claverton Down
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 1225 826742
Fax: +44 1225 826473
2005.01 Bruce A. Rayton
Specific Human Capital as an Additional Reason
for Profit Sharing
Catherine Pardo,
Stephan C. Henneberg,
Stefanos Mouzas and
Peter Naudè
Unpicking the Meaning of Value in Key Account
2005.03 Andrew Pettigrew and
Stephan C. Henneberg
Funding Gap or Leadership Gap – A Panel Discussion on
Entrepreneurship and Innovation
Robert Heath & Agnes
Measuring Affective Advertising: Implications of Low
Attention Processing on Recall
by Robert Heath & Agnes Nairn
This paper is about affective advertising, defined as that which works on our emotions and
feelings not just on our knowledge and beliefs. We compare the most popular recall-based
metric – claimed ad awareness – against an approach which deduces effectiveness from
recognition, and find claimed ad awareness seriously underestimates the effectiveness of the
advertising tested.
In 1961, in response to Vance Packard’s famous polemic ‘The Hidden Persuaders’, Rosser
Reeves declared ‘There are no hidden persuaders. Advertising works openly, in the bare and
pitiless sunlight.’ (Reeves 1961: 70). Doubtless there are some who believe, or would like to
believe, that this is still the case, and that the way advertising works is still transparent. But
we know a lot more about how the brain works than we did 40 years ago, and what we have
learned confirms that advertising, indeed communication in general, is a far more complex
process than we used to think it was.
What complicates everything is not claims or brands or products, but emotions; specifically
our emotions as consumers. In 1961 it was believed that emotions were a consequence of our
thoughts, and that if we understood what we were thinking then we understood everything.
But pioneers in psychology like Robert Zajonc (1984) and Robert Bornstein (1989) shattered
this illusion. They showed that feelings and emotions have primacy over thoughts, and that
emotional responses can be created even when we have no awareness of the stimulus that
causes them. More recently, Damasio (1994) has shown that our emotions are critical to
decision-making; and in another area of psychology work by Daniel Schacter and others has
demonstrated that can take place even when we pay no attention whatever, and that this
learning can interact with our emotional memory stores (Schacter 1996, Shapiro et al 1997).
All this points to advertising having far more power than we think it has. In general we don’t
think it affects us very much, if at all. For example, a poll of American consumers conducted
by Cap Gemini Ernst & Young in 2003 found 82% of US consumers did not believe that
advertising influenced their decision to buy a car, which CGE&Y used as evidence that car
manufacturers are wasting money on ads (FT 14th October 2003). But 13 years of IPA
Advertising Effectiveness Awards have proved beyond doubt that advertising affects us,
whether we believe it or not. So how is it that consultancies like CGE&Y can make such a
patently naïve claim, suggesting that what consumers believe represents the sum of truth
about how advertising works?
We think the explanation arises from the way in which advertising is evaluated. Although our
knowledge of how advertising works has changed considerably, the measures we generally
use to measure it have not. We still rely on survey data which asks people their opinions of
advertising. We still use questions which invite people to recall things they have no reason at
all to remember. And in many cases we evaluate success using metrics whose origins can be
tracked back to the early part of last century.
A brief history of advertising measurement:
The remark, attributed in the UK to Lord Leverhulme, that '50% of my advertising is wasted,
but I don't know which 50%' is well known. Less well known is an observation by Niall
Fitzgerald, current chairman of Unilever, who said in an interview in 1998 ‘If someone asked
me, rather than one of my distinguished predecessors, which half of my advertising was
wasted I would probably say 90% is wasted but I don’t know which 90%’ (Fitzgerald 1998
p22). Given the skills and technology we now have at our fingertips, it is nothing short of
astonishing that the chairman of a major world advertiser is less sure nowadays of the power
of advertising than half a century ago.
Partly this situation arises because of the complexity of advertising. David Bernbach’s
famous statement that ‘Advertising is fundamentally persuasion and persuasion happens to be
not a science, but an art’ (Feldwick 2002: 139) give a clue to the myriad alternative opinions
which can be ventured about the merit of even the simplest and smallest piece of
communication. And alternatives equate to harder decisions and longer decision times. Little
wonder that discussions about how well or poorly a campaign has performed tend to start
almost as soon as the first ad appears, because if a TV campaign is found not to be working
then it may be months before it can be adjusted, and years before a replacement is available.
So how can it be discovered at this early stage if an advertising campaign is working? In the
IPA awards advertising effectiveness is generally deemed to have been proved only when
shifts in attitudes or increments in sales or margin can be linked directly to advertising
activity (Broadbent 2000, Roberts 2002). But we all know that sales can take a long time to
respond, and likewise we have become used to image metrics showing few if any shifts in the
short term. As Gordon Brown observes, '…reality rarely co-operates…’ and ‘… the majority
of advertisers have to be content with determining the probable effectiveness …’ (Brown
1986: 289). Fortunately the advertising industry has always favoured fairly simple
hierarchical models so ‘probable’ effectiveness can be determined by collecting data relating
to one of the intermediate stages of whichever model you have based your advertising on.
The earliest and still the best known hierarchical model, AIDA, was reputedly conceived by
St. Elmo Lewis in 1898 as a guide to salesmen (Strong 1925). AIDA, standing for Attention
Interest Decision Action, invites sales (i.e. Action) to be assessed by measurement of
attention or interest, which even today poses something of a challenge. As it turned out, the
first practical intermediate measures were devised in the 1920’s by ‘… two young and
entrepreneurial college professors from the Midwest, Daniel Starch and George Gallup’
(Feldwick 2002 p.134). Starch’s model, ‘Noticed Read Understood Desired
Action’ (Starch 1923), makes nothing like as catchy an acronym as AIDA, but it allowed the
probability of a sale to be assessed by the level of ‘noticing and reading’ (sic) which took
place. This led Starch to devise the Starch Test, a recognition-based system for the
measurement of ‘Reading and Noting’ of press advertising.
But Starch’s colleague, George Gallup, realised that this approach took no account of
variations in the time which elapses between exposure of advertising and purchase of product.
Gallup therefore devised a different intermediate measure which took account of the decay in
memory which would result from this time gap. This measure was Spontaneous Recall. It
was commercially introduced as a measure of press advertising effectiveness by Gallup in the
1930’s, and later, when TV advertising arrived in the 40's, he pioneered with Claude
Robinson the famous 'Day-after-recall' technique (Du Plessis 1994). Thereafter Recall
spread like ‘flu, and by the 60’s, in the words of William Barclay, ‘Recall of commercial
content was the principal measure of communication effectiveness’ (Barclay et al 1965: 41).
But it was Gordon Brown, described in Admap in 1994 as ‘probably the most influential
single voice in contemporary advertising research’, who was responsible for turning recall
into an even more potent metric. Brown realised that genuine spontaneous recall was of little
value in a world in which advertising was becoming commonplace, so he devised a more
sensitive question for ascertaining recall: ‘We show a list of brands and ask “which of these
brands … have you seen advertised on television recently’ (Brown 1985: 57). The usefulness
of the resulting metric – claimed ad awareness – was enhanced by the development of an
'Awareness Index', which provided a one-number score for the success a campaign has in
increasing claimed ad awareness for a brand (Brown 1986). And publication in the same year
of a study run with Stephen Colman of Cadburys which showed evidence of a link to sales
effect lent even further weight to the metric (Colman & Brown 1986). By 1991 it was
described in a critical paper by Feldwick as having ‘…gripped the imagination of both
advertisers and agencies as a simple figure … a measure of advertising effectiveness’
(Feldwick et al, 1991; 22).
