06
transferWerbeforschung & Praxis
FORSCHUNG | 04/2009
Consumer attitudes and recall for advertisements for new brands and extensions
Nathalie Dens
Assistant Professor of
Marketing,
University of Antwerp
nathalie.dens@ua.ac.be
Patrick De Pelsmacker
Professor of Marketing,
University of Antwerp
& Ghent University
patrick.depelsmacker@ua.ac.be
The aim of this study is to investigate possible interaction effects between
branding strategy (new brands versus extensions), advertising execution
strategies (informational, positive emotional, and negative emotional) and
product category involvement (low and high) on consumer reactions to new
products, including attitudes, purchase intention and recall. The results show
that advertising strategy has little impact on consumer attitudes towards
extensions and the parent brand. Extensions benefit from a brand recall
advantage compared to completely new brands, but positive emotional appeals
help bridge the gap for new brands. Negative emotional appeals lead to significantly
lower product and brand attitudes, especially for new brands. Informational
appeals on the other hand stimulate USP recall, especially for extensions, and
regardless of the product category. In terms of attitudes and brand recall,
informational appeals score especially well in high involvement situations.
Submitted: 04.06.2009, accepted: 10.09.2009
Key Words:
1.
❯ Consumer attitudes ❯ Advertising ❯ New Brands ❯ Line Extension
Introduction
For most firms, growth is driven by the successful development and marketing of new products and/or services. New
product introductions have been shown to increase long-term
financial performance and firm value (Pauwels et al. 2004).
At the same time, new products suffer from high failure rates,
ranging from 35 percent up to 90 percent (Brand Strategy
2005). Companies often try to link an established brand name
to a new product (i.e. extension), hoping the parent brand
reputation will leverage the new introduction. Although benefiting from parent brand leverage seems tempting, the failure
rate of extensions is still high, and might even be higher than
for completely new brands (Wing 2004).
Advertising is considered an important determinant of new
product success and extension acceptance (Nan 2006).
Considerable research has shown that consumers often integrate their attitudes toward the ad for a product into their
evaluations of the product (e.g., Nan 2006). Advertising has
also been shown to directly link with attitude toward the
brand (Ab) (Bergkvist/Rossiter 2008). However, it remains
unclear exactly how this advertising must be made operational.
Studies on whether different advertising strategies are
recommended for the different types of branding strategies
for new products are scarce. In addition, most studies on
consumer acceptance of new products measure consumer
responses solely in terms of affective reactions, such as attitudes, or in terms of purchase intentions or behavior. In this
paper, next to attitudinal reactions and purchase intention,
we also study a more cognitive reaction, namely recall of the
advertised brand and the unique selling proposition (USP),
for new products proposed as a new brand or as an extension.
The classical hierarchy-of-effects models consider cognition
(brand awareness and brand knowledge) as a prerequisite
for affect (positive image) and conation (purchase)
(Lavidge/Steiner 1961). Because of the elapsed time between
exposure and behavior, advertising has to work through
people’s memory (Ehrenberg et al. 2002). Although recall
does not perfectly measure memory, it is an important measure
to plumb how meaningful the message is and how well the
brand name registers (Wells 2000).
04/2009 |
FORSCHUNG
Advertising execution strategies can be roughly divided into
informational versus transformational/emotional appeals.
Informational appeals inform consumers of one or more key
benefits about the advertised product and/or brand, while
emotional appeals are aimed at evoking feelings or emotions
in consumers. Most research distinguishes between emotional appeals of positive and negative valence (Burke/Edell
1989). Appeals that evoke negative emotions, controversial
appeals, or shock tactics are widely used (e.g., Bennetton)
as a legitimate creative technique to grab the attention of the
public and induce ad-based persuasion (Dens et al. 2008;
Shehryar/Hunt 2005). Based on Mandler’s (1982) schema
incongruity theory, it is believed that these ads will facilitate memory retrieval and recall. We study whether this is also
the case in a new consumer product context, and how evaluations may be moderated by the type of product and brand
advertised.
The contribution of this paper is that it examines the effectiveness of different advertising appeals (informational, positive emotional, negative emotional) between new brands and
extensions on consumer reactions including attitudes, intention and recall for different involvement levels (low vs. high
involvement). The frequent use of extension strategies is
based on an underlying assumption that consumers prefer
extensions over new brands (McCarthy et al. 2001).
However, despite the high stakes of market entry, little experimental research has actually addressed the comparative
potential of new brands versus extensions (McCarthy et al.,
2001). Literature also suggests that communication effectiveness may depend on prior familiarity of the advertised
brand (e.g., Campbell/Keller 2003; Stammerjohan et al.
2005). In order to make a contribution to the debate over
extension superiority, we conduct an experiment to test the
relative appeal of new brands and brand extensions and the
differential impact of different advertising strategies for new
brands and extensions under differing involvement levels.
2.
Literature review and hypotheses
2.1 Consumer responses to new brands
versus brand extensions
Extensions have been shown to benefit from a quality transfer
from the well-known brand name (Aaker/Keller 1990;
Dens/De Pelsmacker 2009). Smith and Park’s (1992) findings
indicate that brand extensions capture greater market share
and realize greater advertising efficiency than individual
(new) brands. Extension strategies result in increased positive
affect and decreased perceived risk in comparison to new
transferWerbeforschung & Praxis
brands (Lai 2006). McCarthy et al. (2001) found a brand
extension enjoys more positive attitudes than a new brand
name, on the condition that the brand extension fits relatively
well with the parent brand. As the latter condition was satisfied
in this research, we generally expected more positive
responses toward extensions than toward new brands. We
hypothesize:
H1. Brand extensions will engender a more positive attitude
toward the newly introduced product (Apr), a higher
purchase intention (Pi), and a more positive attitude
toward the brand (Ab) than a new brand.
Highly familiar brands typically have an elaborate and
strong network of associations (schema) in memory
(Kent/Allen 1994), which makes it easy for activation to
spread, and hence, consumers will easily recall the brand
name when prompted. Existing brand schemas for familiar
brands also resist interference (e.g., from elements in the
advertisement or other distracters) (Kent/Allen 1994).
Familiar and unfamiliar brands differ in terms of the
knowledge regarding the brand that a consumer has stored
in memory. As consumers by definition lack any type of
experience with a new brand, they can not possess readily
accessible nodes or associations with it in memory
(Campbell/Keller 2003). Thus, activation of the network
node and possible associations cannot spread. For a new
brand name, learning requires intensive processing, and thus
initial recall will be lower compared to an established brand.
