,:..
.
c
.
.
.. . . . . ..
.
.
.
.
.
. . ” . . . . - ..*J
.
.
.
.
-
.
4
-
-
-
-
-
“-.....
.-
=..
.
.
- - - - -
-
#
.
HOW ADVERTISING
WORKS:
A PLANNING MODEL
REVISITED
I
i :HARD VAUGHN IS senior
~ presldf?~t and research
!.Wtor of Foote. Cone &
$ddlng In LOS Angeles prior
- mmlng FCB In 1978, he
kas w!th Ralston Purina
:~pany for 15 years in a
,, P:y of market!ng and re-
~2rCFt asswments$ ln.dlng research director of
. * van Camp Sea Food DI ~wrr In San Diego. Over the
rears, he has been tnvolved
. ml! aspects of researching
--?ducts and services for the
.S marketplace, including
PIoioratlon of consumer
,@ues and behavior tn rela‘t,xr to the economic climate.
u, Vatighn attended
. C L A and Occidental Col~e majoring In Philosophy
vw Engltsh He was a
‘+?mber of the edltorlal reNW board of the Journa/ of
V$’ke?)ng from 1974 through
‘:’8 and IS presently on the
w.Iew board of the Journa/
4
hc/ve</s, ng Research, In
‘“W he authored an adver~ t ng plannlng model which
‘ M been adopted worldwlde
:! Foote, Cone & Beldtng.
w=%.
n response t[~ a need for strategic discipline and creati~’e
stimulation durins a ci\’ertising planning, Foote, Cone &
Belding explored and developed
a comprehensive communication
model (Vaughn, 1980). Building
upon traditional consumer response theories (Kotler, 1965)
and the hierarchy-of-effects
model and its variants (Lavidge
and Steiner, 1961; Robertson,
1970), this new model combined
high-low involvement and leftright brain specialization. The result was a visually coherent and
intriguing matrix (see Figure 1).
The advertising planning propositions inherent in the quadrant~
in Figure 1 suggested that communication response would certainly be different for high versus
low involvement products/
services and those which required predominantly thinking
(left brain) or feeling (right brain)
information processing. This map
was not only intuitively appealing; it conveniently helped
place Kotler’s consumer response
theories in useful perspective
and also provided niches for several low involvement models
(Ray, 1973; Robertson, 1976) developed to explain consumer behavior which did not follow the
learn-feel-do sequence of the
basic hierarchy-of-effects.
Now identified simply as the
FCB Grid (Berger, 1985), this
planning model d(’lineatcs four
primary advertising planning
st~-(~te~ics –-–’’i]lfor]l]a{ i”e,’” “af f~xiive,” “habitucll,” and “satisfaction,” with tht’ir mo$t appro-
priate traditional and variant hierarch y-of-effects models (see
Figure 2).
Quadrant 1. The iYZ@wzatiZw
strategy is for highly involving
products/services where thinking
and economic considerations
prevail. The classical hierarchyof-effects sequence—awareness
+ knowledge -+ liking + preference -+ conviction + purchase—
abbreviated to “learn + feel +
do”—is the designated model for
such big-ticket items as cars, appliances, and insurance.
Quadrant 2. The aflective
strategy is for highly involving
and feeling purchases, those
more psychological products fulfilling self-esteem, subconscious,
and ego-related impulses requiring perhaps more emotional
communication. A variant hierarchy putting “feel” before
“learn” and “do” is the priority
for such products as cosmetics,
jewelry, and fashion clothing.
Quadrant 3. The habitual
strategy is for those low involvement and thinking products with
such routinized consumer behavior that learning occurs most
often after exploratory trial
buying. This implies a responsiv-e, behavioral learning-bydoing. Although some minimal
level of awareness may precede
purchase, deeper learning is not
necessary for such commodity
decisions,as paper products,
household cleaners or gasoline.