Measures such as brand name prompted ad awareness and detailed recall have appeared in
almost every major advertising tracking study for the last 20 years, and this ubiquity has
encouraged a simplistic view of advertising effectiveness to develop. Gordon Brown
describes an ad which failed to achieve high recall as ‘a disaster’ and one which did achieve
high recall as ‘a triumph’ (Brown 1985: 57). Haley & Baldinger, writing of an experimental
study into advertising copy testing, observe that ‘Persuasion and recall … are likely to
remain primary evaluative measures in the foreseeable future’ (1991 p.30). Even notable
academics like Rossiter and Percy refer to brand-prompted ad recall as ‘a check on
advertising’s causality in influencing brand attitudes’ (1997: 587).
But has anyone actually checked how valid these recall-based metrics are? Common sense
suggests that advertising will work best if we remember it, but does this mean that advertising
works less well if we don’t remember it? Evidence that we may be wrong to place so much
faith in these types of metrics comes from Leonard Lodish’s meta-analysis of 389 split cable
TV advertising experiments using the Behaviorscan® panel. Lodish concluded that: ‘It is
unlikely there is a strong relationship between standard measures of TV commercial recall …
and sales impact of the copy’. (Lodish et al 1995: 138). So what, if any, case can be made
against the use of recall-based metrics?
The case against recall-based metrics:
The belief underlying recall-based metrics is that advertising has to be persuasive in order to
be effective (Myers Levey & Malavlya 1999). This is particularly the case in the USA,
where, as Tim Ambler so eloquently puts it, ‘The assumption that advertising equals
persuasion is so ingrained … that a challenge elicits much the same reaction as questioning
your partner’s parentage’ (Ambler 2000: 299). Persuasion, defined as 'to move by argument,
reasoning, or pleading to a belief, position, or course of action', (Longman Dictionary 1984,
p1096) works best if the person you are trying to argue, reason or plead with pays attention to
and recalls what you are saying, otherwise your efforts will be largely wasted.
This is almost certainly why marketing universally assumes that high attention equates to
advertising effectiveness. For example, Philip Kotler, author the world’s most popular
marketing textbook, states unhesitatingly that “The advertiser has to turn the ‘big idea’ into
an actual ad execution that will capture the target market’s attention and their interest”
(Kotler, Armstrong, Saunders & Wong 2002: 668). And even the UK’s most celebrated
marketing academic, the late Peter Doyle, wrote “For an advertisement… to be effective it
must achieve first exposure and then attention.” (1994: 240). But here we encounter an
interesting non-sequiter. Although they talk about the need for advertising to get attention
and for the message to be remembered, neither Kotler nor Doyle say anything about the need
for the advertising itself to be remembered. So why do they both include advertising recall in
their list of recommended metrics? It suggests to us that their list of evaluative metrics is
derived not from their own criteria for advertising effectiveness, but from the measures that
are widely used and available
If remembering advertising has no theoretical role in advertising success, just how important
or useful a metric is advertising recall? In fact, the idea that advertising can work without ads
being attended to or recalled goes back a very long way. Just a few years after the AIDA
model was conceived, the importance of attention was questioned by Walter Dill Scott, who
quoted a subject who claimed never to have looked at any of the ads in the tramcars she
travelled in each day, yet "knew them all by heart and … held the products they advertised in
her highest esteem" (Scott 1903). The schism between high and low attention models
widened in the 60's, when Herb Krugman (1965) coined the phrase 'low involvement' to
contrast with the persuasion-shift high involvement models which dominated ad pre-testing at
the time, later validating the incidence of low involvement by measuring the brain waves of a
subject whilst watching TV advertising (Krugman 1971). More recently, a team led by
psychologist Stewart Shapiro has shown through controlled attention experiments that ads can
influence product consideration even when processing was entirely peripheral (Shapiro,
MacInnis, & Heckler 1997). His conclusion is that advertising 'has the potential to affect
future buying decisions even when subjects … do not process the ad attentively and … do not
recollect ever having seen the ad'. (1997: 102)
It is difficult to source data from real life to support the idea that ads can work without being
remembered. Partly this is because marketers who regard ad awareness as important will
usually change their advertising if it performs badly on this metric. What little evidence there
is comes from brands whose marketers regards ad awareness as unimportant and therefore not
worth measuring. One such example is Stella Artois, now acknowledged as the most
successful beer brand in the UK. Despite having run for 8 years, Stella’s initial press
campaign (as measured by a competitor’s tracking study) had only achieved claimed ad
awareness of 4% in 1990, compared with 29% for the leading TV advertised brand
Castlemaine XXXX. Yet Stella’s rating for quality on the same survey was 45% compared to
just 19% for Castlemaine. A rigorous analysis of all other factors indicated it could only have
been the advertising which gave the brand its exceptionally high repute, thereby confirming
that advertising can build strong brand values without necessarily performing well on
memory-based evaluative measures. (Heath 1993).
So there is evidence to suggest that recall-based metrics may not be reliable indicators of
advertising effectiveness. What is the explanation for this? How can advertising work
without being explicitly remembered? A clue comes from a paper presented at Esomar in
2000, which found evidence that UK advertising simply does not conform to the traditional
persuasion norm so popular in the USA. In a study of 36 UK advertisements they noted that
the majority fitted the non-persuasive category, with 86% being seen as having told viewers
nothing they did not already know. In their conclusions the writers demurred from the task of
explaining how these ads might work, but in the text they admit that their measures were
rather rational and were flawed by ‘not picking up all emotional facets fully’ (Mills et al 2000:
4). And it is in this area of emotion that we believe advertising has the ‘hidden power’ that
enables it to work without attention or recall.
Relevant alternative advertising models:
Krugman appears to have developed the first recorded non-memory dependent advertising
model. In his 1977 paper he concludes that ‘recall and attitude effects are not necessary for
advertising to do its job of aiding in-store purchasing’ (Krugman 1977: 52) and that ‘quick
and / or faint perceptions of product advertising, even unremembered, do their job in most
cases’ (Op. cit.: 53) But Krugman’s explanation focused on left and right brain processing
and did not involve affect. This is no surprise because it was not until 1980 that it was
postulated that affect has primacy over cognition (Zajonc 1980), and it is only much more
recently that it has been shown that affect can also have dominance over cognition in
decision-making. (Damasio 1994, Shiv & Fedorikhan 1999).
This new learning about the power of affect on decision-making led Tim Ambler of London
Business School to develop what he calls his MAC (Memory-Affect-Cognition) model
(Ambler 2000). In this model he concludes that it is the Affective content which drives
advertising effectiveness and that most of our ‘thinking’ is merely supportive of the decision
that you ‘feel’ is the right one. In his words, ‘Memory dominates Affect, which in turn
dominates Cognition’ (Ambler 2000: 312). But Ambler’s MAC model does not cast any
light on the role of attention or recall in advertising. One model which does do this is the
Low Attention Processing Model (Heath 2000, 2001a, 2001b). Note that this was formerly
published as a Low Involvement Processing Model, but the name has been changed because
the term ‘involvement’ has caused confusion in the USA with models which use involvement
to refer to product or category involvement.
Heath’s Low Attention Processing Model can be summarised as follows:
1. Because brands match each other’s performance so swiftly, and consumers exist in a time-
poor environment, considered choice tends to give way to intuitive choice, in which
emotions are more influential.