Campbell and Keller (2003) and Kumar and Krishnan (2004)
both confirmed that recall of familiar brand names was higher than for unfamiliar brands. We hypothesize:
H2a. Brand recall is higher for brand extensions than for
new brands.
The communication of a USP is considered critical for
advertising success (e.g., Warner 2003). For extensions specifically, one of the hardest tasks is to make the consumer
aware that the brand is on the market in a new product form
(Nijssen 1999). For existing brands, a brand schema can be
considered a generic knowledge structure that will guide the
comprehender’s interpretations, inferences, expectations,
and attention (Graesser/Nakamura 1982). In this case, attention will be directed toward the brand, which will spread
activation toward the brand schema with existing associations, leaving relatively less opportunity to absorb the new
feature(s) of the extension. Park and Lessig (1977) describe
how, in the case of high brand familiarity, evaluators will
use very little product information. Nijssen (1999) states
07
8
transferWerbeforschung & Praxis
that the use of key symbols from famous advertising campaigns for the brand may diminish awareness of the new
extension and the new product message altogether.
Response competition theory (Kent/Allen 1994) also predicts
that different associations formed with the same target
stimulus (i.e., the familiar brand name) will compete at
recall. The links between the familiar brand name and the
new USP may not be strong enough to be activated on a
recall task (Kumar/Krishnan 2004).
Because of knowledge differences, consumers are likely to
have different processing goals when exposed to ads by new
brands compared to extensions of existing brands
(Campbell/Keller 2003). People tend to attempt to learn
about and evaluate novel stimuli. In terms of the Elaboration
Likelihood Model (ELM) (Petty et al. 2005), consumers
will be motivated to learn about the features of a new brand
to form an accurate impression. As such, new brands will
engender more central and extensive processing, meaning
consumers will evaluate the issue relevant arguments presented to them (Campbell/Keller 2003). Deeper processing,
in turn, produces better memory. Consumers should therefore more easily recall the unique selling proposition (USP)
better in advertisements for new brands than for extensions.
We hypothesize:
H2b. Recall of the unique selling proposition (USP) conveyed
in the ad is higher for new brands than for brand
extensions.
2.2 Consumer responses to different advertising
appeals for new brands versus extensions
We expected to find an interaction between the new product
branding strategy and the advertising execution strategy
(appeal type) on consumer evaluations of the advertised product and brand. We expect that when consumers are first introduced to new products, they will be motivated to learn about
the product and its features to make an evaluation of it. Hence,
an informational appeal providing this information should
generally be positively regarded. Several studies also provide
support for the persuasive impact of positive feelings in advertising. Positive emotional appeals generate interest in the
advertisement, reduce irritation, and lead to positive
judgments of the advertised message and higher purchase
intentions of the advertised product (Morris et al. 2002).
Positive advertising affect may also engender positive communication effects by influencing the direction of cognitive
responses (Petty et al. 1991). Negative affect, on the other hand,
has been shown to debilitate ad evaluations. Particularly in the
FORSCHUNG | 04/2009
case of consumer products, studies exploring negative feelings
in advertising, such as provocation or disgust, have mostly
found negative attitudinal effects (e.g., Dens et al. 2008).
Parent brand knowledge moderates the effects of advertising
on attitude toward the brand. Several authors have examined
the effects of brand familiarity on response to stimuli (e.g.,
Campbell/Keller 2003), finding that high familiarity actually
limits advertising effectiveness (Stammerjohan et al. 2005).
While studies have shown that direct affect transfer from
advertising is likely to occur for unfamiliar brands, the
effects were reduced for familiar brands (e.g., Smith et al.
1998). Highly familiar brands are characterized by wellestablished and relatively stable attitudes, which will not
likely be affected by a single advertisement (Stammerjohan
et al. 2005). This is because people will be more influenced
by previous opinions than by new information (Weilbacher
2003). Even when these brands offer a new product, we
expect consumers to transfer their pre-existing attitudes to
the extension. Indeed, Gielens and Steenkamp (2007) state
that when a high-reputation brand name is extended to a
new product for which attributes are difficult to observe
prior to consumption, consumers plausibly believe that the
extension is also of high quality. Research into extension
evaluation has often pointed out that parent brand associations
are a major determining factor of extension evaluation, as
consumers often believe that an extension possesses the
typical attributes or benefits of the parent brand (Aaker/
Keller 1990; Nan 2006). Hence, they will rely less on the
advertisement to form an opinion of the extension, so advertising strategy will not strongly impact extension evaluation.
On the other hand, research has shown that for a new brand
classical conditioning and direct affect transfer explain the
strong link between ad-evoked feelings and brand-related
evaluations (Homer 2006). As consumers are by definition
unfamiliar with a new brand, they do not possess readily
accessible knowledge about it in memory. In this case, evaluation of the new product and brand will be primarily based
on the advertisement. Therefore, we expect greater differences in product and brand evaluations for the different ads
for new brands than for extensions. We hypothesize:
H3. Attitude toward the advertised product (Apr), purchase
intention (Pi) and attitude toward the brand (Ab) will
be more positive with an informational and positive
emotional appeal than with a negative emotional
appeal for both new brands and extensions, but the
difference between the specific ad strategies on Apr,
Ab and Pi will be greater for new brands than for
brand extensions.
10
transferWerbeforschung & Praxis
In addition, we expected to find an interaction between the
advertising strategy and the brand strategy in terms of recall
as well. For an extension of a familiar brand, we expect
brand recall will generally be high irrespective of the advertising condition. The familiarity of the brand would be sufficient to spread activation across the existing schema and
ensure high brand recall levels across all ad conditions.
However, for new brands, the type of advertising may make
a difference in brand recall. Emotional content is generally
considered as facilitating improved levels of attention and
information processing (Heath 2007). Literature suggests
that recall scores for (positive) emotional stimuli are generally higher than for thinking ads (Stewart/Furse 2000).
Positive feelings have been found to contribute to likeability of an advertisement, which in turn can serve as a gatekeeper and determinant of the remainder of the communication process (Smit et al. 2006). An advertisement that is
liked may also be looked at more often or longer, resulting
in better brand recall (Ehrenberg et al. 2002). In addition,
favorable feelings can facilitate memory organization,
enhance stimulus encoding and hence improve the learning
and recall of brand names (Isen 2001). We expect that especially
a new brand will benefit from higher recall with positive
emotional appeals.
