How Advertising Works:
A Planning Model
. . + putting it all together.
Richard Vaughn
The adverlistng industry has long been
chalJenged to explain how advertising
worka. That it does work is not an
issue. But liow it worts and why it
works are critical concerns still unrescEvedI f we had a proven theory of advertising effectiveness it would help in
strategy planning, response measure*
meat and safes prediction. We have no
such theory. Empirical " p r o o f " is
scattered in numerous company and
agency files. The possibility for a scientifiKllly-deriYed model of advertising
seems remote.
Despite this difficulty, increasing
costs and competitiveness require lhat
we iliake an effort to comprehensively
address how advertising works, The
subject is important, complex aad dynamic. It is important to manufacturers
as a marketing expensed rami investment, and to advertising agencies as a
product of tlieir creative energies, i t is
comple* because communication theories ate not unified, and evidence is
scarce. And, fma[!y, it tS dynamic be-
cause recent marketplace experience
has provoked newer, controversial explanations.
Advertising is unlike the direct communication between two people which
involves a give-and-take experience. It
is a one way exthange that is impersonal in formal. To compensate, advertising must oflen make greater use
of both rational and emotional devices
to have an effect- people can selectively notice or avoid, accept or reject,
remember c-r forget the experience and
thereby confound the best of advertising pjaas.
To understand how advertising
works, it's necessary io explore the
possibilities people have for lhinJkirt£,
feeing and behaving toward, the various products and services in their
lives. This isn't easy because we are
all capable of being logical and illogical,
objective aad subjective, obvious and
subtle simultaneously. Everything considered, it's not surprising thai a unified theory of advertising effectiveness
has eluded us for so long.
This paper presents an overview that
sketches, rathef thsn details where we
are, where we have been, and where
we may be going in advertising effectiveness theory. To accomplish this
tjisk, the Fallowjng outiitle w i l l be pur
Sued;
* Traditional
Advertising
Theories
prevalent ill the I95r>°s are reviewed
as background,
* Consumer Behavior Models representing the 1960's trend toward comprehensive, sequential theories are
discussed.
• Recent Developments in high/low involvement and right/left brain theories are introduced.
• An FCB Mvdei is presented which
organizes advertising effectiveness
- theory for strategy planning.
There is a tendency for advertisers
to be defensive about this subject.
Frankly, one theory seems as plausible
Copyright g> Fpote, Cone &, Bd.Jing. C o m m u m
cm inn:;, I n c . , 1379. Reprinted by p e r n m i i o n . Edl f w i . i l changes in bracket*.
27
VXA124 6218
V X A 1 2 4 62JS
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lsw36b00/pdf
USX271 773
Jtturrjul vf Advertising
Research
as> another in certain situations, and the
urns and c o n s often result in a stalemale. This paper, however, is asieflive
and positive. This is so for two r e a s o n s :
(3) To establish key points and
[2> T o stimulate further discussion.
The greater purpose, of c o u r s e , is a
better understanding of strategy options and w a y s uf planning, creating^
executing and testing more effective
advertising. T h e mew FCB model is &
major step in that direction.
Traditional Theories
Four traditional theories of &dvejijsing effectiveness have been prominent
in [rrarkcting:
• Economic—a rational consumer who
Consciously c o n s i d e r s f u n c t i o n a l
tust-utility information in a. purchase
derision.
• Responsive—a
habitual Consumer
c o n d i t i o n e d to thoughtlessly buy
through rote, stimulus-respoasc
teaming.
• Psychological—an
unpredictable
c o n s u m e r w h o buys compulsively
under (he frdluerice of unconscious
thoughts and indirect emotions.
• Social—a compliant Consumer who
continually adjusts purchases to satisfy cultural dad group n e e d s for
confonnityWhile these theories have had proponents who defended them as sole
e x p l a n a t i o n s of c o a s u m e r b e h a v i o r ,
most marketers now consider them at
best only partial explanations These
theories -were most topical in t h e 1950's
and Can be summarized as follows:
• Economic theory says c o n s u m e r s act
in their o w n financial spjf-inEeresi.
They look for maximum utility at the
lowest Cost. Rational, meitiudicai
calculation is pre-supposed, s o price
demand equations are used t o calculate aggregate consumer behavior.