2. This situation inhibits the consumer’s desire to seek out information about brands, and
minimises the need for them to pay attention to advertising. Brand information can
however be ‘acquired’ at low and even zero attention levels, using two distinct mental
processes. The first process is passive learning, which is a low-attention cognitive
process. Passive learning has been shown to be poor at changing opinions and attitudes
(Petty & Cacioppo 1996) but is able to record and link together brand names and other
elements in an ad.
3. The second process is implicit learning, which is a fully automatic non-cognitive process
that has been shown to be independent of attention. Implicit learning, as is discussed
below, cannot analyse or re-interpret anything, all it is able to do is to store what is
perceived, along with any simple conceptual meanings that we attach to these perceptions.
4. Because of this limitation, implicit learning does not establish strong rational brand
benefits in the consumer’s mind. Instead it builds and reinforces associations over time
and these associations become linked to the brand by passive learning. These associations
are extraordinarily enduring (Tulving Schacter & Stark 1982), and can trigger emotional
markers, which in turn influence intuitive decision-making (Damasio 1994).
5. Passive and implicit learning are semi-automatic and fully automatic mental processes.
As such they will be used every time an ad is seen or heard, regardless of how little
attention is being paid. Because attention to advertising tends to diminish over time
(Krugman 1972), the occasions on which an ad is processed attentively will be
outnumbered many times by the occasions on which it is processed at lower attention and
its content is learned passively and implicitly.
So advertising which exploits low attention processing will work better when seen several
times at low attention than if seen once or twice at high attention. The implication for research
is that brand associations reinforced by this sort of repetition will remain in memory long
after the ad has been forgotten. To explain this it is useful to review some of the important
characteristics of implicit learning.
Implicit Learning
Although implicit learning has been known about for a decade or more, little research has
been possible into its role in advertising. The reason is evident: you can find out relatively
easily if someone has learned something in the past, because if they know it they have learned
it, and if they don't know it they haven't. But how do you identify if they learned it actively
or passively or implicitly when no detailed memory of the learning event remains?
Recent research into this field was carried out at Sussex University by Alistair Goode (Goode
2001). Using an experimental technique (Process Dissociation Procedure) in which people
can be split into those likely to have processed an ad attentively (i.e. active learning) and
those likely to have processed inattentively (i.e. implicit learning) he found a positive
correlation between implicit learning and product liking. Goode's findings reinforce the idea
that implicit learning is not simply an adjunct to traditional attentive learning but can be an
important contributor towards the success of an ad.
How is implicit learning able to do this? The answer lies in the nature of implicit memory,
the memory system which underpins implicit learning (Berry & Diennes 1991).
Implicit Memory
Implicit memory works in two different ways. First, like all memory systems, it records what
is perceived, that is, what is seen and heard (Tulving & Schacter 1990). However, implicit
memory has also been shown to work conceptually; in other words, it can record and store
simple meanings which we attach to what was perceived from our semantic memory store
(MacAndrew, Glisky & Schacter 1987). These experiments were replicated by Vaidya et al.
The finding that implicit memory works conceptually is of critical importance. Implicit
memory is unlikely to be able to exert much influence on purchase if it works in the
perceptual mode alone, because no meaning will be attached to the perceptions that are stored.
But if implicit memory can also process concepts, then it can store emotive values triggered
from past experience alongside these perceptions. In this way we open up a theoretical route
by which implicit memory on its own can influence intuitive brand choice.
None of this counts for much if implicit memory performs less effectively than explicit
memory. But implicit memory has been found to be superior to explicit memory in three
further respects: It has been shown to be substantially more durable than explicit memory
(Allen & Reber 1980); it has been shown to be substantially more capacious than explicit
memory (Standing 1973, Tulving et al. 1982); and most important of all, it has been shown to
be independent of attention. This latter finding was suggested by Tulving et al (Op. Cit) but
their research took place in situations where the respondent was able to pay as much attention
to the task as they wanted. Their tests were repeated by Jacoby, Toth and Yonalinas (1993) in
both full attention and divided attention environments, and the findings confirmed that
attention at the time of learning is of importance to subsequent conscious recollection, but is
irrelevant to implicit memory.
The above properties have been experimentally verified in respect of advertising by Shapiro
and Krishnan (2001). In summary, implicit memory appears to be a substantial memory
system that can record perceptions and concepts automatically and irrespective of how much
attention is being paid, and can retain them over long periods.
Further support for the role of automatic processing in relation to affect comes from the most
recent work published by Damasio (2000). It is generally assumed that all our attentive
processing operates through our working memory, thus everything that drives recall of
advertising has first to pass through working memory. What Damasio has discovered is that
feelings and emotions are processed without the use of working memory and so by definition
must be processed automatically and implicitly. Indeed, Joseph Le Doux even goes so far as
to assert that ‘Our emotions are more easily influenced when we are not aware that the
influence is occurring’ (Le Doux 1998: 59).
All this suggests that metrics based on recall are likely to work even less well when it comes
measuring advertising with a strong affective content. In order to examine this hypothesis we
need to identify an intermediate metric that will be capable of measuring advertising which
works affectively and inattentively, i.e. a metric that can tap into implicit memory. This is
discussed in the next section.
Metrics based on Implicit Learning:
The way to find a metric that measures implicit learning is by finding one that is capable of
tapping into implicit memory. We know from experiment that recall is mainly a test of
explicit memory, because it diminishes in divided attention situations and increases when full
attention is paid (Gardiner & Parkin 1990). But there is another test of memory that is
extensively used in psychology because it is more powerful than recall and is much less
dependent upon attention. That test is Recognition. Recognition memory has been shown in
experiments to be effectively inexhaustible. Standing’s experiment referenced earlier showed
respondents able to recognise up to 10,000 pictures without difficulty, concluded that ‘…
recognition memory of the subjects seems unsaturatable’ (Rose 1993:117).
The value of using recognition is that it taps into both explicit and implicit memory, which
means we can get a much better idea of the actual level of advertising exposure that has taken
place. As Krugman said, ‘Conclusions about amount of exposure based on recall data will
greatly underestimate exposure, conclusions about amount of exposure based on recognition
data will somewhat underestimate exposure’ (Krugman 1977: 11). But Krugman was
working in a research environment where recognition was measured through still pictures of
TV ads or descriptions read over the telephone. Using today’s computerised interviewing
techniques we are able to show TV advertising in full, and get an even more accurate idea of
who has and has not seen it. By identifying those people who have seen the advertising and
subsequently forgotten it we should be able to test directly how effective recall is at
evaluating emotive advertising.
A controlled test of Recall vs. Recognition metrics:
The critical area of debate in this paper concerns the implication that the processing of Affect
has for ad tracking research. If, as is predicted by the Low Attention Processing Model, brand
associations and their emotive links endure in memory beyond the point at which conscious
recollection of the ad itself disappears, then measures such as claimed ad awareness and
detailed recall are likely to underestimate the effectiveness of advertising which has a high
affective content. In simple terms, significant numbers of people who have been exposed to
the ad and influenced by it will not actively remember it and will therefore not believe the
brand has been advertised recently.
This hypothesis can be tested by collecting both claimed ad awareness and recognition and
cross-tabulating them against a dependent measure which links to sales. Sales intention is one
possible dependent measure, but there is strong evidence that it measures what was bought
last time not what will be bought next time (Barnard 1994). A better measure is favourability,
which has been shown to strongly predict future brand choice (Hofmeyr & Rice 2000).
An initial examination of these two metrics was run in 2002, and the findings from this study
are briefly summarised in the next section.
