The Effect Of Ad Variation And Brand Familiarity On Brand Name And Claim Recall:
A Theoretical Perspective
Dr. Anurag G. Hingorani
University of Technology, Sydney
Abstract
Consumers’ memory for an advertised brand is of great concern to advertisers. Previous research
has demonstrated that one way for advertisers to enhance consumer memory is to show different
or varied ads for the same brand, from one ad exposure to the next, instead of repeating the same
or identical ad. The emphasis of this prior research has been on unfamiliar brands even though, in
practice, ads have been typically varied for familiar brands. This paper extends the work of past
research by theoretically examining the effect of ad variation and brand familiarity on consumer
memory. Specifically, it addresses cosmetic and not substantive ad variation, and compares the
effects of ad executions that are completely varied, partially varied, and the same, from one ad
exposure to the next, on the recall of brand names and ad claims (about the brand), for familiar
versus unfamiliar brands. Research propositions are developed using the differential attention and
encoding variability explanations that emerged from psychology. The paper suggests that familiar
brands might be more likely than unfamiliar brands to benefit from ad variation, and that
completely varied ad executions might be better than partially varied ad executions if the goal is to
enhance memory for a familiar brand.
Introduction
Some empirical studies in marketing (e.g., Unnava and Burnkrant 1991) have suggested that an
advertiser is better off showing different or varied ads (ad executions) for the same brand from one
ad exposure to the next because the brand is more likely to be remembered (recalled) at a later
time, date, or place than if the same or identical ad is shown. Cola giants, Coke and Pepsi, have
done just that. Their ads are not identical from one ad exposure to the next. However, unlike the
Coke ads which are completely varied (i.e., non-identical and dissimilar), the Diet Pepsi ads are
partially varied (i.e., non-identical but similar). For instance, one Coke ad from the 1993 ‘Always
Coca-Cola’ ad campaign showed a woman watching a man blowing a Coca-Cola glass bottle, and
another ad depicted polar bears. These ads were completely different from each other because the
theme or creative concept was different, and by definition, the execution was also different. The
Diet Pepsi “You’ve got the right one baby, uh-huh!” campaign, on the other hand, had almost
always included the celebrity, Ray Charles, and the three “uh-huh” girls. The commercials were,
however, different in other aspects, such as some were in color and others were not. These ads
were partially different from each other because even though the executions were different, the
theme or creative concept was the same.
Based on the evidence that in order to improve consumer memory for ads, it might be better to
vary ads from one ad exposure to the next, the question that can be raised is: Which ad variation
strategy is better?; is it more effective to develop and show ads that are completely varied or, are
partially varied ads more useful in enhancing learning and forestalling wearout? Also, because
prior ad variation research has controlled for the level of brand familiarity, another question that
can be raised is: How useful is it to vary ads to different extents for familiar versus unfamiliar
brands? This question is important because most studies (e.g., McCullough and Ostrom 1974;
Schumann, Petty, and Clemons 1990) have assessed the effects of ad variation for unfamiliar
brands even though, in practice, ads have been typically varied for familiar brands.1 This paper
provides answers to these two questions in terms of theory.
Background
Ad Variation
In the marketing literature, one conceptualization of ad variation has been in terms of the type of
ad variation, namely, substantive or cosmetic variation (Schumann and Clemons 1989; Schumann
et al. 1990). Substantive variation in ads refers to variation or change in the message content (i.e.,
product or brand claims/arguments/attributes) over repeated ad presentations but the cosmetic
characteristics of ads (e.g., color, layout, print font) remain reasonably constant (Schumann et al.
1990). Cosmetic variation in ads refers to variation or change in the background or nonsubstantive features (e.g., graphics, color, music) over repeated ad presentations but the basic
product or brand message is kept the same (Schumann et al. 1990). Essentially, substantive
variation represents changes from ad to ad that are central to the product or brand being
advertised, and cosmetic variation represents changes from ad to ad that are peripheral or ancillary
to the advertised product or brand (Pechmann and Stewart 1988; Schumann et al. 1989).
The focus of this paper is on the level or extent of ad variation, and not on the type of ad
variation as defined by Schumann et al. (1990). Specifically, different levels of cosmetic ad
variation are considered but the brand claims/arguments remain the same (i.e., no substantive
variation).