Quadrant 4. The satisfaction
strategy is for low involvcnlent/
feeling products, items of personal taste, “life’s little
Journal of ADVERTISING RESEARCH— FEB’MAR 1986 ST
●
Figure 1
Tt+INK
FEEL
s
o
I
:
i
HIGH
INVOLVEMENT
:
D
:
:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
}-----”------”””
I
I
:
B
LOW
INVOLVEMENT
:
I
D
:
t
!
pleasures” such as beer, cigarettes, and candy. A social model
is useful for many of these peeroriented items, and the hierarchy
places “do” before “feel” and
“learn” because product experience is so necessary a part of the
communication process.
Reaction to the grid was positive and enthusiastic. Despite, or
perhaps because of, its simplicity
manv advertisers accepted it as a
prac~ical, creative way around the
overutilization of the classical
learn --+ feel -+ do hierarchy
model in all advertising strategy
planning. Even in its earliest applications, the grid:
■ helped organize available research and management
opinions about category and
brand placement in consumer
involvement and think-feel
terms;
● stimulated insightful questions
and hypotheses about a
product’s advertising options
in the context of the competitive situation;
■ and brought previously unconsidered ernot~onal, nonverbal,
and sensory strategic possibilities into legitimate contention
with rational, verbal, and semantically more powerful
suggestions.
Because the grid managed to
condense almost three decades of
con>umer behavior theory into a
practical format, it worked sur-
prising]}’ well in a l’arit’t~’ of
problen;-solving situati{}ns. It
was even pointed out that the
grid itself exemplified the unity
of left-right brain con~plementarity in being bt)th ~’erbal and
visual, thereb)’ ~’irtuall)’ c(lmpelling a ne~v w’a~’ of appn~aching
str~tegic planning t(~r e~-c’n a
long-establishcci product.
It was also apparent, however,
that some preliminary implications of the grid in several areas
were premature if not unrealistic.
For example, specific creative,
media, and copy-test activities
were proposed for each strategic
quadrant before it was sensibly
realized just how category or
brand-specific such issues were,
Also, think and feel were mistakenly viewed as independent
rather than complementary and
interrelated. One particularly
flamboyant bit of generalization
suggested that high involvement
or think-oriented products would
“NK , ‘L
i
WGH
INVOLVEMENT
lNFORM&TIVE
(Erxmomfc)
m---”
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,!
-
-
HAEtlTUAL
(Respcmswe)
LOW
involvement
m-Lwm-FIA
D
lniwamO\2
Journal of ADVERTISING RESEARCH -- FEBIMAR 1986
n
:
,
sAnsFAcTrQ
(social)
~ oo-l%l.bm
naturally decay over time to 10M
involvement or feel.
These impractical hypothese5
were abandoned during early,
judgmental applications of the
grid, but two questions did
emerge which could not be ignored with grid experience:
(1) Did the grid accurately depl
real consumer involvement
and think-feel dimensions?
(2) Where were major product
THINK
t4tQH
INVOLVEMENT
-%
:
#.
FCB U.S. Grid Study
. 35mm
------. --=
:0
Figure 3
.Ufe
-
(p&&::&,
+
~ FarnIty -r
carnera~
8
D
8
:
B
: . Ccwnphbf’i
● M~CX oil
: soap
●
l%rfutna
mstlng
card
,
58
\
Figure 2
FCB
Grid
Table 1
FCB U.S. Grid Study—Factor Correlations
Involvement
Think/Feel
Important
.96
.03
Lose
.90
-.03
Thought
.97
.12
Logical/objectwe
.93
-.28
Functional facts
.75
-.50
Feeling
.70
.66
Personality
.47
.80
-.47
.65
Sensory effects
categories actually located in
grid space?
The value of the grid in providing workable strategic solutions had been demonstrated in
several advertising success
stories, but FCB nevertheless undertook an extensive research
and development program
(Ratchford, 1985). A considerable
effort went into operationalizing
involvement and think-feel, and
eventually eight scales were
accepted:
$
sumers across some 250 prodUq
categories. Respondents rated *Q
cently purchased products/ ‘
services using the eight scales,
which permitted grid mapp~g
on the basis of iIWO]VeIYK?nt ~d
think-feel dimensionality. Ten
representative categories are ~.
lustrated in Figure 3.