BUTCHER’S DOG Pilot Study:
A research study was run in the UK on a new TV advertising campaign for the Butchers Dog
brand of dog food, which had not advertised for over a year. The campaign was chosen
because it offered no persuasive evidence that the brand made dogs fit (the brand claim) but
instead featured simple visual playlets of dogs doing things that they physically cannot do.
This creative approach was deemed likely, after initial exposure, to encourage enjoyable but
essentially low attention processing.
A single wave of research was run on the Taylor Nelson CAPI Omnibus three weeks after
national transmission of the advertising started. Favourability towards the brand was
measured using a ten-point semantic scale ranging from 'very unfavourable' to 'very
favourable'. Claimed ad awareness was asked using the brand-name prompted question
alluded to earlier: 'Have you seen any advertising on TV recently for (brand)?' Those who
answered in the affirmative were then asked to describe anything they could recall about the
advertising. Recognition was measured by playing the ad in full to respondents. In order to
minimise overclaim through expectation of the brand advertising the ad was adapted to
remove all reference to the brand, and respondents were asked if the advertising had been
seen by them several times, once or twice, or not at all.
It should be noted that this definition of recognition differs from that which is often quoted by
ad research companies. For example Sutherland (2000) defines recognition as 'People
…shown photo-stills and asked whether they have seen that ad', an approach which can result
in poor recognition if the key elements in the advertising are sound or music or action of some
sort. Recognition can only be accurately assessed by showing the entire ad as stimulus, and in
our test we removed only the brand references, which was necessary in order to preclude
responses based on an expectation that the advertising would have been seen.
Because brand users rate their brands higher than non-users, analysis was restricted to users of
dog food who were non-users of the Butchers Dog brand. This avoids errors due to different
proportions of users and non-users in each part of the sample. Thus all results shown are from
users of other brands.
The first step was to examine the exposure levels as predicted by the two metrics, and a cross
tabulation of the sample of 318 respondents is shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1 Users
of dog food who were
non-users of the brand
Claimed seen
brand advertising
on TV recently
Claimed not seen
brand advertising
on TV recently
(Col %)
Recognised one or
other execution
70 152 222 (70%)
Recognised neither
10 86 96 (30%)
TOTAL (Row %) 80 (25%) 238 (75%) 318 (100%)
As Krugman predicted, claimed advertising awareness indicates a lot less exposure than
recognition: just 80 respondents (25% of total sample) claimed they had seen the brand
advertising on TV, but 222 respondents (70% of total sample) recognised one or other of the
executions. And when the 80 people who claimed the brand was advertising were asked what
detail they recalled only one-quarter (6% of the total sample) were able to identify anything
from the new campaign. These findings confirm the expected poor performance of explicit
memory in respect of advertising with a strong affective content.
25% claimed ad awareness might be considered by some to be an acceptable level just three
weeks after advertising has started, but one has to ask what exactly this metric is measuring.
The received wisdom is that claimed ad awareness is an indication of those respondents who
have seen the advertising and lodged it in their mind. But evidently it isn’t a very good
measure of this, because 10 of the 80 people who claimed the brand had been advertising did
not recognise either ad, from which it can be deduced that they had either not seen the
advertising at all and were guessing, or their appreciation of time was so muddled that they
thought the campaign which had been on air over a year earlier had been on air recently.
If claimed ad awareness is indeed a measure of those who have seen and remembered the
advertising, then it makes sense that these people should manifest the maximum effect of the
advertising. In this study we measured advertising effectiveness by the shift in favourability
towards the brand. So if the advertising is effective and claimed ad awareness is
representative of those people who have seen and remembered the ad, then those who claimed
they had seen the brand advertised on TV recently should have higher brand favourability
than those who did not. The results of a cross tabulation of these two metrics is shown in
table 2.
TABLE 2 Users
of dog food who were
non-users of the brand
Total Claimed recently
advertised on TV
Claimed not
advertised on TV
Sample size (%) 318 (100%) 80 (25%) 238 (75%)
Favourability Mean
(10 point scale)
4.33 4.33 4.33
These results show there is no difference in favourability between those who claimed to have
seen the brand advertised on TV and those who claimed not to have seen it advertised on TV.
Both groups rated the brand at 4.33. So if claimed ad awareness truly measures the optimum
type of ad exposure then this campaign is clearly ineffective, because there was no shift in
brand favourability.
But what happens if we now look at the brand favourability amongst those who recognised
one or other of the ads, and can therefore be assumed to have really seen them? Also, bearing
in mind that the Low Attention Processing Model suggests that repeated viewing is more
effective than one or two exposures, what is the brand favourability of those who saw an ad
several times compared with those who saw it just once or twice? These results are in table 3.
TABLE 3 Users
of dog food who
were non-users of
the brand
Did not
one or other
Recognised an
execution and
seen once or
Recognised an
execution and
seen several
Sample size (%) 318
96 (30%) 222 (70%) 90 (28%) 132 (42%)
Favourability Mean
(10 point scale)
4.14 4.41 4.20 4.56
Here a very different picture emerges. Those who recognised one or other of the ads are more
favourably disposed to the brand than those who did not recognise either ad (and bear in mind
that these are all non-users of the brand). And an even higher level of brand favourability is
observed amongst those who said they had seen an ad several times.
So there is a positive favourability shift amongst those who recognised an ad, but no shift
amongst those who claimed the brand had been advertised on TV. What explains this
disparity? The best way to find out is to look at those who claimed the brand had been
advertised and see if their favourability scores vary across different levels of actual exposure.
Table 4 shows the results.
TABLE 4 Users
of dog food who were
non-users of the brand
on TV
A: Claimed
and not
seen ad
B: Claimed
advertised and
saw ads once
or twice
C: Claimed
advertised and
saw an ad
several times
A+B: Claimed
advertised and
saw ads once,
twice or not at all
Sample size (%) 80 (25%) 10 (3%) 21 (7%) 49 (15%) 31 (10%)
Favourability Mean
(10 point scale)
4.33 3.60 3.38 4.90** 3.45**
What is at once evident is that those who saw the ad several times (column C) have the
highest rating for the brand, higher than those who saw the ad only once or twice (column B),
or those who did not see the ad at all (column A). Unfortunately the sample size of the cells
A, B, and C is too small to allow significance to be tested. But if we combine columns A and
B we can compare those who did not see an ad or saw one only once or twice with those who
saw an ad several times. The differences are now significant: An ANOVA reveals the
difference in mean favourability between these two groups (Columns ‘A+B’ and ‘C’) is
significant at 99% (F (468) = 7.24. p < 0.009).
The explanation is now clear. Those who claimed they had seen the brand advertised
comprised two different groups: one had been exposed to the advertising once or twice or not
at all, and had not been affected by it; the other had been exposed to the advertising several
times, and had been affected by it. In summary, as the Low Attention Processing model
predicts, claimed ad awareness produced a sample whose consistency in respect of their actual
exposure and response to the advertising was seriously flawed.
This study was the first one conducted. In order to validate the findings we decided to repeat
the study, this time with advertising specifically designed to exploit the Low Attention
Processing Model in the way it influenced consumers’ feelings.
In 2002 Standard Life decided to replace its advertising campaign. Working with The Leith
Agency and The Value Creation Company they developed a new campaign, the purpose of
which was to increase favourability towards Standard Life. This was achieved by illustrating
things in life that people like and linking this positive feeling to the Standard Life brand using
the line ‘I like Standard Life’.