It should be noted that although ad variation (in particular, level of ad variation) is a continuous
variable, in that, consumers might perceive ads to be varied to different extents, this paper
examines only three discrete levels of ad variation, namely, no cosmetic ad variation, low to
moderate cosmetic ad variation, and high cosmetic ad variation. Treating ad variation as a discrete
(trichotomous) variable is consistent with prior research (Burnkrant et al. 1987; Schumann et al.
1989; Schumann et al. 1990; Unnava et al. 1991) that appears to have examined two discrete
levels, namely, no ad variation and low to moderate ad variation.
In this paper, ‘no cosmetic ad variation’ is represented by ‘same ads,’ ‘low to moderate cosmetic
ad variation’ by ‘partially varied ads,’ and ‘high cosmetic ad variation’ by ‘completely varied
ads.’ These ads are differentiated according to cosmetic differences in their theme and execution.
‘Theme’ (as applied to cosmetic ad variation) is defined as the creative concept or idea around
which an ad campaign is organized [adapted from a definition of ‘theme’ by Toffler and Imber
(1994) and based on a description of ‘theme’ by Schumann et al. (1990); refer to footnote for an
illustration of the term ‘theme’].2 ‘Execution’ (as applied to cosmetic ad variation) is defined as
the way in which an ad is prepared to communicate the theme [adapted from a definition of
‘execution’ by Toffler et al. (1994) and a definition of ‘execute’ by Wiechmann (1993)]. The way
in which an ad is prepared refers to the executional elements used, such as, pictures, music,
celebrities, etc.. Thus, in this paper, completely varied ads are those ads that are cosmetically
varied in execution and theme, partially varied ads are those ads that are cosmetically varied in
execution but not theme, and same ads are those ads that do not cosmetically vary in execution or
theme. Additionally, it should be noted that a completely varied ad is viewed as being varied in
other executional elements (e.g., picture, layout, font type, font size, color, etc.) besides those
executional elements that are varied in a partially varied ad. That is, it is viewed as having more
number of executional elements that are varied than a partially varied ad.
Brand Familiarity
In this paper, a brand is viewed as being either ‘familiar’ or ‘unfamiliar’; a brand is viewed as
being ‘familiar’ if a consumer had some prior experience with it, and ‘unfamiliar’ if a consumer
had no prior experience with it. This is consistent with prior conceptualizations of brand
familiarity (e.g., Machleit and Wilson 1988).
Development of Propositions
It has been posited that varying ad executions from one ad exposure to the next is more effective
(in terms of improving recall and/or attitudes) than repeating same ad executions
(Burnkrant et al. 1987; Schumann et al. 1990; Unnava et al. 1991). Two prominent explanations
that have been offered for this hypothesis include encoding variability (Burnkrant et al. 1987;
Schumann et al. 1990; Unnava et al. 1991) and differential attention (Unnava et al. 1991).
The Encoding Variability Explanation
The Encoding Variability Explanation has roots in the encoding variability hypothesis (Madigan
1969; Martin 1968; Melton 1967) that emerged from cognitive psychology. According to the
encoding variability hypothesis (D’Agostino and DeRemer 1972; Young and Bellezza 1982),
when an individual is exposed to information more than once, the likelihood of retrieving (i.e.,
recalling) that information later is greater if the information is encoded (i.e., represented in
memory) differently on every exposure occasion than if it is encoded in the same way on different
exposure occasions.
When applied to advertising, the encoding variability hypothesis suggests that if a brand name or
ad claim about the brand is associated with two different cues (cues such as graphics, layout,
scenery, spokesperson, etc.) instead of the same cue on two different ad exposure occasions, the
likelihood of recalling that brand name or ad claim is increased. Typically in ads, the context in
which the brand name and other brand-related information is embedded serves as a retrieval cue
for the information to be recalled (Unnava et al. 1991, p 406). Thus, if a brand of cola is
embedded in the context of a beach party in one ad and a dorm party in another ad, the two
contexts may serve as two different retrieval cues for the cola.
When advertisers pair or associate a brand (or brand information) with two different contexts (or
cues) in ad executions shown on two exposure occasions, it may be said that they are facilitating
encoding variability by the ad viewer (consumer) by means of ad variation. The purpose behind
such ad variation may be to increase the number of traces (i.e., representations or paths) in a
consumer’s memory for that brand (or brand information), and thus, the chance that he or she will
recall it at a later time, date, or place. Because some studies have shown that brand recall is
strongly correlated with brand choice (Nedungadi and Hutchinson 1985), influencing recall
through ad variation could be in an advertiser’s interest.
