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