Primary media used were outdoor and TV, and the campaign commenced on 6
2003. The advertising was tracked by the Nunwood Consultancy in two independent surveys:
A continuous CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interview) survey collected data on brand
awareness, brand favourability, and claimed ad awareness: a monthly face-to-face CAPI
(Computer Assisted Personal Interview) survey collected data on these measures also, in
addition exposing the debranded ads and collecting recognition, estimated frequency of
exposure, and brand attribution. Question design corresponded with those used in the
Butchers Dog pilot described above except that detailed recall was not asked in this study.
CAPI Results:
The first wave of CAPI research was run 11 days after the start of advertising. As in the pilot
research our first step is to examine the sample, which is shown in Table 5.
TABLE 5 Non-
users of Standard Life
Claimed seen TV
advertising for
brand recently
Claimed not seen
TV advertising
for brand recently
(Col %)
Recognised one or
other execution
30 87 117
Recognised neither
18 45 63
TOTAL (Row %) 48 (27%) 132 (73%) 180 (100%)
Once again it is evident that Claimed Ad Awareness under-represents the actual exposure of
the campaign. 27% claimed that Standard Life had been advertised on TV recently, compared
with 65% who recognised and can therefore be deemed to have actually seen the advertising.
And 37% of those who claimed Standard Life had been advertising (18 out of 48 respondents)
did not recognise the new campaign at all.
Next we analyse favourability amongst those who claim the brand has and has not been
advertised on TV recently. These results are shown in Table 6.
TABLE 6 Non-
users of Standard Life
Total Claimed recently
advertised on TV
Claimed not recently
advertised on TV
Sample size (%) 180 (100%) 48 (27%) 132 (73%)
Favourability Mean
(10 point scale)
5.98 5.77 6.05
This time we see that the favourability score amongst those who claim the brand had
advertised recently is actually lower than amongst those who claim the brand has not
advertised recently. Again, the clear implication is that the advertising has not worked.
Now compare these results to the analysis of recognition, in Table 7:
TABLE 7 Non-
users of Standard
Total Did not
recognise either
one or other
Recognised an
execution and
seen several times
Sample size (%) 180 (100%) 63 (35%) 117 (65%) 49 (27%)
Favourability Mean
(10 point scale)
5.98 5.65 6.15 6.16
Again we see that those non-users who recognise the advertising are more favourably
disposed towards Standard Life than those who do not. In this case, however, the
favourability amongst those who have seen the ad several times is not higher. The conclusion
is that this advertising either works very quickly, or perhaps needs a longer exposure period
than the dog food advertising. We address this point later on.
The final analysis of the CAPI data is a cross-tabulation of those who claim the brand was
advertised recently against recognition, and results are shown in Table 8:
TABLE 8 Non-
users of Standard
Total: claimed
recently on TV
Claimed advertised
recently and not
seen ad
Claimed advertised
recently and seen
Sample size (%) 48 (100%) 18 (37%) 30 (63%)
Favourability Mean
(10 point scale)
5.77 4.99 6.21
Again we see that the low favourability score amongst those who claimed that the brand had
been advertising on TV recently is caused by the 37% who had not actually seen the
advertising. Their mean favourability is 4.99, compared with a mean favourability of 6.21
amongst those who recognised the ad.
Discussion of results:
The results support the theory that advertising which relies upon Affect (i.e. which mainly
influences emotions and feelings) is likely to benefit from longer periods of repeat exposure.
It also supports the hypothesis that recall-based metrics like Claimed Ad Awareness are likely
to seriously underestimate the effectiveness of advertising which relies on Affect. What does
this imply for the research industry?
The question 'have you seen brand X advertised on TV recently?' is one which we who work
in the industry instinctively like and understand. We can answer it easily and accurately,
because we pay attention to advertising: it is, after all, what pays our wages. The results
above suggest that the clarity with which we can answer this and similar questions is not
always shared by consumers. Ordinary people, who watch TV as part of their day-to-day
routine, almost certainly pay a lot less attention to TV advertising than we do and remember a
lot less of it than we do. So when asked if they have seen a brand advertised on TV recently
they can get the answer wrong; and when asked what they can recall about the advertising for
a brand, they sometimes recall nothing. But this does not necessarily mean that advertising
has had no influence on their attitudes towards the brand.
Advertising which relies on affect is increasingly common: indeed, the majority of
advertising employs affect to a greater or lesser degree nowadays. We have presented
evidence that the effect that advertising has on consumers’ emotions and feelings (i.e. Affect)
is likely to be largely unknown to them, and such advertising is unlikely to be well-recalled.
The results of our research suggest market research systems need to be revised to
accommodate the new paradigms which modern advertising works within.
We believe the findings of this paper call into question the value of recall metrics, and we
conclude that methods based upon the periodic measurement and cross-analysis of
recognition and brand metrics represent a better future direction for advertising research,
because they are uniquely able to evaluate the hidden emotional power which advertising
undoubtedly has.
One caveat. It should be noted that these tests were conducted on advertising selected for
having a high Affective content. Although low attention processing is applied by the
consumer to all advertising it is important to stress that the model does not necessarily apply
to all advertising. It will not be as relevant to advertising whose main purpose is to get a
direct response, or advertising which is trying to impart ‘new news’, as both of these types of
advertising will benefit by achieving the highest level of attention they can. It is possible that
the use of recall-based metrics can be justified on such advertising, and we encourage this to
be investigated.
Allen, R. & Reber, A.S. (1980) Very long term memory for tacit knowledge. Cognition, 8:
175-185, cited in Berry, Dianne & Dienes, Zoltan (1991) The relationship between implicit
memory and implicit learning, British Journal of Psychology, Vol. 82, Issue 3
Ambler, T. “Persuasion, Pride and Prejudice: How Ads Work.” International Journal of
Advertising 19, 3 (2000).
Barclay, W.D., Doub, M.R., & McMurtrey, L.T. (1965) Recall of TV commercials by time
and program slot, Journal of Advertising Research Vol.5, issue 2
Bargh, J.A. (2002) Losing Consciousness: Automatic Influences on Consumer Judgement,
Behavior, and Motivation. Journal of Consumer Research Vol. 29, September 280-284
Berry, D. & Dienes, Z. (1991) The relationship between implicit memory and implicit
learning, British Journal of Psychology, Vol. 82, Issue 3
Bornstein, R.F. (1989) Exposure and Affect: Overview and Meta-Analysis of Research, 1968-
1987, Psychological Bulletin Vol. 106 No.2, 265-289
Broadbent, T. (2000) Measuring advertising effectiveness. Proceedings of the 3rd Admap
Advertising Research Seminar, London.
Brown, G. (1985) Tracking Studies and Sales Effects: A UK Perspective. Journal of
Advertising Research, Feb / March p 52-64
Brown, G (1986) Modelling advertising awareness. The Statistician 35, p 289-299
Colman, S. & Brown, G. (1986) Advertising Tracking Studies and Sales Effects.. Journal of
the Market Research Society, Vol. 25, No 2.
Damasio, A.R. (1994) Descartes’ Error. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York.
Damasio, A.R. (2000) The Feeling of What Happens. Heinemann, UK
Du Plessis, E (1994) Recognition versus Recall, Journal of Advertising Research , May / June
p75 – 91
Doyle, P (1994) Marketing Management & Strategy. Prentice-Hall, Hemel Hempstead, UK
Feldwick, P., Cook, L., & Carter, S. (1991) Ad effectiveness and ad awareness. Admap
March: 22-26
Feldwick, P. (2002) What is Brand Equity? Admap, Henley-on-Thames p.134
Fitzgerald, N. (1998) A man with a mission: Interview by Judie Lannon, Market Leader
(Journal of the Marketing Society) No.2 Autumn
Goode, A. (2001) The value of implicit memory, Admap 423, December
Haley, R.I. & Baldinger, A.L. (1991) The ARF Copy Research Validity Project, Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 31, No.2: 11-32
Heath, R.G. (1993) Reassuringly expensive – a case history of the Stella Artois press
campaign. In Advertising Works 7. Edited by Baker, C. NTC Publications, Henley-on-
Thames, UK.