Products and services plotted
where reasonably expected; ~i
ysis of individual scale scores
helped profile which constru~
had contributed most to. categon
location. And, as a quahty con-trol check on the test instru~eot
the scales were correlated by
Figure 4
,“
Headache Remedy—France
‘P’
16 %$
FEEL
THINK
D
. Wganine :
9
D
9
HIGH
INVOLVEMENT
i
D
Involvement
D Very important/unimportant
decision
■ Lot/little to lose if you choose
the wrong brand
m Decision requires ]ot/litt]e
thought
Think
N Decision is/is not mairdy logical
or objective
s Decision is/is not based mainly
on functional facts
Feel
Decision is/is not based on a lot
of feeling
Decision does/does not express
one’s personality
Decision is/is not based on
looks, taste, touch, smell, or
sound (sensory effects)
● TjMnol :
“ Doliprane :
● Efferalgan :
Toutes marques $F “Aspegic
As@nne.* ~p’(j
:
“UPSA
:
B
-... - . . . . . . . . . . . . ..-.. *...= . . . . . --------●
Catalgme
D
D
D
D
&pinne du RhMe ~
B
Q
B
D
LOW
INVOLVEMENT
The primary grid validation
study was conducted in the
United States among 1,800 con-
i
s
D
#
B
9
B
t
/
60
Journal of ADVERTISING RESEARCH— FEB MAR 1986
- ——.— —.- —..-’
..=$
.
~
{
Headache Remedy Clusters,
Dispersion
FACIAL TISSUE
CLUSTERS, DISPERSION
FEEL
I
I
I
I
I
1
#
as shown in Figure 4 for aspirin
brands.
It was also practical and sti~u.
lating to cluster consumers
around a category plot. ObViousl}’ not m’eryone placed eaCl,
catego~ at the mean. A typical ‘
three-cluster so]ution produced
dispersions much like the example shown in FiSure 5. Exam.
ining different invc;l~’en~ent and
think/feel scores for these
clusters, and their brand Prefer.
ences, helped isolate new” stral
tegic advertising options.
Figure 5
THINK
10
Y
6*
I
I
HIGH
INVOLVEMENT
the grid managed to
condense almost three
decades of consumer behavim
theory
w into a practical
fomat . . .
.
11 111 111 1111111
---- ---- ---- -.
3
3 3=333 3 3 3 3 3
I
3
3 3 3 3 +3333X3333
3
3
[
333:3
33
3
3
3
‘o’””’” /-%t’:z 33
2
22
2
)
(
2
2
22
2
2
2
2
2
22;2
2
q2
2
2
22
factor (see Table 1). Some think
and feel items correlated with involvement, which confirmed that
it was possible to have varying
amounts of think and feel—high
or low— depending on involvement. The involvement and
think-feel factors, however,
worked very well in discriminating consumers’ productdecision space.
To date, over 20,000 consumer
interviews have been completed
in 23 countries. Correlations of
62
i
I 2 2 2
I
Z42p22
22
’
I
2!
2
\
22
m
222
22
22A
common products were con~puted between pairs of countries
and were quite high, which told
us that consumer mental processes were similar over the marketing world despite necessary
concessions to communication
distinctions in advertising.
Previous judgmental use of the
grid had included not only category plotting but exploratory
placement of brands as well.
Major grid studies provided large
sample sizes for brand plotting,
Journal of ADVLR1 ISING RESEARCH— FEBIMAR 1986
,
0
-
And, in a follow7-up to the U.S.
grid study, it m’as also possible tc
plot characteristics for selected
categories. Derived from prior
research and brainstorming, cate
gory and brand attributes were
scaled for involvement and
think-feel. As shown in Figure&
the wine attributes that were
most involving and feeling-oriented (upper right skew) were
the most useful in differentiating
consumer brand preferences.
While brand and attribute
mapping are far from unique,
having such analysis anchored t(
a strategic planning model is e~tremely useful in advertising de
velopment. The linkage to consumer decision processes reassures that the executional option!
are being created in a relevant
context and that final advertising
is more likely to be motivating
Despite the successful applic~
tion of the grid in planning advertising, we have nonetheless
continued to speculate about thf
involvement and think-feel dimensions. Fortunately, many
Km
?-’-’-”
others are doing so as well. For
example, while the FCB grid defines involvement in the context
of a consumer’s purchase decision, it is clear that it could also
be defined in the purchase situation or in product consumption
(Kassa~ian, 1981).