Insofar as negative emotional appeals can be considered as
distinctive stimuli for consumer products, a positive effect
on attention to the ad, memory, and retrieval can also be
expected (Pope et al. 2004). However, we expect that, with
negative emotional appeals, an avoidance reaction may take
place (Pieters/de Klerk-Warmerdam 1996). If participants
turn away from the ad because of the unpleasant feelings it
elicits, they have even less opportunity to process the brand.
Especially a new brand, which requires more processing of
the brand name compared to familiar brands to ensure brand
recall, will suffer. With an informational appeal, by default,
there is more information in the ad to be processed than with
emotional appeals. Based on the cognitive capacity theory
(Lang 2000), consumers may not be able to absorb all the
information provided. The greater the amount of information
presented in a single advertisement, the lower the expected
recall. For example, Stewart and Furse (2000) found that
information on components/ingredients and total information were negatively related to recall. If consumers lack the
resources to process all the information provided, brand
recall of a new brand name will suffer. We hypothesize:
H4a. Brand recall will be higher with a positive emotional
appeal than in case of a negative emotional or informational appeal, but the difference between the specific
FORSCHUNG | 04/2009
ad strategies on brand recall will be greater for new
brands than for brand extensions.
In H2b, we expect that USP recall is in general lower for
extensions than for new brands. As mentioned, we expect
viewers’ motivation to elaborate on the USP to be high for
new brands. The specific advertising strategy will have little effect on this. We expect the impact of advertising strategy on USP recall to be most outspoken for familiar brands.
In this case, an informational appeal, by providing new
information, is expected to be most successful in generating
higher recall of the USP of the advertised product. For
example, Stafford (1996) showed that tangible informational cues were related to higher recall of advertised attributes.
Laskey et al. (1995) revealed an advantage for informational
versus transformational/feeling ads in the context of key
message comprehension (measured as recall of the key message
points). Only with an informational appeal, when the new
features of the product are very prominent and explained in
detail will consumers register the newness of the extension
of a familiar brand. The main purpose of an informational
appeal is to convey the USP and other product attributes or
benefits (Ehrenberg 2000). It is therefore to be expected that
the USP is better remembered in such a type of appeal. In
other words, informational appeals can close the USP recall
gap between extensions and new brands. The purpose of
emotional appeals is rather to create or solidify a brand
image (Ehrenberg 2000). Especially for familiar brands,
emotional appeals will evoke little processing of the product
information, as consumers will rather relate to their existing
brand schema. Therefore, we hypothesize:
H4b. USP recall will be higher with an informational appeal
than in case of emotional appeals (positive or negative),
but the difference between the specific ad strategies on
brand recall will be greater for brand extensions than
for new brands.
2.3 The moderating role of product category
involvement
Involvement generally refers to a person’s perceived relevance of the focal object based on inherent needs, values,
and interests (Zaichkowsky 1994). The Elaboration Likelihood
Model (ELM) (Petty et al. 2005) prescribes that persuasion
will occur via a central route when an individual’s motivation,
ability and opportunity to process are higher. When either of
these factors are absent, audiences will revert to peripheral
processing of the message, for example based on heuristic
cues (e.g., music, “how-do-I-feel-about-it?”, celebrity
04/2009 |
FORSCHUNG
endorsement, number of arguments). High product category
involvement tends to engender central processing, meaning
consumers will exert the cognitive effort required to evaluate
the issue relevant arguments presented to them (Brown et al.
1998). Under such conditions, consumers tend to focus on
highly diagnostic cues such as attribute and performance
information to evaluate products. Although the ELM (Petty
et al. 2005) is a general framework to explain persuasion, it
is also useful in the context of cognitive responses. Petty et
al. (1981) for example, have asserted that individuals in a
high-involvement group exhibit significantly more issuerelevant cognitive activity. In addition, a greater number of
cognitive responses should be directed toward central (peripheral) cues when subjects’ processing involvement is high
(low) (Miniard et al. 1988). Recall of ad content can serve
as an indicator of both attention intensity (Gardner et al. 1985)
and cognitive elaboration in ad processing (Greenwald/
Leavitt 1984; Park/Young 1986).
The cognitive resource matching (CRM) hypothesis predicts
that a message will enhance persuasion if there is a “match”
between a consumer’s processing level and the execution
(Coulter/Punj 2004). Viewers who are highly involved become
motivated and able to enter into a functional congruity process
(Johar/Sirgy 1991). An informational advertising execution
typically requires a high amount of cognitive resources to be
processed in full. When elaboration is likely to be high, this
may match the amount of resources consumers are willing
to spend to process the message through the central route of
persuasion. This should result in positive brand evaluations
and increased brand and USP recall (Coulter 2005). Brown
et al. (1998), for example, have argued that, in general, ad
evoked feelings have relatively weak effects under high
involvement and conditions that encourage cognitive elaboration, because highly involved viewers are likely to engage in
greater message elaboration and critical evaluation of advertisements, and to experience less affective responses. If consumers in high involvement situations are more involved in
processing information in an informational appeal, they will
also better remember the brand and product USP in the
advertisement than following an emotional appeal. This is in
line with findings of previous research that a utilitarian/
informational appeal is effective when consumer involvement is high (Erevelles 1998). If the emotional appeals fail
transferWerbeforschung & Praxis
to match the resources consumers would like to devote to
processing the ad, recipients are likely to commit their
excess resources to generating idiosyncratic or irrelevant
thoughts (Keller/Block 1997). These other thoughts will
interfere with relevant cognitions, resulting in more negative
evaluations and lower brand and USP recall. Thus, based on
these findings, we expect that for high involvement new
products, informational appeals will perform better than
(positive and negative) emotional appeals.