Heath, R.G. (2000) Low involvement processing - a new model of brands and advertising.
International Journal of Advertising Vol. 19 No. 3 p.287-298
Heath, R.G. (2001a) Low involvement processing - a new model of brand communication.
Journal of Marketing Communications Vol. 7 No.1 p.27-34
Heath, R.G. (2001b), The Hidden Power of Advertising, Admap Monograph No. 7, World
Advertising Research Centre, Henley-on-Thames, Great Britain
Jacoby, L.L., Toth, J.P., & Yonelinas, A.P. (1993). Separating conscious and unconscious
influences of memory: Measuring recollection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
122, 139-154
Kotler, P., Armstrong, G., Saunders, J. & Wong, V. (1999) Principles of Marketing, 2
European Edition, Prentice Hall Europe.
Krugman, H.E. (1965) Impact of television advertising: learning without involvement. Public
Opinion Quarterly 29 (Fall), 21–38.
Krugman, H.E. (1971) Brain wave measurement of media involvement. Journal of
Advertising Research Feb, 3–9.
Krugman, H.E. (1972) Why three exposures may be enough. Journal of Advertising Research
12, 11-14.
Krugman, H.E. (1977) Memory without recall, exposure without perception. Journal of
Advertising Research 17, 7–12.
LeDoux, J. (1998) The Emotional Brain. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London.
Lodish, L.M. & Abraham, M. (1995) How T.V. advertising works: a meta-analysis of 389
real world split cable T.V. advertising experiments, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 32,
Issue 2
MacAndrew, M.P., Glisky, E.L. & Schacter, D.L. (1987) When priming persists: Long-lasting
implicit memory for a single episode in amnesiac patients. Neuropsychologia, 25 497-506
Mills, P., Kennedy, R., Ehreneberg, A., & Schlaeppi, A. (2000) The forms that ads take.
Proceedings of the joint Esomar ARF Conference May 2000
Myers Levy, J., & Malavlya, P. (1999) Consumers' Processing of Persuasive Advertisements:
An Integrative Framework of Persuasion Theories. Journal of Marketing 63, special issue.
Petty, R.E. & Cacioppo, J.T. (1996) Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and contemporary
approaches. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.
Reeves, R (1961) Reality in Advertising. Knopf, New York
Roberts, A. (2002) Panel evaluation and effectiveness. Proceedings of the 17th Annual
Monitoring Advertising Performance conference, London
Rose, S. (1992) The Making of Memory. Bantam Books, Uxbridge, UK.
Rossiter, J. & Percy, L. (1997) Advertising, Communications, and Promotion Management.
International Editions, McGraw Hill, Singapore
Schacter, D.L. (1996), Searching for Memory, Perseus Books Group, USA.
Scott, W.D. (1903) The Psychology of Advertising. Small, Maynard & Co., Boston.
Shapiro, S., MacInnis, D.J., & Heckler, S.E. (1997) The effects of Incidental Ad Exposure on
the Formation of Consideration Sets. Journal of Consumer Research Vol. 24, June 94-104
Shapiro, S. & Krishnan, H.S. (2001) Memory-based measures for assessing advertising
effects: a comparison of explicit and implicit memory effects. Journal of Advertising, Vol 30,
issue 3: 1-13
Shiv, B. & Fedorikhan, A. (1999) Heart & Mind in Conflict: The interplay of Affect and
Cognition in Consumer Decision Making, Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 26, pp 278-
Standing, L. (1973) Learning 10,000 pictures. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 582-602, cited in Schacter 1996.
Starch, D. (1923) Principles of Advertising. A.W. Shaw Company, Chicago.
Strong, E.K. (1925) Theories of selling. Journal of Applied Psychology, 9 (February) 75-86
Sutherland, M. (2000) Do you model ad awareness or advertising awareness? Journal of
Advertising Research Vol. 40 Issue 5 Sept /Oct
Tulving, E., Schacter, D.L., & Stark, H.A. (1982) Priming effects in word-fragmentation
completion are independent of recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, & Cognition 17, 595-617
Tulving, E & Schacter, DL (1990) Priming and Human Memory Systems. Science 247, 301-
Vaidya, C.J., Gabrielli, J.D.E., Keane, M.M. & Monti, L.A. (1995) Perceptual and conceptual
memory processes in global amnesia. Neuropsychology 10, 529–37.
Zajonc, R.B. (1980) Feeling and Thinking: Preferences need no Inferences. American
Psychologist 35: 151-175
Zajonc, R.B. (1984) On the primacy of Affect. American Psychologist 39: 117-123
University of Bath School of Management
Working Paper Series
Past Papers
University of Bath School of Management
Claverton Down
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 1225 826742
Fax: +44 1225 826473
2004.01 Stephan C. M.
Political Marketing Theory: Hendiadyoin or Oxymoron
2004.02 Yi-Ling Chen &
Stephan C. Henneberg
Political Pulling Power. Celebrity Political Endorsement
and Campaign Management for the Taipei City Councillor
Election 2002
2004.03 Stephan C. Henneberg ,
Stefanos Mouzas & Pete
Network Pictures – A Concept of Managers’ Cognitive
Maps in Networks
2004.04 Peter Reason Education for Ecology: Science, Aesthetics, Spirit and
2004.05 Yvonne Ward &
Andrew Graves
A New Cost Management & Accounting Approach For
Lean Enterprises
2004.06 Jing Lin Duanmu &
Felicia Fai
Assessing the context, nature, and extent of MNEs’
Backward knowledge transfer to Chinese suppliers
2004.07 Richard Fairchild The effect of product differentiation on strategic financing
2004.08 Richard Fairchild Behavioral Finance in a Principal-agent Model of Capital
2004.09 Patrick Stacey & Joe
Managing the Development Process in a Games Factory: A
Temporal Perspective
2004.10 Stephan C. M.
Operationalising a Multi-faceted Concept of Strategic
Postures of Political Marketing
2004.11 Felicia Fai Technological Diversification, its Relation to Product
Diversification and the Organisation of the Firm.
2004.12 Richard Fairchild and
Ganggang Zhang
Investor Irrationality and Optimal Open-market Share
2004.13 Bruce A. Rayton and
Suwina Cheng
Corporate governance in the United Kingdom: changes to
the regulatory template and company practice from 1998-
2004.14 Bruce A. Rayton Examining the interconnection of job satisfaction and
organizational commitment: An application of the bivariate
probit model
... This is the main reason why images hold such a crucial role in making complex concepts and ideologies tangible. This is, as well, the reason why we feel emotionally attached to our memories: emotions make an integral part of images and the emotional impact of an image, especially of a repetitive-hence, familiarone, determines the quality and content of the corresponding memory (Heath & Nairn, 2005;LeDoux, 1996). An additional attribute of affect is that it has a profound, long-lasting imprint, as it is the first element to surface from memory, when we recall (Zajonc, 1980). ...
... Although collective memory and identity are political and social constructs (Gillis, 1994), long-term verbal and visual conditioningcultural and national-lead to foundation myths. The power of these myths to shape mindsets and give priority to affect rather than to critical thinking (Heath & Nairn, 2005) makes awareness of the attribute of language to limit thought and perception to be of pivotal importance (Foucault, 1994;Wittgenstein, 1922). In addition, the innate association between language and images, and their input in framing and processing stimuli and making sense, renders apparent the subjective perception of events, hence, the variety of realities they create at the same time for different actors. ...