Consumers most r a v e functional inform a lion To make a decision. This
old, much-revered theory most often
applies t o commodity items- It is
highly respected by economic forecasters and is the only Iheory widely
publicized by U . S . government regulator y agencies.
• Responsive
theory
tells u s c o n sumers are lazy and want to b u y
with minimum effort. They develop
habits through stimulus-response
learning. T h e process LS non-rational
and a u t o m a t i c as repetition fjoildi
and then reinforces buying activity
for routine p r o d u c t s . Information
serves a remit) derfexpoBurfi, rather
than thoughtful, purpose.
• Psychatogtcal
theory explains consumer behavior a s ego involvement:
the personality must be defended o r
promoted. This is essentially unpredictable, undeliberate and latent a s
psychic energy flows between the id,
ego and super-ego. Implicit p r o d u c t
attitudes arc MOre important than
functional benefits for the selective
products that touch people s o d e e p ly. This " h i d d e n p e r s u a d e r " t h e o r y
is discussed most by militant Constimerisis.
• Social theory describes Consumers
as basically imitative. People vy&tch
what others buy and comply/adjust
to get along o r be inconspicuous. It'4
an e m o t i o n a l , i n s e c u r e b e h a v i o r .
Group role, prestige, status and vanity c o n c e r n s are involved. Opinion
leaders and wurd-of-mouth communication are important for [he visjblc
products affected.
Which theory is right? They all h a v e
some truth. Economic motives d o m i nate m u c h conEume* behavior, especially on expensive products and those
wiih highly functional benefits. B u t f l e
spOnsive buying also prevails; many
r o u t i n e Llems r e q u i r e l i t t l e or tto
thought, and purchase habits, once established, can serve indefinitely, Psychological issues complicate our understanding because many items can
have " s y m b o l i c " overtones. T h e same
is true of Snrlal motives since n u m e r
q u s p r o d u c t s h a v e public m e a n i n g .
T h u s , at various limes and for different
pfwJuct3, each t h e o r y might play a part
in c o n s i d e r a t i o n , p u r c h a s e and consumption behavior.
While these theories have enough
face validity [o make them interesting.
they hick, the specificity to make them
practical. Also, which theory to use in
a situation, and how t o blend it with
other theories a r e constant and frustrating problems,. Time and the efforts
of Consumer theorists have moved bey o n d these s i m p l e r e x p l a n a t i o n s t o
more d y n a m i c n o t i o n s of how c o n sumera respond t o advertising.
Consumer Behavior Models
Many c o n s u m e r b e h a v i o r m o d e l s
were developed in the early I960's r
T h e y took ^ variety of forms but moat
were p a t t e r n e d after Lavjdge and Steiner'<; " H i e r a r c h y of Effects" model in
1961 l a c e Figure i j .
This model p r o p o s e d that Consumer
p u r c h a s e of a product occurred via a
sequential h i e r a r c h y of events from
awareness through k n o w l e d g e liking,
preference, and conviction. It was a
major step toward integrating the implications of the Economic, Responsive, Psychological and Social theories.
In principle at least, rational c o n c e r n s
could co-exist wirh habituation, e g o
involvement and conformity motives.
Although research has been Unable t o
verify the model, it has been concep-
hrgure 1
PURCHASE
*
CONVICTION
4
PREFERENCE
•
LIKING
*.
KNOWLEDGE
*
AWARENESS
28
VXA124 6219
VXA124 6219
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lsw36b00/pdf
USX271 774
Volume 20, Number 5, October 19tiO
rnally useful and, because of its common sense qualities, remains today the
intuitive, implicit model accepted by
most marketing managers.
Andreasan U9&3). Nicosia (196*)
aiid Enfccl-Kollal-Elatkweli (L967) proposed valiant models, but the ultimate
in thoronehrcsa and complexity appeared in 1969 with publication of
Howard & Sheth's The Theory of Buyer Behavior. The model involved 35-40
variables grouped under input, perception, learning and output categories.
Several research efforts validated the
basic form (if the model, bill the predictive pcWL-r was low because operational measures for many of the variables were weak.