The opposite reasoning goes for a low involvement situation:
in a low product category involvement situation, the
newness of the product may fail to create enough motivation
for processing. Low product category involvement generally
induces the “peripheral route” to persuasion in which consumers evaluate products based on some superficial analysis
of readily available and salient cues in the stimuli presented
to them (Coulter 2005). If the informational appeal requires
more cognitive resources to process than consumers are willing
to spend, this will result in incomplete, inefficient, or superficial message processing and lower brand and USP recall
(Brennan 2008; Meyers-Levy/Malaviya 1999). In addition,
they may quickly become disinterested, resulting in lower
brand and USP recall. As an informational appeal will typically require more resources to process than consumers may
be will be willing to spend, CRM predicts this may lead to
frustration, disinterest and other negative reactions. Low
audience involvement forces the audience to make an evaluation of the product based on self-congruity (Johar/Sirgy
1991). Following the peripheral route, attitude change is
related to positive or negative associations with the stimulus
(Petty et al. 2005). In this case, positive emotional advertising as a peripheral cue might work best, because the positive affect induced by the ad will easily transfer to the product
and brand. Negative feelings, if transferred peripherally to
the ad (how-do-I-feel-about-it) in a low involvement situation,
will result in negative attitudes toward the ad, and this will
also not benefit the brand. In addition, emotional appeals
typically require fewer resources to process, and therefore,
the brand and product USP will be better remembered. As a
result, a lower audience level of involvement is related to a
greater effectiveness of value-expressive appeals (Johar/
Sirgy 1991). We expect this to hold across new brands and
extensions alike. We hypothesize:
11
12
transferWerbeforschung & Praxis
H5. Product category involvement moderates the relationship
between advertising strategy and communication
effects. In high product category involvement conditions,
an informational advertising appeal will be more positively evaluated in terms of Apr, Pi and Ab than
emotional executions (both positive and negative). In
low product category involvement conditions, a positive
emotional appeal will score better than an informational
or negative emotional appeal.
H6. In high involvement conditions, an informational
advertising appeal will lead to higher brand and USP
recall than both positive emotional and negative emotional executions. In low involvement conditions,
emotional appeals (positive and negative) will lead to
higher brand and USP recall than an informational
execution.
FORSCHUNG | 04/2009
we ensured that consumers had most likely formed some
sort of schema about the brands. The test brands were also
selected based on a series of pretests (n = 25-30), following
guidelines provided by Aaker and Keller (1990): favorable
overall quality image, elicit relatively specific associations,
and not have already been broadly extended. In addition, we
made sure the extension brands were highly familiar to consumers. The brand extension brands chosen on the basis of
the pretests were Canon (computer accessories) laptops and
Cécémel (chocolate drink) candy bars. For the new brands,
we pretested three fictitious brand names per product, and
selected the one with the best perceived fit (perceived familiarity was very low for all the new brand names). We
selected the names Vision computers and Mamba candy
bars. The final test advertisements (12 in total) were created
by VVL.BBDO, a professional advertising agency.
3.2 Survey and participants
3.
Methodology
To test our hypotheses, we set up a 3 (advertisement: informational, positive emotional, negative emotional) x 2 (brand:
new brand, brand extension) x 2 (product category involvement: low, high) full factorial between-subjects designs.
Stimulus examples are provided in Appendix 1.
Through an online survey, 749 respondents were randomly
divided across treatments. Participants were selected from an
opt-in consumer panel to be representative of the Belgian
population in terms of gender (50.1 percent women), age
(35.5 percent 18-34 years, 25.6 percent 35-44 years, 38.9 percent 45-64 years), education (50.4 percent higher educated),
and social class (approx. 25 percent in each of four classes).
3.1 Design and pretests
We conceptualized product category involvement by the
product category of the advertised new product. This allowed
us to manipulate involvement, ensuring substantial differences
between the conditions. While some researchers have argued
that for any particular product class, levels of involvement
will differ across consumers and depending on the situation,
this type of aggregate analysis has been conducted in previous product and advertising research. Involvement results
from the interaction of individuals with products (Nkwocha
et al. 2005). Therefore, both products and individuals are
important aspects of involvement and both are equally worthy
of study. Moreover, it is reasonable to expect managers to
have easier implementation of the product category involvement
concept at product level than the individual involvement
concept. Based on consumers’ reported levels of product
category involvement in a pretest (n = 25), we selected
candy bars and laptop computers as product categories for
the tested new products. Prior to the main experiment, the
advertising images and slogans were also pretested (n = 52)
to represent the right manipulation of evoked feelings.
In order to be as realistic as possible, we used real brand
names, with which consumers were highly familiar. As such,
The questionnaire started with a few introductory questions
on brand quality (high quality, likely to try, superior product; α = .950) and familiarity (familiar, informed, know a
lot, experienced buyer; α = .971) for three different brands
to mask the brand under study. Product category involvement was assessed next (6 items, e.g., means a lot, important
purchase decision, decision requires a lot of thought; α = .954).
Participants then saw one of the test advertisements, after
which they rated the manipulation check of ad-evoked positive
feelings (5 items, e.g., excitement, energetic, positive feeling;
α = .968) and negative feelings (6 items, e.g., sad, frustrated,
negative feeling; α = .961) on separate scales. Respondents
were then asked their attitude toward the advertised new
product/extension (good, positive, like; α = .961), purchase
intention (possible, likely, probable; α = .950) and attitude
toward the brand (good, positive, like; α = .966). All items
were measured on seven – point semantic differential scales.
Scores on different items were averaged to compute the construct scores. Respondents then filled out some personality
measures as a mind-clearing task. Brand and USP (“what
was the most important feature of the advertised product?”)
recall were finally measured as unaided recall, using openended questions, and coded as “correct” or “false”.
14
transferWerbeforschung & Praxis
FORSCHUNG | 04/2009
Tab. 1: Attitudes and purchase intention – Mean scores per treatment
Analysis 2
Product
Appeal
Laptop computer
Informational
Candy bar
Positive
emotional
Negative
emotional
Informational
Positive
emotional
Negative
emotional
Brand
NB
BE
NB
BE
NB
BE
NB
BE
NB
BE
NB
BE
n
(62)
(63)
(62)
(61)
(63)
(61)
(63)
(65)
(63)
(63)
(62)
(63)
Apr
4.62
4.87
3.97
4.30
3.36
4.07
3.76
4.43
4.18
4.43
3.29
3.93
Pi
3.71
3.99
3.37
3.89
2.70
3.62
3.80
4.38
4.22
4.57
3.39
3.80
Ab
4.88
4.82
4.33
4.72
3.83
4.68
4.34
4.95
4.49
4.57
4.01
4.66
NB = new brand, BE = brand extension
Tab. 2: Brand recall and USP recall per condition
Ad strategy
New brand
Brand extension
Low
involvement
(Candy bar)
High
involvement
(Computer)
Total
81.1%
85.8%
82.2%
84.7%
Informational
80.0%
85.9%
79.9%
86.4%
Positive emo
83.2%
83.9%
83.3%
83.7%
Negative emo
80.0%
87.7%
83.7%
83.9%
Sig. (p)*
.757
.689
.650
.806
Total
29.1%
20.1%
31.6%
17.5%
Informational
34.4%
31.3%
43.0%
22.4%
Positive emo
25.6%
16.1%
21.4%
20.3%
Negative emo
27.2%
12.3%
30.1%
9.7%
Sig. (p)*
.264
<.001
.001
.018
Brand recall
USP recall
* Reported significance levels are based on χ² tests between appeals with 2 d.f.