Full-text available
The chapter focuses on Greece, Cyprus and Turkey and discusses how affective narratives in public space create “memory landscapes” that determine perceptions of historical past and regulate attitudes in the present time. Since the nineteenth century, reiterations of visual and verbal narratives on loss in public discourse among the three countries function as a “trauma-drama”. They nourish victimisation, ensure accumulation of anger, fear and sadness for the injustice done, as well as kindle vicious circles of duty (and shame) with regard to the perished. We use two events as case studies to explore how “figures of memory” and their deriving visuality produce powerful affective narratives and “regimes of truth” that activate the collective psyche triggering multilevel reactions in the social and political sphere. The first event is the staging of two ancient dramas at the ancient theatre of Salamis in Cyprus, in 2015 and 2016. The second is the change of status of Hagia Sophia, the Byzantine cathedral in Istanbul, from a museum to a fully fledged mosque, in 2020. The chapter proposes that awareness of the power visuality exercises and critical revising of the master narratives can shift attention into the building of a future based on mutual understanding.KeywordsAffective narrativesCyprusGreeceIdentitiesTurkeyVisuality
... The high -and therefore potentially illegal exposure to gambling ads for minors -is not only problematic because it normalises gambling [20], but also because repeated exposure to a stimulus leads to an increasingly positive attitude towards this stimulus -the so-called mere-exposure effect [21] This effect has been reaffirmed in many experiments over the past decades [22]. So whether or not individuals report noticing such adverts, high exposure builds subconscious positive relationships to advertised brands [23]. ...
Full-text available
Purpose of Review Propelled by the rise of online and social media, gambling marketing has developed extremely fast, moving far beyond traditional techniques. Policy makers need to ensure that children and young people are protected in this space but it is hard for empirical research to keep pace with industry developments. This article aims to provide some direction to policymakers and the scientific community, by reviewing what literature there is on social media gambling marketing and its effects on children. Recent Findings Research suggests that exposure to social media gambling advertising is high in volume and reach; that gambling ads are more appealing to young people than to adults; and that advertising portrays gambling as a harmless and fun activity with few warnings of potential health dangers. Most gambling brands’ followers on social media are under 25 years old and current regulations are not entirely fit for purpose. Summary Social media gambling ads are booming with high rates of exposure to children and young persons. Paid-for ads target specific young people (with tempting but complex financial incentives), whilst organic ads thrive by being shared across youth user networks. The effects on children and young people are worrisome. Gambling accounts are using content marketing, in particular, to create humorous and seemingly harmless posts to target young people who have not fully developed advertising recognition skills. As regulators struggle to keep up, there are concerns that young people are particularly influenced by these ads, and may be lured into gambling.
... As emotions influence consumers' decision-making process and their behavior (Khuong & Tram, 2015), advertisers use emotions to persuade consumers. A classic use of emotion in advertising is affective advertising (Heath & Nairn, 2005), which involves a direct appeal to emotions than to knowledge or beliefs (Bee & Madrigal, 2013). However, the focus of this study is not about emotional appeals by having an emotional component in advertisements. ...
Based on the stimulus-organism-response model, this study investigated the effects of three types of green performance appeals (i.e., before-, after-, and before/after-appeals) on consumer word of mouth (WOM) mediated by anticipatory hope. As the degree of consumer susceptibility to advertising varies by individual, individual perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE) was examined as a moderated mediating variable. A total of 191 responses were analyzed using SPSS 27.0 for analysis of variance and PROCESS procedure. Results showed the mediating role of anticipatory hope between advertising appeals and WOM: participants reported greater anticipatory hope when they viewed the advertisement with after and before/after-appeals. This mediation was moderated by participants' PCE. The effect of green performance appeals on WOM was mediated by participants' anticipatory hope when their PCE was low; however, when participants' PCE was high, the mediation was not significant. The findings show that advertising appeals highlighting the effectiveness of green performance can attract consumers who do not believe that product consumption affects a sustainable environment and spread WOM. This research provides insights to fashion brands by suggesting effective green advertising strategies that can increase consumers' voluntary information-sharing behavior © 2022, The Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles. All rights reserved.
... However, findings related to the effect of consumer's internet experience and banner position on its effectiveness have been mixed. Regarding banner recall, some authors confirm that many users do not recall banners after visiting a website (Pagendarm and Schaumburg, 2001;Drèze and Hussherr, 2003;Heath and Nairn, 2005;Chatterje, 2008), whilst other authors find no reliable signs of such banner blindness (Hern andez-Méndez, 2015). Many factors can be responsible for these inconclusive results, among others: the specific website used, the level of internet experience of the user, the banner type or the type of measures used to assess effectiveness. ...
Purpose This study aims to analyse the effectiveness of a static promotional banner located on a hotel reservation website in terms of capturing the visitor’s visual attention by exploring how this impact depends on the user’s degree of internet experience. Design/methodology/approach An experiment was conducted using the eye-tracking methodology, in addition to a self-administered questionnaire. Through eye-tracking technology, eye movements were recorded whilst participants explored a generic hotel website. The factors used in the analyses were the position of the banner on the website and participants’ experience as internet users. Findings The findings showed that positioning a banner at certain locations on the webpage may lead to a better recall, which, in part, seems to result from the visual attention that such locations attract. The mediation analysis showed that the bottom-right and bottom-left positions have a negative effect on banner recall due, in part, to the shorter attention times and the smaller number of fixations those positions induce. Although the visitor’s level of internet experience affected his/her visual attention towards the banner, its impact on banner recall was non-significant. Results are discussed considering which variables produce greater effectiveness in capturing the user’s attention. Practical implications The paper draws several implications for the marketing literature, hospitality management and society in general. Originality/value The study is the first to analyse the impact of the position of a static ad on users’ visual attention and memory, considering the user’s degree of internet experience.
The inclusion of figurative operations in marketing videos has the potential to improve the effectiveness of marketing campaigns due to their reported ability to trigger emotional responses, thus making the campaigns resonate more strongly with the viewer. This study explored the relationship between the presence of three figruative operations (hyperbole, metaphor and metonymy) in campaign videos and the levels of physiological arousal and emotion that were triggered by those videos. Seven videos were coded for these three embedded figurative operations. Participants watched the videos in laboratory conditions, where their levels of electrodermal activity and self-report emotional responses were recorded. The ability of these figurative operations to trigger physiological arousal was compared to that of two other features that have been shown to promote arousal (the presence of humor and unmarked contrast). The presence of hyperbole led to higher levels of arousal than humor and unmarked contrast, the presence of metaphor led to higher levels of arousal than humor, and the presence of metonymy led to higher levels of arousal than humor, but lower levels than unmarked contrast. Associations between these arousal levels and the reported emotions are discussed, and collectively provide insights into the optimal use of figurative operations in marketing campaign videos. Our findings contribute to a deeper theoretical understanding of the relationship between figurative operations and arousal, and provide practitioners with information regarding which figurative operations are likely to evoke a stronger emotional response when used in marketing videos.
Full-text available
The primary focus of this study is to investigate the impact of advertising expenditure on firm performance. In light of the existing literature, this study considers four proxies of firm performance i.e., Sales (SLS), Return on Assets (ROA), Market-to-Book Ratio (MBR) and Market Capitalization (MC). The sample data for the purpose of estimation consists of 100 listed companies selected randomly from Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) during 2005–2018. The results show that advertising spending has a significantly positive impact on firm’s performance. This is also true for lagged value of advertising, where the results show significant positive relationship of lagged advertising on firm performance. This study supports the signaling effect of advertising expenditure on performance of Pakistani firms.