Despite ttielr derail, these secondg en e ration models remedied defects in
the basic hierarchy model:
* Consumers might proceed through
the sequence imperfectly (stop/start,
make mistakes!
* Fsedback would allow later events
to influence earlier activities
* And finally, consumers cuuld skip
the process entirely end behave "illogically".
bi a return (Q simplification, the following summary adoption process
model appeared in 197) (Robertson). It
included the main features of earlier
models [see Figure 1).
This modified '•hierarchy 1 ' model
proposed that some consumers, under
some conditions, for some products,
might follow a sequential path. The
dotted lines [In Figure 2] arc feedbacks
that can alter outcomes, Other decision
patterns on the right track consumers
as they violate the formal seqUetlce of
the hierarchy. Thus, consumers can
learn from previous experience and
swerve from trie Hwarenexs-(o-(jmchase pattern,
_, This scheme preserved the LEARttFgEL-DO sequence of mast hierarchy
modeta but made it more flexible. It
also heified explain purchase behavior
without the presence of measurable
product knowledge or attitude formation. Shortly after the arrival of this
model, however, other hypotheses appeared.
Figure 2
ADOPTION
4
TRIAL
*
LEGITIMATION
*••••
I
I
-
^—
*
ATTITUDE
+
COMPREHENSION —»•
4
AWARENESS
Recent Developments
The new theories are not fliodch so
much as explanations for conflicting
results from consumer research. They
are respectively, Consumer Involvement and Brain Specialization. They
bsve been introduced to explain why
consumers are interested in some purchase activities more than olhers and
how consumers perceive different messages during purchase consideration.
Briefly, Consumer Invotvettxent suggest? a eootinuum of consumer interest
in products and services. On the high
Aide are those that are important in
money cost, ego support, social value
or newness; they involve more risk,
require paying more attention to the
decision and demand greater use of
information. Low involvemem decisions are at the other extreme; they
arouse little consumer interest or information handling because the risk is
small and effort can be reduced accordingly.
It's hard tu define this concept because involvement can include consumption as welt as purchase situations. Basically, the money, time,
complexity and effort involved in buy-
—*• —»•
ing and using products demand that the
consumer make value judgements.
Some decisions are important enough
Richard Vaughn joined foots, C&ti£ &
Bfldmg/Honig in Los Atigeies as director
or research in 1978. From L963 to 1977
he held various marketing and research
'positions With Button Farina and its
subsidiary, Van Camp Sea Food. He Is
a speaker 00 advertising and research
and has served as a member of the
editorial review hoard of ihttjeurnai of
Marketing. Vaughn majored tn philosophy and literature at Glendale and Occidental Culltges aad UCLA,
29
VXA124 6220
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lsw36b00/pdf
Journal
of Advertising
Research
to gel a lot Qf effort, others are not. As
the slakes rise, mora attention must be
given to the decision to avoid mailing
a bad buy. The lower-risk product lias
a lighter penalty for a mistake, and less
anxiety about tttt outcome. The implication: involvement level affects receprivity to advertising.
Brain Specialization proposes that
anatomical separation of the cerebral
hemispheres of the brain leads to specialized perception Of messages. The left
side is relatively more capable of handling linear logic, language and analysis—in short, the cognitive (thinking)
function. The right side is more iniuifivc, visual and engages in synthesis —
the affective (feeling) function. The implication: adveniajriB response will
vary depending uppn the thinking or
feeling communication task involved.
This subject is quite topical, and
enthusiasm for it is producing considerable marketing speculation. Tit*
physiological evidence is limited and
there is no empirical support for it fn
a marketing context. However, it's QOt
necessary ro endorse right/left brain
theory to use the principle that people
are C&pabte of both thinking and feeling
reactions to stimuli.
Both of these theories have compounded the discussion about how advertising works. The balance or this
paper is an attempt to regain perspective.
most involved and others where feeling
dotnin&tes: (here are situations thai [require mare involvement] and those that
[require less]. The combination of
these reference points produces a strategy matrix (hat encompasses mast of
the traditional theories as well as the
various LEASNFEEL-DO hierarchy
models just discussed.