Based on the encoding variability hypothesis which links recall or retrieval superiority with the
number of traces or representations encoded in memory for the to-be-remembered information
(e.g., brand name and claims), it may be posited that completely varied ads should be more
effective in enhancing recall for brand names and ad claims than partially varied ads since the
former ads should generate more traces than the latter. Completely varied ads should generate
more traces than partially varied ads as a direct result of variation, not only in more executional
elements than partially varied ads but also in the thematic or conceptual element (cue) associated
with the brand name and claim. Relatedly, same ads should generate fewer traces than either
partially varied or completely varied ads because not only is the thematic or conceptual element
not varied but also no executional element is varied. Thus, based on the encoding variability
hypothesis, it could be posited that completely varied ads should be superior to same ads, in
enhancing recall of information such as brand names and claims. But, because advertising for
familiar brands may not work in the same way as advertising for unfamiliar brands (Machleit et al.
1993), will completely varied ads be superior, and same ads be inferior, in enhancing recall for
both familiar and unfamiliar brands? The encoding variability hypothesis (e.g., Martin 1968), and
studies that have supported it (e.g., Unnava et al. 1991), have nothing to say about the role of
brand familiarity. This paper addresses its role by examining the effect of ad variation on recall
for familiar versus unfamiliar brands.
The Differential Attention Explanation
The Differential Attention Explanation for the effect of ad variation on memory (recall) was
explicitly provided by Unnava et al. (1991) but it can be traced to the work of Adams (1916),
Poffenburger (1925), and Heeler (1972) in the marketing literature (Schumann et al. 1990, p 193).
In the psychology literature it may be associated with the related work of Berlyne (1950),
namely, the effects of stimulus novelty and variation on attention.
According to the differential attention explanation, when individuals are exposed to the same or
identical information repeatedly, the level of attention paid to later exposures declines. The
rationale is that individuals perceive the information to be the same as what they have seen and
attended to previously, which results in reduced attention due to not only a loss of interest in the
information but also a lack of motivation to attend to it (Greenberg and Suttoni 1973; Unnava et
al. 1991). This decreased attention to later exposures is observable as inferior recall performance
in the same-execution presentations when compared with varied-execution presentations
(Burnkrant et al. 1987; Unnava et al. 1991). This is because, in the case of the latter, the novelty
of the new, varied execution arouses interest, which leads to enhanced attention (Berlyne 1950).
The greater the attention (i.e., the greater the amount of time spent looking at an ad), the greater
the likelihood of recall (i.e., remembering information from the ad) (Greenberg et al. 1973).
Because partially varied ads are partly varied and partly same, it may be inferred that they are
less novel and have less arousal potential than completely varied ads, and are more novel and have
more arousal potential than same ads. Thus, according to the differential attention explanation, it
could be posited that, “Completely varied ads should be superior to partially varied ads which, in
turn, should be superior to same ads, in enhancing recall of information such as brand names and
claims.” However, advertising for familiar and unfamiliar brands may work in different ways
(Machleit et al. 1993). Thus, before accepting the superiority of completely varied ads and the
inferiority of same ads, the effect of these ads on recall must be assessed for both familiar and
unfamiliar brands. In other words, the question that is raised here is: Does brand familiarity
moderate the effect of ad variation on brand name and ad claim recall?
The Role of Ad Variation in Consumer Memory
For ads of familiar brands:
When consumers are exposed once to a new ad for a familiar brand, they can readily associate or
integrate the advertised information, such as claims, with the brand name. This is because they
have a preexisting brand name node in memory (Bettman 1979). This preexisting node
representing the brand or brand name is the result of their prior experience with the brand, such as
brand trial, consumption, prior ad exposure, etc.. When shown the same ad for the second time,
and within a short period of time, the individual has another opportunity to learn brand
information (i.e., the claim) but might be less motivated or willing to learn. This is because the
second exposure to a previously, and recently, encountered stimulus (i.e., the brand and the ad),
might not arouse any interest in the viewer and in fact might bore him or her (Greenberg et al.