Full-text available
This paper is an attempt to measure the effectiveness of social advertisement campaigns for societal improvement. The Government of India is currently running a number of social advertisement campaigns which are government initiatives for the societal improvement. The objective here is to divide the effectiveness into three parts (i.e., awareness, perception, and attitude). Responses have been filled through the help of questionnaire which has equal questions from each of these three segments. The study is conducted to know the awareness level of youth towards the social advertisement campaigns, perception and attitude of youth towards the social advertisement that are run by the Government of India. Top 10 social advertisements which are mostly viewed by the people have been chosen through the pilot study conducted on 25 social advertisement campaigns run in Punjab by the Government of India. The study is grounded on primary and secondary data. Keywords Campaigns, Social Advertisements, Societal Improvement 1. INTRODUCTION Advertisement is a means of communication or exchange of ideas or information with the consumer/ customer of a product and services. In other words, we can say advertisements are the paid form of publicity. It is non- personal presentation. According to Wheeler, “Advertising” is any shape or sort of paid or premium non-individual presentation of merchandise, administrations and thoughts with the end goal of drafting individuals to purchase” Advertising is the messages paid for by the individuals who need to advance, convince, or advise the recipient about the items or administrations. The mediums utilized are television, print media (daily paper, diaries, magazines et cetera), radio, squeeze, net, coordinate offering, boards, mailers, challenges, sponsorships, crusades, individuals, articles of clothing, tints, sounds and visuals. Social Advertising is not for the most part utilized for business showcasing purposes, yet rather for social
Full-text available
In some private television channels, herbal cream advertisements for joint diseases are televised. These ads, which are shown for a few minutes on the screens, are generally directed toward the elderly who complain of joint pain and related creams are claimed to be effective in passing many pain irrespective of the variety. In these ads, singers and elderly who complain of joint pain also show up and tell the effects of creams. The advertisements are constructed in a metaphoric language. Therefore, in this study, herbal cream advertisements for joint diseases will be examined through the advertisement of 3,000-year-old Miracle Cream, Miracle Cream of East Medicine and Miracle Cream, which are televised in the middle of 2017. In this ethnographic study, how the relevant advertisements are coded, organized and nurtured for the buyers who complain of joint pain, will be investigated.
In some private television channels in Turkey, herbal cream advertisements for joint diseases are televised. These ads, which are shown for a few minutes on the screens, are generally directed towards the elderly who complain of joint pain and related creams are claimed to be effective in passing many pains irrespective of the variety. In these ads, singers and elderly who complain of joint pain also show up and tell the effects of creams. The advertisements are constructed in a metaphoric language. Therefore, in this study, herbal cream advertisements for joint diseases will be examined through the advertisement of 3,000-year-old Miracle Cream, Miracle Cream of East Medicine, and Miracle Cream, which are televised in the middle of 2017. In this ethnographic study, how the relevant advertisements are coded, organized, and nurtured for the buyers who complain of joint pain will be investigated.
Die visuelle Wahrnehmung ist für Menschen von besonderer Bedeutung und prägt dessen Erleben der Umwelt. Bei Messen und Events bestehen die visuellen Reize aus Farben und Formen, aber auch aus der vorherrschenden Beleuchtung. Für EventmanagerInnen ist es daher besonders relevant, sich mit den biologischen und psychologischen Aspekten der menschlichen visuellen Wahrnehmung auseinanderzusetzen und diese zur Gestaltung einer Veranstaltung oder eines Messestands konstruktiv einzusetzen. Erkenntnisse der Wahrnehmungs- und Umweltpsychologie ermöglichen, die visuelle Live-Kommunikation wissenschaftlich fundiert zu reflektieren und im Sinne der Gastgebenden und Teilnehmenden zu optimieren. Die Darstellung der physiologischen und psychologischen Grundlagen der visuellen Wahrnehmung und Verarbeitung, der gestalt- und farbpsychologischen Aspekte sowie ein Fokus auf die bisher kaum dargestellten Einflüsse der Beleuchtung im Veranstaltungskontext zeigen diesen interdisziplinären Wissenstransfer auf.
Full-text available
This paper compares the persuasion (strong) and reinforcement (weak) theories of advertising and uses neuroscience as the base for a third, MAC (Memory dominates Affect which in turn dominates Cognition), model of what advertising does for brands. All these models have practical significance for advertising strategy, creative briefing and client expectations. They set parameters for advertising research and measurement. The difficulty of measuring affect is not a good reason for ignoring it.
This article puts forward a new theory of how advertising and other brand learning is processed and stored by consumers. The theory, based on low involvement processing, discusses how advertising creates brand associations which drive intuitive brand purchase decisions. The model explains why we frequently find it difficult to demonstrate that advertising has played an effective role in strengthening brands.
Prior marketing studies investigating memory for advertisements have relied almost exclusively on examining effects contingent on explicit memory retrieval. This process involves a deliberate effort on the part of the consumer to think back to an advertisement in an attempt to recall the ad information. Studies in this area have shown that a lengthy delay between ad exposure and test, as well as divided attention during the ad exposure episode, hinder or even eliminate successful explicit memory retrieval. The premise of this paper is that an alternative retrieval process, implicit memory, may function differently. This form of memory retrieval is automatic in nature and does not rely on consumers deliberately searching their memory for a previously viewed advertisement. Comparisons with explicit memory retrieval suggest that implicit memory is preserved even in conditions of delay and divided attention, whereas explicit memory is affected detrimentally by those conditions. The two different forms of retrieval processes are validated with the use of a process dissociation procedure. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.
The authors analyze results of 389 BehaviorScan® matched household, consumer panel, split cable, real world T.V. advertising weight, and copy tests. Additionally, study sponsors-packaged goods advertisers, T.V. networks, and advertising agencies-filled out questionnaires on 140 of the tests, which could test common beliefs about how T.V. advertising works, to evaluate strategic, media, and copy variables unavailable from the BehaviorScan® results. Although some of the variables did indeed identify T.V. advertising that positively affected sales, many of the variables did not differentiate among the sales effects of different advertising treatments. For example, increasing advertising budgets in relation to competitors does not increase sales in general. However, changing brand, copy, and media strategy in categories with many purchase occasions in which in-store merchandising is low increases the likelihood of T.V. advertising positively affecting sales. The authors' data do not show a strong relationship between standard recall and persuasion copy test measures and sales effectiveness. The data also suggest different variable formulations for choice and market response models that include advertising.
In this article, the authors propose an integrative model of advertising persuasion that orders the major theories and empirically supported generalizations about persuasion that have been offered in the information-processing literature. The authors begin by reviewing this literature, placing particular emphasis on the assorted processes or mechanisms that have been suggested to mediate persuasion. To consolidate this material, the authors propose a framework that delineates three alternative strategies that people may use to process persuasive communications and form judgments, in which each strategy represents a different level of cognitive resources that is employed during message processing. In addition, the framework identifies a judgment correction stage that allows people to attempt to correct their initial judgments for biases that they perceive may have affected such judgments. The authors add to this by identifying particular processes that appear to mediate when and how these judgment formation and judgment correction processes operate. They also attempt to foster growth by specifying some of the critical issues and gaps in the knowledge that appear to impede further progress. Finally, the authors clarify how the proposed framework can inform the decisions advertising practitioners make about advertising execution and media factors.