Thinking and feeling are a cantintnim
tfi the sense (hat some decisions involve one or the other, and many involve elements of both. The horizontal
side of the matrix conveys this hypothesis and further proposes that over
time Iftere is .movement fram thinking
toward feeling. High and low [involvement] is also a continuum, and the
vertical side of the matrix displays this.
It is .suggested that over Iliac high
[involvement] can decay lo relatively
low [involvement].
Four quadrants are developed in the
matrix, with the dotted line in [Figure
3] indicating a soft partition between
them. The solid line arrows visually
depict the evolution of consumer tendencies as importance wanes and thiriking diminishes with respect to particu-
Figure 3
S-FEELING
THINKINGH
L
G
H
An FCB Model
Irk order to provide a structure that
will integrate the traditional theories
and LEARN-FEEL-DO hierarchy
models with consumer involvement
and brain specialization theories* a new
FCS approach to advertising strategy
is called foi. This requires building a
matrix to classify products and services.
Here are (he pieces for dlia now FCB
strategy model;
• " Thinking" and "Feeiing"
* 'High" and "LQ*J" [Jnvoiveraent]
This outline suggests that there are
purchase decisions Where thinking is
lar products and services. The
quadrants outline four potentially major goals for advertising strategy: lo be
informative, affective, habit Forming or
to promote self-satisfactjon.
What does thjfi matrix reveal? Each
quadrant
•*
• Helps isolate specific categories for
strategy planning.
• Approximates one of the traditional
consumer theories (Economic. Psychological, Responsive. Social),
• Suggests a variant hierarchy model
as a strategy g^idc,
• And implies considerations for crtdlive, media and research.
The following detailed: chart [Figure
4] expands upon these points. Taking
[he quadrants separately, a number of
strategy possibilities are suggested:
QiiMtowt t—High [knrofreaKatyilibutJng (InformatlYe)- This implies a large
need for information because of the
importance of the product sind thinking
issues reiated ta it. Major purchases
(car. house, rurnijhings) probably
qualify and, initially, almost any new
product which needs to Convey what it
is, its function, price and availability.
I I.
N
V
O
L
V
INFORMATIVE
2,
AFFECTIVE
4.
SELF-SATISFACTION
E
M
E
N
T
L J 3.
OH
WV
O
I,
V
£
M
E
N
T
HABIT FORMATION
{
30
VXA124 6221
VXA124 6221
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lsw36b00/pdf
USX271 77G
Volume 20. Number 5, October 19&Q
Figure 4
Hem Advertising Works: Planning Model
-+- FEELING
THINKING
H
I
G
II
I
N
V
O
L
V
E
M
E
N
T
ON
wv
o
L
V
E
M
E
N
T
I N F O R M A T I V E (THINKER]
CA H. HOUSE-FUR NICHING 5NEW PRODUCTS
MODEL:
LEAKN-FEEL-DO
[ Economic?!
Possible ImpH«iti.<.mS
Recall
TEST;
Diagnostics
Lpng Copy Faimal
MKI>1A:
Hcflettive Vehicles
CREATIVE: Specific Jnfarniaiicin
Dcmans.tretiw
•4
HABIT F O R M A T I O N (UPER) i
\
FOOD-HOUSliHOLD ITEMS
\
MODEL:
DO-LEARN-FEEL
|Respunsjvc?l
Passible Implications
TEST:
MEDIA;
CttEATIVF:
The basic strategy model is the typical
LEARN-FEEL-DO sequence where
functional and safient information is
designed Lo build consume auHudinal
acceptance and subsequent purchase.
The Economic model may he appropriate here as well. A consumer here
might be' pictured as a "Thinker11. Creatively, specific Ltifoimsrton and demonstration are possibilities, Long copy
Format and reflective, involving media
may be necessary lo literally "gel
through" with key points of consumer
interest. If strategy research has defined the. significant message to he communicated, recall testing and diagnostic
measures will help evaluate the effectiveness of a proposed ad.
Quadrant 3—High pEiTvoh-aDeatVKeHng
(Affective). This product decision is fnvolvi ng, but specific Information is less
important than an attitude or holistic
feeling. This is so because the importance is related to ch& person's selfesteem {Psychological model). Jewel-
Sales
Small Epacc Ads
10 Second l.D.'-s
Radio; POS
Reminder
2.