1973). However, if the second ad execution, that is shown within a short time period, is varied,
then the novelty or unfamiliarity of this stimulus (i.e., the ad) may arouse or renew his or her
interest. Thus, the viewer is more willing to attend to, and learn information about the brand on
this second ad exposure occasion; information such as the brand claim. Consequently, varied ad
executions could facilitate ad wearin (i.e., learning) and postpone ad wearout (i.e., forgetting) in
the case of familiar brands. Thus, the differential attention explanation could account for the
superior claim recall scores for completely varied ads, less superior recall scores for partially
varied ads, and inferior recall scores for same ads, in the case of familiar brands. A similar
argument of attention renewal versus inattention can be made in the case of brand name recall
when a consumer is exposed to a different (varied) versus an identical (same) ad, the second time
around. Specifically, it is proposed that:
P1:
For a familiar brand, brand name (and claim) recall scores will be the highest in
the completely varied-ad condition, the lowest in the same-ad condition,
and neither as high nor as low in the partially varied-ad condition.
Again, because an individual can form multiple traces or paths to the brand, as a result of being
exposed to brand information that is embedded in varied (hence, multiple) contexts or associated
with different cues, recall scores are expected to be higher for varied than same ads. Thus, the
encoding variability explanation could also account for the effect of ad variation on recall of
information about a familiar brand.
For ads of unfamiliar brands:
When consumers are exposed once (i.e., for the first time) to an unfamiliar brand, they develop or
have the opportunity to develop a brand name node since it is not already preexisting (as in the
case of a familiar brand). When shown the same ad for the second time, and within a short time
period, they have an opportunity to strengthen the brand name node (Anderson 1983) as well as
associate or integrate the advertised information, such as claims, with the brand name. That is,
they have a greater opportunity for learning (and therefore, a greater likelihood of later recalling)
the brand name or claims as a result of the repetition (Anderson 1983; Belch 1982; Gartman and
Johnson 1972; MacInnis et al. 1991). This repetition is also highly unlikely to be boring or
uninteresting since the stimulus (i.e., the brand) is relatively novel or unfamiliar. When exposed
to an ad execution that is partially or completely varied on the second exposure, the individual
might have less of an opportunity (i.e., a small or weak second opportunity) to learn about the
brand because he or she is not shown the same ad. Also, learning might be hindered; the varied ad
execution on the second exposure could either go unnoticed due to it being mistaken as an ad for
another product/brand, or be insufficiently attended to, due to the consumer’s unwillingness to
expend additional effort that might be necessary to learn about a relatively unfamiliar (as opposed
to familiar) brand from a newly (as opposed to previously) encountered ad. Thus, in this case,
varied ads could impede attention and learning, and hence subsequent recall of information. It
should be noted that because partially varied ads are less varied than completely varied ads, they
provide less of an impediment to attention and learning than completely varied ads.
Consequently, it could be hypothesized that: “For an unfamiliar brand, brand name (or claim)
recall scores will be the highest in the same-ad condition, the lowest in the completely varied-ad
condition, and neither as high nor as low in the partially-varied ad condition.”
Now, according to the encoding variability explanation, varied ads are more effective than nonvaried ads. In fact, this has been supported in studies that did not manipulate the level of brand
familiarity but kept it constant by examining an unfamiliar brand only (Unnava et al. 1991).
Thus, there are two competing hypotheses; one in favor of non-varied ads when the brand is
unfamiliar and the lag between ad exposures is short, and another in favor of varied ads under
similar conditions. It is expected that, on average, neither of the two hypotheses would dominate
in the case of an unfamiliar brand and that any recall differences observed among the three ads
(same, partially varied, and completely varied) would be non-significant. Thus, it is proposed
that:
P2:
For an unfamiliar brand, there will be no significant differences in brand
name (and claim) recall scores among the same-ad, partially varied-ad, and
completely varied-ad conditions.
It should be noted that the rationale for P2 could also be derived from the argument that in the
case of an unfamiliar brand, the unfamiliarity or novelty of the brand itself could contribute to
recall, and that the extent of ad variation might not make any difference.
Conclusion
Regarding consumer memory for cosmetically varied ads, this paper addresses two questions.
‘To vary ads or not? That’s one question.’ The answer from a theoretical perspective is: Vary, if
the brand is relatively familiar. Vary or not—it does not matter—if the brand is relatively
unfamiliar. ‘To vary ads partially or completely? That’s another question.’ The suggestion is:
Vary completely, if the brand is familiar.
1
An exception is the study by Burnkrant and Unnava (1987). They used a non-fictitious, and hence, potentially familiar brand of whisky
(Dewar’s). However, they did not compare ad variation effects for a fictitious (unfamiliar) brand with a non-fictitious (familiar) brand.