3.3 Manipulation checks
Ad-evoked feelings. Results of a one-way ANOVA across
the test ads indicated that, for either of the two products, the
positive emotional ad was indeed most successful in evoking
positive feelings (MPC = 4.77, Mcandy bar = 5.23), significantly
more so than respectively the informational (MPC = 3.81, MCB =
3.37) and the negative emotional ad (MPC = 2.21, MCB =
2.23) (Tukey post hoc tests, p < .001). The negative emotional ad (MPC = 4.79, MCB = 4.89) evoked significantly more
negative feelings than both the informational (MPC = 2.60,
MCB = 2.95) and the positive emotional ad (MPC = 2.28, MCB =
2.06) (Tukey post hoc tests, p < .001). Therefore, we concluded our ad manipulations were successful.
Product category involvement. The measure of product category involvement showed that, as in the pretest, candy bars
(M = 3.39) elicited significantly lower product category
involvement than laptop computers (M = 5.76) (t(631) =
27.569, p < .001).
04/2009 |
FORSCHUNG
Brand familiarity. As in the pretest, respondents reported to
be significantly more familiar with the two brand extension
brands (MCécémel = 4.74, MCanon = 4.38), than with the new
brands (MMamba = 1.21, MVision = 1.68) (CB: t(269) = 30.359, p < .001;
PC: t (349) = 20.389, p < .001).
4.
Results
transferWerbeforschung & Praxis
Figure 1: Ad x brand interaction effect for Ab
5,00
4,80
4,60
4,40
Three 3x2x2 ANOVA’s were run with attitude toward the
advertised product (Apr), new product purchase intention
(Pi) and attitude toward the (parent) brand (Ab) as dependent
variables. For the latter variable, we controlled for pre-existing brand attitudes by using the quality pre-measure as a
covariate (the covariate was positive and significant, F(1, 736) =
170.696, p < .001). Cell sizes per condition and mean scores
on each of the dependents are listed in ❯ Table 1. Brand and
USP recall in the different conditions were analyzed by
means of Chi² tests.
Supporting H1, we consistently found that the brand extension was more favorably evaluated than the new brand in
terms of Apr (F(1, 737) = 25.407, p < .001), Pi (F(1, 737) = 21.489,
p < .001) and Ab (F(1, 737) = 16.796 p< .001). On average,
across conditions, 83.4 percent of participants recalled the
correct brand name. Only 24.6 percent of respondents managed to recall the correct USP. The brand extension (85.8
percent ) was marginally significantly better recalled than
the new brand (81.1 percent) (χ²(1) = 3.074, p = .080). The
USP was significantly better recalled in the ads for the new
brand (29.1 percent) than for the brand extension (20.1 percent) (χ²(1) = 8.209, p = .004). These findings support H2a
and H2b (❯ Table 1, Table 2).
For Ab, the main effect was qualified by a significant ad x
brand interaction (F(2, 736), p = .013, ❯ Figure 1). Only for the
new brands, the negative emotional ad (M = 3.92) was significantly worse than the informational (M = 4.61, p < .001)
and positive emotional appeals (M = 4.41, p < .001) based
on simple effects tests. For the brand extensions, the ads did
not differ significantly (Minfo = 4.88, Mpos emo = 4.65, Mneg emo =
4.67; F(2, 736) = 1.85, p = .157). This is consistent with H3.
Although the interaction effect for Apr was not significant
(F(2, 737) = 1.399, p = .248), in line with H3, simple effects
tests showed the differences between the three ad types were
4,20
Brand
4,00
Brand extension
New Brand
3,80
negative
emotional
Ad appeal
informational
Ad appeal
positive
emotional
Ad appeal
greater for the new brands (Minfo = 4.19, Mpos emo = 4.07, Mneg emo =
3.33; F(2, 737) = 16.83, p < .001) than for the brand extensions
(Minfo = 4.65, Mpos emo = 4.36, Mneg emo = 4.00; F(2, 737) = 8.10, p < .001).
Similarly for Pi, the interaction effect was not significant
(F(2, 737) = .480, p = .619), but the differences were againgreater for the new brands (Mpos emo = 3.80, Minfo = 3.75, Mneg emo =
3.04; F(2, 737) = 9.72, p < .001) than for the brand extensions
(Mpos emo = 4.24, Minfo = 4.19, Mneg emo = 3.71; F = 4.50, p = .011).
In terms of brand recall, the differences between appeals
were nonsignificant for both brands. However, we do see
that where in general, new brand suffer from a recall disadvantage compared to brand extensions, positive emotional
appeals are the only advertising format for which this difference is nonsignificant (χ²(1) = .020, p = .886). This does
signal a positive effect of positive emotional advertising on
new brand recall, as it helps bridge the “gap” with extensions. H4a, however, is not supported. The ad x brand interaction for USP recall was significant. For brand extensions,
the informational appeal managed to significantly increase
USP recall compared to the emotional appeals (χ²(2) =
15.781, p <.001). For new brands, this difference was not
significant (χ²(2) = 2.664, p = .264). This supports H4b.
(2, 737)
There was a significant ad x product category involvement
interaction fir Apr (F(2, 737) = 6.694, p = .001, ❯ Figure 2), sup-
15
16
transferWerbeforschung & Praxis
Figure 2: Ad x product category involvement interaction
effect for Aprod
4,75
4,50
4,25
4,00
Product category
3,75
Computer
Candy bar
negative
emotional
Ad appeal
informational
Ad appeal
positive
emotional
Ad appeal
porting H5. For the laptop computers, the informational
appeal (M = 4.75) engendered the most positive attitudes,
significantly better than the positive emotional ad (M =
4.13, p < .001), followed by the negative emotional appeal
(M = 3.71, p < .001). For the candy bars, the positive emotional ad (M = 4.30) scored significantly higher than the
negative emotional appeal (M = 3.61, p < .001) and non-significantly than the informational appeal (M = 4.10, p =
.215). For Pi (F(2, 737) = 1.956, p = .142) and Ab (F(2, 736) = 1.198,
p = .302), the interactions failed to reach significance in the
ANOVA, but the patterns of post hoc tests were similar to
Apr. Contrary to expectations (H6), the difference in brand
recall between the three different advertising strategies was
not significant for either of the two products. In terms of
USP recall, for laptop computers, the informational appeal
lead to the significantly highest USP recall (22.4 percent,
especially compared to the negative emotional appeal (9.7
percent) (χ²(2) = 8.024, p = .018). Contrary to expectations,
however, for the candy bars, the highest USP recall scores
were also noted with the informational appeal (43.0 percent
vs. 30.1 percent negative emotional, 21.4 percent positive
emotional; χ²(2) = 13.824, p = .001). H6 with respect to USP
recall is confirmed for the high involvement condition only.