A
-
A F F E C T I V E |FEELER|
J E W f, LK Y- CO SM ETICSFASHION APPAREL-MOTORCYCLES
MODEL;
FEEL LEARN DO
[Psychologic I?]
Possible Implications
Attitude Change
TEST:
Emolion Arousal
Large Space
MEDIA;
Image Specials
CREATIVE; Executions I
I nip-act
SELF-SATISFACTION |REACTQft|
CIGARETTES-LIQUOR-CANDY
MODEL:
OO-FEEL-LEARN
(Social? |
Possible Implications
TEST:
_£aies
MEDIAt
Billboards
Newspapers
1'QS
CREATIVE: Attention
ry, cosmetics, and fashion apparel
meaningfully exploited. Most food and
might fail here, A functional example:
staple packaged goods items likely bemotorcycles. The strategy requties
long here. Brand loyalty will be a funcemotional involvement on the part of fr tinn of habit, but it's quite likely mosE
the consumers, basically that they beconsumers have several "acceptable"
came a "feeler" about (he product.
brands. Over lime many ordinary prodThie niodel proposed is; FEELucts vftl mature wid dssteod icto this
LEARN-DO. Creatively, execulional
commodity limbo, The hierarchy modimpact is a possible goal, while media
el is a DO-LEARK-FEEI, pattern
considerations .suggest dramatic print
which is compatible with the traditional
exposure or "image" broadcast speResptrnsivt; theory. It suggests that
cials. Copy testing won't get much help
simply inducing trial [coupons, free
from message recall since the effect is
samples) can often generate subselikely to be non-literal; attitude shift
quent purchase more readily than
testing or emotion arousal (autonomic,
pounding home undifferentiating copy
psychogalvanomcter) tests may be
paints. This consumer can be viewed
more helpful in determining advertising
as a "doer". Creatively what is reeffect.
quired Is to stimulate a reminder for
the product. Media implications might
Quadrant 3—t.ow {hvotamentFInuik-include small space ads, 10 second
ins (Mabit Formation). Product deciI.LVs,. point-of-sale pieces and radio.
sions tn this area, involve minimal
The idea] advertising test would be a
thought and a tendency to form buying
sales measure or lab substitute; reeull
habits for convenience. Information, to
and/or altitude change tests may not
the extent that it plays a role, wiH be
correlate with sales and therefore be
any point-of-difference that can be
31
VXA124 6222
V X A J 2 4 6222
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lsw36b00/pdf
Jimrnul uf Advertising Research
misleading. This is a tioublesuine
quadrant because so many commonly
used products and services are here
and require very detailed and careful
planning effoit.
Quadrant 4—EXM [bivoh'einmtyifeefing
(Self-Satisfaction). This low (invqivcmfirJj area seems to he reserved for
those produces Chat satisfy personal
Castcs-T-ciEarctres, liquor, candy, movies. Imagery and quick satisfaction arc
involved. This.u a DOFEEL-LEARN
model with some application of the
Social theory because 5 P imaiiy products here fit into gftjup situations (beer,
soft drinksj. This Consumer is a "reactor" whose logical [Merest will be
hard to hold and short lived, Creatively, it's basic to get attention with some
consistency. Billboards, potni-cif-sale
and newspapers might appJy here.
Copy testing will need to be salcs-orien led because recall and aitEtu.de
change may not be relevant.
These comments are meant to be
thought-starters rather than a formula
iat planning. The options clearly depend upon tfie category, brand., sales
trtndfc and marketing objectives Also,
it's not necessary to be restricted to
jUit these fullr possibilities in Usinjj this
matrix. For example, two other hierarchy models are available:
* Between quadrants 1 and 3, a
LEARN-DO-FEEL sequence might
apply as consumers go dtrecdy frominforelation to trial.
• Between quadrants 2 a n d 4 , a F E E L DOLEARN model suggest* acting
upon an initial feeling and purchasing.
Also- some products conceivably belong between quadrants 1 and 2 or 3
and 4, requiring elements of both learn
.and Feel simultaneously. The options
for placing products in the proper area
are challenging indeed. Bat by thinking
a product through the system, using
available research and (naj[3u cine fit
judgement, the advertising strategy implications can become clearer and more
manageable.