2
If one ad for a dandruff shampoo depicts “a girl staring at her date who has dandruff” and another ad depicts “a dermatologist
recommending the product,” then the two shampoo ads are different in theme or creative concept. The theme in the first ad is “someone is
staring at the person with dandruff” and the theme in the second ad is “someone is endorsing the product.” However, if “Dermatologist John”
is depicted in one ad and “Dermatologist Jane” in another ad, then the creative concept or theme is considered to be the same in both ads,
namely, “someone is endorsing the product.” Or, if one ad depicted “a girl staring at her date who has dandruff” and another ad depicted “a
supervisor staring at a subordinate who has dandruff,” then the creative concept or theme is the same in both ads, namely, “someone is staring
at the person with dandruff.” It should be noted that this illustration of the term “theme” (as applied to cosmetic ad variation) was adapted from
a description of ads used by Unnava and Burnkrant (1991).
References
Anderson, J. (1983), “A Spreading Activation Theory of Memory,” Journal of Verbal Learning
and Verbal Behavior, 22, 261-295.
Belch, G. (1982), “The Effects of Television Commercial Repetition on Cognitive Response and
Message Acceptance,” Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 4-10.
Berlyne, D. (1950), “Novelty and Curiosity as Determinants of Exploratory Behavior,” The
British Journal of Psychology, 41, 68-80.
Bettman, J. (1979), “Memory Factors in Consumer Choice: A Review,” Journal of Marketing,
43, 37-53.
Burnkrant, R. and H. Unnava (1987), “Effects of Variation in Message Execution on the Learning
of Repeated Brand Information,” Advances in Consumer Research, 14, 173-176.
D’Agostino, P. and P. DeRemer (1972), “Item Repetition in Free and Cued Recall,” Journal of
Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 54-58.
Gartman, L. and N. Johnson (1972), “Massed Versus Distributed Repetition of Homographs: A
Test of the Differential-Encoding Hypothesis,” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,
11, 801-808.
Greenberg, A. and C. Suttoni (1973), “Television Commercial Wearout,” Journal of Advertising
Research, 13, 47-54.
Kent, R. and C. Allen (1994), “Competitive Interference Effects in Consumer Memory for
Advertising: The Role of Brand Familiarity,” Journal of Marketing, 58, 97-105.
Machleit, K., C. Allen, and T. Madden (1993), “The Mature Brand and Brand Interest: An
Alternative Consequence of Ad-Evoked Affect,” Journal of Marketing, 57, 72-82.
---- and D. Wilson (1988), “Emotional Feelings and Attitude Toward the Advertisement: The
Roles of Brand Familiarity and Repetition,” Journal of Advertising, 17, 27-35.
Madigan, S. (1969), “Intraserial Repetition and Coding Processes in Free Recall,” Journal of
Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 828-835.
Martin, E. (1968), “Stimulus Meaningfulness and Paired-Associate Transfer: An Encoding
Variability Hypothesis,” Psychological Review, 75, 421-441.
McCullough, J. and T. Ostrom (1974), “Repetition of Highly Similar Messages and Attitude
Change,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 395-397.
Melton, A. (1967), “Repetition and Retrieval from Memory,” Science, 158, 532.
Nedungadi, P. and J. Hutchinson (1985), “The Prototypicality of Brands: Relationships with
Brand Awareness, Preference and Usage,” Advances in Consumer Research, 12, 498-503.
Pechmann, C. and D. Stewart (1988), “Advertising Repetition: A Critical Review of Wearin and
Wearout,” Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 11, 285-329.
Schumann, D. and D. Clemons (1989), “The Repetition/Variation Hypotheses Conceptual and
Methodological Issues,” Advances in Consumer Research, 16, 529-534.
----, R. Petty, and D. Clemons (1990), “Predicting the Effectiveness of Different Strategies of
Advertising Variation: A Test of the Repetition-Variation Hypotheses,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 17, 192-202.
Toffler, B. and J. Imber (1994), Dictionary of Marketing Terms. New York: Barron’s Educational
Series, Inc..
Unnava, H. and R. Burnkrant (1991), “Effects of Repeating Varied Executions on Brand Name
Memory,” Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 406-416.
Weichmann, J. (1993), NTC’s Dictionary of Advertising. Lincolnwood, Illinois: NTC Publishing
Group.
Young, D. and F. Bellezza (1982), “Encoding Variability, Memory Organization, and the
Repetition Effect,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 8,
545-559.