5.
Discussion, conclusion,
and suggestions for further research
From the results of this research, it is apparent that brand
extensions are more positively evaluated than new brands
and benefit from a brand recall advantage over a new brand
FORSCHUNG | 04/2009
name. As such, launching new products as extensions of
established brands seems a viable strategy over new brands.
Brand managers seem to have understood this, as the vast
majority of new product introductions today are indeed
some form of extension. We did also find, however, that new
brands generated a higher recall of the USP of the advertised
product than extensions. Consumers seem to pay attention to
the familiar brand symbols, rather than registering it is
offering a new product. Especially for extensions, providing
product-related information in an informational advertising
appeal manages to increase USP recall. Positive emotional
appeals, on the other hand, seem to benefit brand recall for
new brand names, although the results were inconclusive.
Effective advertising appeals are also dependent upon consumers’ involvement with the advertised product category.
There is evidence that for the high involvement product category, laptop computers, informational appeal induce the
most positive attitudes and purchase intention, whereas in
case of lower product category involvement (candy bars), the
positive emotional appeal was most effective. The results in
terms of brand recall were consistent, but nonsignificant.
The USP in the advertisement was best recalled with an
informational appeal, for both products. Across brands, a
focus on direct delivery of specific information in an execution increases the chance that information will be recalled.
This was anticipated for high involvement conditions, but
occurred in the low involvement condition as well. We had
expected participants to experience cognitive overload and
disinterest when a lot of information was presented in an
advertisement in a low involvement context. On the other
hand, an informational appeal provides participants with
more information about the products. As such, they have
more opportunity to seize the USP. In our experimental ads,
the USP was repeated in the information, which in this case
resulted in higher USP recall, regardless of the product. In
this study, providing additional information in advertisements clearly stimulates recall of the USP of the advertised
product regardless of the product. This is consistent with
Stafford’s (1996) findings that tangibility of the advertising
copy increased recall regardless of the product category.
It should be noted that the product categories used in these
analyses were subject to a potential confound between product
category involvement and purchasing motivation. We have
established that the two product categories differ significantly in product category involvement, and we have attributed differences between the products to the difference in processing
motivation due to involvement. However, both products also
differ in purchasing motivation: whereas candy bars are gen-
18
transferWerbeforschung & Praxis
erally a highly hedonic product, most people will consider
laptop computers to be a more utilitarian product. These
products represent two of the four quadrants defined in the
Rossiter-Percy Grid (Bergkvist/Rossiter 2008; Rossiter/
Percy 1997). For most consumers, (new) products in these
categories should be low-involvement transformational
(candy bars) and high-involvement informational (laptop
computers). Our findings correspond to the creative strategies recommended by Rossiter and Percy (1997) of “emotional authenticity” for the low-involvement transformational case and “information” for the high-involvement informational case. However, our results also show that the effects of
advertising appeal interact with branding strategy. This interaction suggests that the recommendations from the RossiterPercy Grid may hold for new brands, but not necessarily for
extensions. For new brands, we consistently find support for
the Rossiter-Percy Grid, whereas the effects are smaller or
even non-existent for brand extensions. For a new brand, the
advertisement is very likely to causally affect brand variables
(Ab and Pi), because there are no prior brand variables that
could be alternative causes (Bergkvist/Rossiter 2008). For
extensions of well-known, high quality brands, the negative
evaluations of negative emotional appeals in terms of Aad are
not reflected in product and brand evaluations. Extensions
could still benefit from previous associations cancelling out
the effect of the ad (Stammerjohan et al. 2005). This is consistent with previous findings (e.g., Brown/Stayman 1992)
that the relationship between Aad and Ab is stronger for
unfamiliar brands.
On the basis of this research, there seems no compelling
reason to use negative emotional appeals for consumer
products in terms of attitudes. Especially for new brands,
negative emotional appeals damaged the product and general
brand perceptions. For extensions, the specific type of
appeal has less of a repercussion on product and brand evaluations, although further research into advertising for
extensions is necessary. Negative emotional appeals, of
course, are frequently used to attract attention to the ad and
break through the clutter (Pope et al. 2004; Shehryar/Hunt
2005). It is possible that attention may benefit from negative
emotional appeals, but if this is coupled with negative attitudinal reactions, they should be avoided in the context of
consumer products. In addition, negative emotional appeals
also did not significantly increase recall, suggesting that, if
indeed they increase attention, this is directed toward the
stimulus itself, rather than the advertised product or brand
name. When advertising for extensions, brand managers
need to make sure they stress the distinctiveness of the new
product well enough. Nijssen (1999) already pleaded that
FORSCHUNG | 04/2009
specific advertising budgets for extensions should be created.
We argue that the advertisements itself should also be distinctive enough. It does not suffice to piggyback on the brand’s
family name if awareness for the (USP of the) extension is
to be raised. In this case, informational appeals are recommended, because the focus on the newness of the product
benefits USP recall, especially for extensions, and regardless of consumers’ product category involvement levels.
New brands, on the other hand, seem to generate interest in
the advertised product, but suffer from lower brand recall.
Positive emotional appeals generate interest in the advertisements and manage to improve brand recall scores best.
As suggested by Janssens and De Pelsmacker (2005), advertisers may try to achieve the best of both worlds by creating
advertisements that generate both positive feelings, as well
as provide adequate information about the advertised product.
Based on the findings of our study, this may benefit brand
recall as well as recall of the USP of the advertised product
for both new brands and extensions.
There are a number of limitations of our two experiments
that represent opportunities for further research. In general,
brand recall scores were very high, which is to be expected
in experimental research using forced exposure and almost
immediate recall (e.g., Brennan 2008; Campbell/Keller
2003). The artificial setting of our experiments may have
over inflated recall scores. Potential ceiling effects may
account for the lack of statistical significance with some of
our results, although precautions were taken in the form of
a mind-clearing task. The conclusions of this study might
benefit from a replication in a more naturalistic setting, with
more varied attention measures. Further research could then
also include delayed recall and/or recognition measures. It
would be interesting to test how advertising responses for
different products and brands evolve after a number of
exposures. The results of this study could also be replicated
for different products and varying ad strategies.