Since the grid is often used to
reflect on previous consumer research as well as current marketing judgments about a
product’s positioning and advertising opportunities, it is important to be flexible and insightful
about consumer involvement.
The real question often is not
how much involvement but what
kind and what it means. Recent
projects by Laurent and Kapferer
(1985) and Slama and Tashchian
(1985) are promising in their exploration of an array of involvement elements.
The think-feel dimension is
more problematic. While splitbrain research supports specialized cognitive and affective
mental styles, it is also recognized that the brain is actually a
unified system (Levy, 1981) that
integrates complex stimuli and
adroitly manages both information and emotion. But most discussion of this topic in the marketing literature has been metaphorical rather than empirical.
consumer mental
processes were similar over
the marketing world despite
necessary concessions to
communication distinctions
in advertising.
. . .
Some advertising applications
(H,msen, 1978; Appel, 1979;
Kruglnan, 1980; Weinstein, 1982)
sug~est that what we may be
contending with, in its simplest
comm u 11 i cation form, is a verbC~l/
nonverbal and semantic/sensory
64
Figure 6
Wine for Dinner Parties-Attributes
Wine For Dinner Parties
THINK
1
2
HIQH
INVOLVEMEM
●
●
●
●
3
●
●
●
●
●
INVOLVEMEW
●
continuum that allows people to
integrate information and emotion as necessary.
Perhaps the best that can be
said at this time is that emotion
has at least become a legitimate
topic for discussion in making effective advertisments (Zajonc,
1982; Holbrook and O’Shaughnessy, 1984; Stout and Leckenby,
1984), and there is also renewed
interest in nonverbal elements in
advertising (Watson, 1979;
Childers, 1984; Haley, 1984).
While there is still much to be
learned about thinking and
feeling in advertising, the distinction made by Hollm-ook (1978)
between “logical, objectively verifiable descriptions of tangible
product features” and “emotional, subjective impressions of
intangible aspects of tl~e product”
are fundamentally important for
Journal of ADVERTISING RESEARCH— FEB’MAR 1986
— ——- . ..-. . .
anyohe confronting the uncertainties of advertising strategy
and the perplexities of creative
executions.
Other work continues on the
hierarchy-of-effects model
(Preston and Thorson, 1984), be
havior-oriented consumer
learning models (Nerd, 1980;
Rothschild, 1981), and attitudedominant (Mitchell, 1981; Shimf
1981) consumer models to furthl
our understanding of how advel
tising works. Moran (1985) has
put forth a computer microchip
analogy with various consumer
processing paths activated toward purchases much the way
energy flows through a microci]
cuit, clearing gates and followin
channels set by consumer need!
and advertising resportse.
Regardless of how these further explorations come out, thu
~rce
text 0
tising
We
know
tising
work
well f
tive a
~rovf
~~mtil
diligc
}W’op
=$!
,Jf
the
FCB Grid has helped to
:ama~ through a previously rigid
~ate~c barr!er and become
~,lre expansive and creative in
..
‘er‘gy
tive
the
:), In
o;
~dehim
furtl
advi
has
chip
mer
tovay
swi
~wil
lee d
furtht
~e~oping advertising. It has
~de strategic creative planning
~Ore relevant m terms of poten~[ consumer response and
~mu]ated more exciting execu~s. It has done so largely by
~ning Up the advertising p]an~rflg discussion to how adver~~in$ M’ork.s. Strategists have
~mlated rational versus emotional
~~pea]s, suggested involvement~~lsing options, and considered
~i~~’ing a brand in consumer
~rception —all within the con~Xt of a unified model of advertising effectiveness.
if-e may not now, or ever,
~~mi’ definitively how adverwing works. But we do know it
wclrks in some definable ways
%Ld enough to make more effective ad~’ertising. The FCB grid has
proved useful in that effort and
~{mtinues to grow in the hands of
dhgent and inspired advertising
pcop]e. D
References
tfppel, Valentine; Sidney Wein~!~~in; and Curt Weinstein. “Brain
4cti\’ity and Recall of TV Adverlt~ing.” Journal of Advertising Re<’k~rch 19, 4 (1979): 7–15.
h>rger, David. “The FCB Grid. ”
li~ l%vcwdi~lgs of the Adzwhking
~%warch Fou ndotion 31st Annual
~~i??lleyc}l~e, March 1985.