Experience in using die matrix hits
shown thai it stimulates a dynamic
approach. IF a brand is in quadrant 3,
fur example, marketers might want to
conskl« features or benefits to move
rt up for KTeatct consumer involvement, or ways to move it to the right,
considering emotional aspects of its
place in people's lives. TfiCre are many
possibilities.
What this F£B model saya is that
consumer stiltY into a product should
be determined for information (learn)',
attitude (feel) and behavior (do) Issues
to develop advertising. We help do (hi?
U&ing basic consumer research. The
priority of learn over feel, feel over
learn, Or do over either learo-feel, has
implications for advertising strategy,
creative execution, media planning and
copy testing.
To fully appreciate what this change
means, recall lhat the LEARN-FEELDO sequence has been endorsed for
years as the only "legitimate" model
of advertisfng effectiveness, Its linearity has been forced into situations
where il simply didn't appEy, Bu| it is
only one of several models. Furthermore, it's nO longer a straight-line concept, but, rather, circular [see Figure
5J.
Unfortunately, few advertising strategies are simple. Many products have
l£arn, feet and do in varying degrees,
beat reprfe&enled perhaps by overlap
[see Figure 6}.
The fundamental hypothesis of this
FCB mudcl can now be smted: An
advertising strategy is determined by
specifying {1} the consumer's paint-of
entry on the LEA.RNFEEL-DO
continlium and {2) the priority of tearrj
versus fe el versus do for making a sate.
Specifically, the strategy issue is
whether to develop product fcaiuresT
brand image or some combination of
both:
• To the extent that a brand has hard
news, with disiiticl prod&ct features,
and can lint its name to them, the
Sate centers on "learning", .with
"feeling" and' 'doing 1 ' Coming after,
• Lacking such information, where a
product gives its users an identity
via intangible/emotional features
leading Jo an image, the sale centers
on 'Teelings 11 and proceeds to
Figure 5
FEEU
J LEARN
DO
Figure 6
v,
]tarning" and "doing".
* As brands endure and achieve fixed
places in the consumer's mind, buying may become routine and consist
primarily of "doing" with very litde
conscious •'learning"'1 or "feeling".
The more the strategy matches consumer purchase experience, the better
the advertising will be "mternaEized"
or "accepted," Advertising may now
have to bu the right commtirticatron
-experience" for the consumer as well
as the right "message".
Implications Tor Advertising
Development
Not ail advertising works in the same
way, Sometimes communication of key
ijifocination and salienl emotion will be
needed to get a sale: at other tunes
consumers wi]| need one, bui not both;
and often buying m^y occur with little
or no information and emotJon. The
purpose of strategy planning is to identify the information, emocioa or action
leverage for a particular product, build
the appropriate advertising mode! and
then execute itIt's impossible to speJI out the many
32
VXA1
VXA124 6223
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lsw36b00/pdf
Volume 20, Number
ways, this F C B model can help u s .
Several management, creative, media
and research implications are most apparent:
Management.
• Become more flexible in using t h e
L E A R N - F E E L D O model;
* Set t h e goal t o iufurm, persuade and/
or impel p u r c h a s e and get client
agreement:
• And be a w a r e t h a t commonicaricii
s t r a t e g y c a n shift a s a p r o d u c t
eva|ves.
•
•
•
•
*
•
Creative.
Every ad shouEd t r y to get the consumer lo think, feel or do something
about the product;
For low-involVcrttttlE products with
undifferentiated features, executionat style c a n be the major task;
And " s u b j e c t i v e " opinions about t h e
strategy o r campaign may be as p r o ductive as "'objective" management
comments Tor consideration.
Media,
The exposure plan should r e m e m b e r
the L E A R N - F E R I . - D O triad to get
the most out of the a d s ;
Media vehicle judgements can use
this FCB model as a guideline;
And. creatine planning beyond the
audience n u m b e r s becomes almost
a necessity.
Research.
* Copy testing must be done with target respondents for valid results;
* Measurement should be for the relevant effect (recall* attitude c h a n g e .