In our current design, we used only highly familiar, highquality brands, and brand extensions were selected to fit
moderately well with the newly launched product. It should
also be noted that we used only fictitious new products, with
which respondents had no direct experience. In this case, the
only information consumers had on the extension was represented in the ad. We deliberately chose fictitious extensions
so as to replicate the situation for a new product launch and
not to confound the data with previous ads for an existing
brand, or personal experience with the advertised product.
Personal experience with a new brand may reduce the major
influence of advertising on Apr and Ab (Smith 1993). Keller
04/2009 |
FORSCHUNG
and Sood (2003) also state that a strong experience with an
extension is required for a consumer to update his or her
feelings and opinions about the parent brand. This may be
why Ab seemed relatively robust for the extension brands.
The impact of different levels of parent brand quality, familiarity, and fit for extensions may be explored in terms of brand
and USP recall as well. As a limitation to our study design,
as mentioned, there was a confound between the two chosen
product categories, in that they did not only differ in product
category involvement, but also in purchasing motivation
(utilitarian versus hedonic). Further research should try to
disentangle the effect of pure level of product category
involvement from type of buying motivation.
Literature
Aaker, D. A.; Keller, K. L. (1990): Consumer evaluations of brand extensions.
Journal of Marketing, 54 (1), pp. 27-41.
Bergkvist, L.; Rossiter, J. R. (2008): The role of ad likability in predicting
an ad's campaign performance. Journal of Advertising, 37 (2), pp. 85-97.
Brand Strategy (2005): New brands versus extensions, 188, pp. 44-45.
Brennan, I. (2008): Brand placement in novels. International Journal of
Advertising, 27 (4), pp. 495-509.
Brown, S. P.; Homer, P. M.; Inman, J. J. (1998): A meta-analysis of relationships between ad-evoked feelings and advertising responses. Journal of
Marketing Research, 35 (1), pp. 114-126.
Brown, S. P.; Stayman, D. M. (1992): Antecedents and consequences of
attitude toward the ad - a meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 19
(1), 34-51.
Burke, M. C.; Edell, J. A. (1989): The impact of feelings on ad-based affect
and cognition. Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (1), pp. 69-83.
Campbell, M. C.; Keller, K. L. (2003): Brand familiarity and advertising
repetition effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (2), pp. 292-301.
Coulter, K. S. (2005): An examination of qualitative vs quantitative elaboration likelihood effects. Psychology & Marketing, 22 (1), pp. 31-49.
Coulter, K. S.; Punj, G. N. (2004): The effects of cognitive resource requirements, availability and argument quality on brand attitudes. Journal of
Advertising, 33 (4), pp. 53-64.
Dens, N.; De Pelsmacker, P. (2009): Advertising for extensions:
Moderating effects of extension type, advertising strategy, and product
category involvement on extension evaluation. Marketing Letters, forthcoming,
DOI: 10.1007/s11002-11009-19086-11001.
Dens, N.; De Pelsmacker, P.; Janssens, W. (2008): Exploring consumer
reactions to incongruent mild disgust appeals. Journal of Marketing
Communications, 14 (4), pp. 249-269.
transferWerbeforschung & Praxis
Ehrenberg, A. S. C. (2000): Repetitive advertising and the consumer.
Journal of Advertising Research, 40 (6), pp. 39-48.
Ehrenberg, A. S. C.; Barnard, N.; Kennedy, R.; Bloom, H. (2002): Brand
advertising as creative publicity. Journal of Advertising Research, 42 (4),
pp. 7-18.
Erevelles, S. (1998): The role of affect in marketing. Journal of Business
Research, 42 (3), pp. 199-215.
Gardner, M. P.; Mitchell, A. A.; Russo, J. E. (1985): Low involvement strategies for processing advertisements. Journal of Advertising Research, 14
(2), pp. 4-56.
Gielens, K.; Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M. (2007): Drivers of consumer acceptance of new packaged goods: An investigation across products and countries.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 24 (2), pp. 97-111.
Graesser, A. C.; Nakamura, G. V. (1982): The impact of a schema on comprehension and memory, in: Bower, G. H. (Ed.): The psychology of learning
and motivation, pp. 59-109, New York: Academic Press.
Greenwald, A. G.; Leavitt, C. (1984): Audience involvement in advertising:
Four levels. Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (1), pp. 581-592.
Heath, R. (2007): Emotional persuasion in advertising: A hierarchy-of-processing model. Working Paper Series (No. 2007.07), University of Bath,
School of Management.
Homer, P. M. (2006): Relationships among ad-induced affect, beliefs, and
attitudes. Journal of Advertising, 35 (1), pp. 35-51.
Isen, A. M. (2001): An influence of positive affect on decision making in
complex situations: Theoretical issues with practical implications. Journal
of Consumer Psychology, 11 (2), pp. 75-85.
Janssens, W.; De Pelsmacker, P. (2005): Emotional or informative? Creative
or boring? International Journal of Advertising, 24 (3), pp. 373-394.
Johar, J. S.; Sirgy, M. J. (1991): Value-expressive versus utilitarian advertising
appeals - when and why to use which appeal. Journal of Advertising, 20 (3),
pp. 23-33.
Keller, K. L.; Sood, S. (2003): Brand equity dilution. MIT Sloan Management
Review, 45 (1), pp. 12-15.
Keller, P. A.; Block, L. G. (1997): Vividness effects: A resource matching
perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (3), pp. 295-304.
Kent, R. J.; Allen, C. T. (1994): Competitive interference effects in consumer
memory for advertising: The role of brand familiarity. Journal of
Marketing, 58 (3), pp. 97-105.
Kumar, A.; Krishnan, S. (2004): Memory interference in advertising: A
replication and extension. Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (4), pp. 602-611.
Lai, M. (2006): The impacts of the brand strategies of new products on consumers’ behaviors. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on
Research in Advertising, Bath, UK.
Lang, A. (2000): The limited capacity model of mediated message processing.
Journal of Communication, 50 (1), pp. 46-70.
Hinweis: Beiträge in der Rubrik „Forschung“ sind in einer Doppelblind-Begutachtung jeweils von einem Wissenschafter und
einem Praktiker bewertet und für die Veröffentlichung in transfer - Werbeforschung & Praxis empfohlen worden.