Gilders, Terry L., and Michael J.
~ !t)llstc)n. “Conditions for Pic!llrc-Superiority Effect on Con‘wner Memory. ” ]ournal of COrz-
su ~llm Rcsmrch 11 (September
1984): 643-653.
Haley, Russell I.; Jack Richardson; and Beth M. Baldwin. “The
Effects of Non-Verbal Communications in Television Advertising.” Journal of Advertising RcSf?U?’Ch 24, 4 (1984): 11–18.
Levy, Jerre. “Children Think
With Whole Brains: The Myth
and Reality of Hemisphere Difference and Inter-hemispheric Integration.” Paper presented at
the conference of The National Assmiotio]l of Secondmy School Principles, November 1981.
Hansen, Fleming. “Hemispheral
Lateralization: Implications for
Understanding Consumer 13ehavior.” journal of CoIZsuIIIcr Research 8 (June 1981): 23–36.
Mitchell, Andrew A., and Jerry
C. Olson. “Are Product Attribute
Beliefs the Only Mediator of Advertising Effects of Brand Attitude?” ]ournal of Morkctill<q Research 18 (1981): 318–332.
Holbrook, Morris, B. “Be~~ond
Attitude Structure Toward the
Informational Determinants of
Attitude.” Journal of Marketing
Research 15 (1978): 545-556.
Moran, William T. “The Circuit
of Effects in Tracking Advertising
Pro fixability.” journal of Adz.wtisi]~g Research 25, 1 (1985): 25-29.
Holbrook, Morris B., and John
O’Shaughnessy. “The Role of
Emotion in Advertising. ” Psycho~qyy & Mdwting 1, 2 (Summer
1984): 45-64.
Kassarjian, H. H. “Low Involvement—A Second Look. ” In Advances in Consumer Rewrch, Vol.
8, K. B. Monroe, ed. Ann Arbor,
MI: Association for Consumer
Research, 1981.
Kotler, Philip. “Behavioral
Models for Analyzing Buyers. ”
journal of Markcfing 29 (1965):
37-45.
Krugman, Herbert E. “Point of
View: Sustained Viewing of Television. ” Jourml of Advcrtisi?zCq Research 20, 3 (1980): 65–68.
Laurent, Gilles, and Jean-Noel
Kapferer. “Measuring Consumer
Involvement Profiles,” journal of
Marketing Rwcarch 22, 1 (1985):
41-53.
Lavidge, R., and G. A. Steiner.
“A Model For Predictive Measurements of Advertising Effectiveness. ” Journol of Marketing 25
(1961): 59-62.
Nerd, Walter R., and J. Paul
Peter. “A Behavior Modification
Perspective on Marketing. ”
journal of Markcti??g 44 (1980):
36-47.
Preston, Ivan L., and Esther
Thorson. “The Expanded Association Model: Keeping the Hierarchy Concept Alive. ” Journal of
Advertising Research 24, 1 (1984):
59-65.
I
Ray, Michael L. “Marketing
Communication and the Hierarchy-of-Effects. ” S~gc A? Inual Rez~ipl~? of c~?~l]~lujlicatiojl Researcjl, F.
Kline, ed, 1973.
Ratchford, Brian S. “Operationalizing Invol\’ement and Thinking/
Feeling Dimensionality in the
FCB Grid. ” Working Paper, 1985. .
Robertson, T. S. “Low Commitment Consumer Behavior. ”
]ournal of Advertising Research 16,
2 (1976): 19-24.
Colzsz[?llcr Bclmuior. Scott,
Foresrnan & Co., 1970.
Rothschild, Michael L., and William C. Gaidis. “Behavioral