Sales) that m a k e s a difference;
* And tile account t.eam Ought lo agree
before, testing which execution to
u s e if the results a r c close ( b e c a u s e
t h e y often arc aad require judgements anyway}*
This FCB strategy planning model is
not an ail-purpose cure, i t ' s P guide to
help organize-the advertising objectives
for a product. The account team has to
u i e product research to determine the
brand's leverage and then build a strategy ihat inenrn urates creative, media
and cupy testing projects. If done properly, the parts should fit together.
The historical conviction that attention, communication and peistiasion
must necessarily p r e c e d e a sale h a s
been weakened; by n e w consumer theories. It depends upon the product dynamics. Attention w e certainly must
have, but what kind of cornmtiE.cation
and persuasion, and lo what p u r p o s e ?
Thoughtful u s e of the F C B s t r a t e g y
model should help us h e :
• Thorough in advertising planning
• Flexible in design and execution
• CompTrehensive in c o n s u m e r testing
• Skeptical of fads and untested theories
• And open-minded about the future.
As professionals we know that advertising works w h e n it's on target.
The task is to find ways to be on target
more often so it can w o r k .
[References]
Articles
Bernaccrti, M . D . , The Regulating Advertising Rationalist;
Journal of Advertising Reaearcri; October, 197S
5. October
Iflfitf
sumtrr Ckotce; Journal of Consumer
Research, M a r c h , 1976
Olshavsky, R. W. & G r a n b d s , D. H . .
Consumer Decision MoMng-~Fact
or
Fiction?
J o u r n a l of C o n s u m e r R e search, S e p t e m b e r , 1979
Palda, K., The Hypothesis
Of A Hierarchy Of ^Effects; Journal c-f Marketing Research, February, 1966
Robertson, T. S., Low
Commitment
Consumer Behavior. J o u r n a l of Advertisini Research^ April, 1?76
Weinsteui, S,. Brain Waves
Determine
The Degree of Positive Interest in TV
Commerciais And Prim Ads; i6th A R F
Conference; May, 1978
ftwks
Brit., 5 . 11., Consumer Behavior
And,
The Behavioral Sciences; CJ96S) J . S.
Wiley SL Sons
Prill, 3 . H . , Haw Advertising Can Use
Psychology's
Rules
Of
Learning'
P r i n t e r s Ink; S e p t e m b e r 2 3 , 1 9 5 5
Engel, I, R , Koilat, U. & Blackwetl,
R . D . , Consumer
Behavior.
<i°78)
Dryder. Press
Davis, J, L.b Who Cares? The Implications oj' Brain Research For Advertising; Annual ART Conference Proceedings; October, 1978
H o w a r d , J. & Sheth, J., The Theory
cf Buyer Behavior; (1969), J. S. Wiley
Farley, J. & Wng, L . , An
Empirical
Test of the HawardSheth
Model of
Buyer Behavior; Journal of Marketing
Research; N o v e m b e r , 1970
&Sons
Markin, R., The Fsychohgy
Of Consumer Behavior: ( l % 9 ) Prentice-Hal]
Nicosia, I'"., Consumer Decision
A T O T ; (1966) Prentice^Hall
Proc-
KorJer, P . , Behaviuraf
Models
for
Analyzing Buyers, Journal of Marketing; October, 1965
Raj", M. L., Marketing
Communication ond the Hierarchy-of-Effects:
New
Model? for Mass Communication
Research; (1373} Sage Publications
Krugman, I I . ^ r Memory Without Recall, Exposure
Vfithfiuf
Perception:
Journal of Advertising R e s e a r c h ; August, 1977
Robert SOU, T. S.Y Consumer Be-iuivior;
(1970} Scott. Forcsman & C o .
Lavidge, R. & Stcincr, G . , A Model
For Predictive Measurements
of Advertising
Effectiveness;
J o t t r n a t of
Marketing; O c t o b e r , 19GI
McGuire. W, J.., Some Internal
etiological Factors Influencing
Psy*
Con-
Robertson, T, S., Innovative
Behavior
And Communication;
(I97J) Hott,
Rinehart
Rothschild, M. I,., Adverdsiitg
Strategies for High and -Vpw
Involvement
Situations; Attitude Research Plays for
High Stakes; (19793 AMA
33
VXA1Z4 6224
6224
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lsw36b00/pdf