Veröffentlichungen in der Rubrik „Praxis“ sind vom Herausgeber bewertet und zur Veröffentlichung empfohlen worden. Sie
müssen zur Unterscheidung vom Autor in seinen Publikationslisten mit dem Zusatz „im Praxisteil von transfer Werbeforschung & Praxis publiziert“ geführt werden.
19
20
transferWerbeforschung & Praxis
FORSCHUNG | 04/2009
Laskey, H. A.; Fox, R. J.; Crask, M. R. (1995): The relationship between
advertising message strategy and television commercial effectiveness.
Journal of Advertising Research, 35 (2), pp. 31-39.
Pieters, R. G. M.; de Klerk-Warmerdam, M. (1996): Ad-evoked feelings:
Structure and impact on Aad and recall. Journal of Business Research, 37
(2), pp. 105-114.
Lavidge, R. J.; Steiner, G. A. (1961): A model for predictive measurements
of advertising effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 25 (6), pp. 59-62.
Pope, N. K. L.; Voges, K. E.; Brown, M. R. (2004): The effect of provocation in the form of mild erotica on attitude to the ad and corporate image:
Differences between cause-related and product-based advertising. Journal
of Advertising, 33 (1), pp. 69-82.
Mandler, G. (1982): The structure of value: Accounting for taste, in: Clark,
M. S.; Fiske, S. T. (Eds.): Affect and cognition: The seventeenth annual
Carnegie symposium on cognition, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 3-36.
McCarthy, M. S.; Heath, T. B.; Milberg, S. J. (2001): New brands versus
brand extensions, attitudes versus choice: Experimental evidence for theory
and practice. Marketing Letters, 12 (1), pp. 75-90.
Rossiter, J. R.; Percy, L. (1997): Advertising and promotion management
(2nd.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Shehryar, O.; Hunt, D. M. (2005): A terror management perspective on the
persuasiveness of fear appeals. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15 (4),
pp. 275-287.
Meyers-Levy, J.; Malaviya, P. (1999): Consumer processing of persuasive
advertisements: An integrative framework of persuasion theories. Journal
of Marketing, 63 (4), pp. 45-60.
Smit, E. G.; Van Meurs, L.; Neijens, P. (2006): Effects of advertising likeability:
A 10-year perspective. Journal of Advertising Research, 46 (1), pp. 73-83.
Miniard, P. W.; Dickson, P. R.; Lord, K. R. (1988): Some central and peripheral thoughts on the route to persuasion. Advances in Consumer
Research, 15 (1), pp. 204-208.
Smith, D. C.; Park, C. W. (1992): The effects of brand extensions on market share and advertising efficiency. Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (3),
pp. 296-313.
Morris, J. D.; Woo, C.; Geason, J. A.; Kim, J. (2002): The power of affect:
Predicting intention. Journal of Advertising Research, 42 (3), pp. 7-17.
Smith, P. W.; Feinberg, R. A.; Burns, D. J. (1998): An examination of classical conditioning principles in an ecologically valid advertising context.
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 6 (1), pp. 63-72.
Nan, X. L. (2006): Affective cues and brand-extension evaluation:
Exploring the influence of attitude toward the parent brand and attitude
toward the extension ad. Psychology & Marketing, 23 (7), pp. 597-616.
Nijssen, E. J. (1999): Success factors of line extensions of fast-moving consumer goods. European Journal of Marketing, 33 (5/6), pp. 450-469.
Nkwocha, I.; Bao, Y.; Johnson, W. C.; Brotspies, H. V. (2005): Product fit
and consumer attitude toward brand extensions: The moderating role of
product involvement. Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, 13 (3), pp.
49-61.
Park, C. W.; Lessig, V. P. (1977): Judgmental rules and stages of the familiarity curve: Promotional implications. Journal of Advertising, 6 (1), pp.
10-16.
Park, C. W.; Young, S. (1986): Consumer response to television commercials:
The impact of involvement and background music on brand attitude
formation. Journal of Marketing Research, 23 (1), pp. 11-24.
Pauwels, K.; Silva-Risso, J.; Srinivasan, S.; Hanssens, D. M. (2004): New
products, sales promotions, and firm value: The case of the automobile
industry. Journal of Marketing, 68 (4), pp. 142-156.
Petty, R. E.; Cacioppo, J. T.; Goldman, R. (1981): Personal involvement as
a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 41, pp. 847-855.
Petty, R. E.; Cacioppo, J. T.; Strathman, A. J.; Priester, J. R. (2005): To think
or not to think? Exploring two routes to persuasion, in: Brock, T. C.; Green.
M. C. (Eds.): Persuasion: Psychological insights and perspectives.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 81-116.
Petty, R. E.; Gleicher, F; Baker, S. (1991): Multiple roles for affect in persuasion, in: Forgas. J. (Ed.): Emotion and social judgments. Oxford, UK:
Pergamon, pp. 181-200.
Smith, R. E. (1993): Integrating information from advertising and trial processes and effects on consumer response to product information.
Journal of Marketing Research, 30 (2), pp. 204-219.
Stafford, M. R. (1996): Tangibility in services advertising: An investigation of verbal versus visual cues. Journal of Advertising, 25 (3), pp. 13-28.
Stammerjohan, C.; Wood, C. M.; Chang, Y.; Thorson, E. (2005): An empirical investigation of the interaction between publicity, advertising, and previous brand attitudes and knowledge. Journal of Advertising, 34 (4), pp.
55-67.
Stewart, D. W.; Furse, D. (2000): Analysis of the impact of executional
factors on advertising performance. Journal of Advertising Research, 40
(6), pp. 85-88.
Warner, C. (2003): Advertising, in: Warner, C.; Buchman, J. (Eds.): Media
selling: Broadcast, cable, print and interactive. Ames, Iowa: Blackwell.
Weilbacher, W. M. (2003): How advertising affects consumers. Journal of
Advertising Research, 43 (2), pp. 230-234.
Wells, W. D. (2000): Recognition, recall, and rating scales. Journal of
Advertising Research, 40 (6), pp. 14-20.
Wing, H. (2004): Brand extension is not a low risk option that firms think
it is. Media Asia, p. 11.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1994): The personal involvement inventory - reduction,
revision, and application to advertising. Journal of Advertising, 23 (4), pp.
59-70.
04/2009 |
FORSCHUNG
transferWerbeforschung & Praxis
Appendix 1: Stimulus
Candy bar brand extension, positive emotional
Candy bar brand extension, negative emotional
Candy bar new brand, informational
PC new brand, positive emotional
PC new brand, negative emotional
PC brand extension, informational
21