The Power of Advertising

Gail Patterson It is argued by many that television is the most powerful source of advertising (Grant and O'Connor; 2005, Jasperson and Yun, 2007) and is also the most likely form of media to be remembered and discussed by the public (Ford-Hutchinson and Rothwell, 2002, p17). This is confirmed by a number of studies that show a good response to television advertising, and corresponding commercial spending; a report in the Economist found that Television remains the most-powerful advertising medium, with a 38% global share of spending on major media in 2004. (The Economist, 2005, p48) Though for most purposes advertising expenditure indicates advertising return-on-investment, and in turn, advertising power, but it is not the only method of measuring advertising power. Television advertising may be powerful when appealing to certain demographics, but for certain markets, especially niches, television advertising will not be the most powerful: Internet and e-mail will also grow in importance, because these ads can target specific audiences (Metzler, 2005, p1). A new online computer game, for example, may be more successfully advertised using internet pop-ups (though these are generally viewed as intrusive) and targeted emailing, rather than a television slot, which may not be seen by the game-playing community (Silk, Klein and Berndt; 2001, McCoy et al; 2007). Furthermore, sales revenue may not be the primary driving factor behind advertising, emblazoning a company logo on t-shirts maybe a powerful method of promoting brand awareness; direct mailers from a supermarket may be the most powerful method of countering a local competition attack (Bawa and Shoemaker; 1987). Ogilvy (2004) argues that the most powerful mode of advertising is that which arouses consumer curiosity. Using this as a yardstick, it could be argued that internet advertising allows the consumers to follow their curiosity to detailed information about the consumable, in a similar way to infomercials on television. Clearly television and internet advertising had no share of the market a century ago. In a 1952 study by Abrams, advertising in the press accounted for over 46% of all advertising expenditure in 1930s Britain, rising to 53% in the 1940s (Abrams, 1952, 259-261). Market share and overall market size varies with time and is especially influenced by developments in technology and communications with the advertising industry exploiting every foothold wherever possible. Adding this dimension to the question illustrates that advertising power is very much determined by consumer behaviour (Ogilvy; 2004). To fully understand the power of advertising it may therefore be more useful in the long-term to consider the method of advertising rather than simply the medium through which it is transmitted. Ford-Hutchinson and Rothwells (2002) study examined public opinion of advertising and found that television and billboards were the most popular, followed by magazines and newspapers (p10), with below the line media being less popular (such as direct mailers, door drops, sponsorship, the Internet, commercial text messages and advertising in supermarkets). Interestingly, advertising on the Internet was found to be irritating and not regarded highly, partially due to pop-ups. Over the last five years, many companies, Google being a leading proponent, have opted for less intrusive methods of advertising on the Internet with some success (Bingley; 2007). Demographics must also be considered as a number of factors (such as communication networks, living habits etc.) influence how advertising is received. In India, for example, a Nielsen paper found that word-of-mouth was the most popular form of advertising, followed by newspapers (which were deemed trustworthy). The study also detailed consumers trust in advertising and found wide variations between different countries (The Nielsen Company, 2005, p1.).

Television accounts for the majority of world advertising expenditure, and is undoubtedly powerful enough to generate a return-on-investment on that expenditure, but the notion of it being the most powerful kind of advertising is only true when certain demographics and contexts are considered. What makes such images powerful? In Vakratsas and Amblers (1999) extensive study into How Advertising Works they pinpoint three factors by which the power of an advert may be judged: experience, affect and cognition (Vakratsas and Ambler, 1999, p34). The different strengths of these three aspects and how they are combined affect how the advertisement is received. For example, they suggest that a lowinvolvement product, such as washing powder, will be advertised with a high basis on affect, with less on cognition (Vakratsas and Ambler, 1999, p38). Hsu, Yang and Su (2007), in their study of television and radio advertising, found that advertisements could be broken down into similar areas, often with all three aspects producing the best results (Hsu, Yang and Su, 2007, p157). Sparkman and Locander (1980), also recognise the importance of the context of the production of the advertisement and its reception. Using attribution theory, they pinpoint a number of similar factors which determine how this context is used to create successful advertising. Dyer, in her book Advertising as Communication explains that desirability plays a large part in what makes such advertising images powerful. She suggests that its central function is to create desires that did not previously exist (Dyer, 1988, p8). Generating that desire is reliant on the cleverness of the execution, frequent executional changes and the relevance of the message (Ford-Hutchinson and Rothwell, 2002, p20). Numerous studies suggest that the exposure effect makes advertising powerful, especially so with television advertising (Tom et al, 2007; Ford-Hutchinson and Rothwell, 2002; Moore and Lutz, 2000). Consumers nowadays spend a large amount of time watching television, and programming is frequently, and intrusively, interrupted by advertising synchronised across channels to ensure that every viewer gets their message (Ford-Hutchinson and Rothwell, 2002, p17; Moore and Lutz, 2000). It is also important to mention the skill in execution of advertising and how that increases the effectiveness of an advert. There are numerous books and studies into how to develop successful advertising, which delve into subjects such as imagery (Messaris, 1997) and music (Brown and Volgsten, 2006). This suggests that powerful advertising images are multi-faceted and work with a number of different factors, the strength and combination of which help determine their potency. The impact upon attitudes and behaviour In a recent study, Jasperson and Yun (2007) found that advertising can affect voting decisions, though this was less influential than word of mouth (Jasperson and Yun, 2007, p1122). Kaid et al (2007) break this correlation down into a finer level of granularity suggesting that one of the main ways in which advertising affects voter decision is by providing voters with greater information transferral efficacy. Their study also contained a number of interesting findings with regard to young voters. For example, they found that advertising campaigns were received with very little cynicism by young voters (compared to older voters), and suggest that political advertising is such a common place occurrence that it is viewed as legitimate. It is important to note that negative advertising has been found to be damaging to a campaigns success (Basil et al, 1991, p245), and that political advertising in general can be eyed with a great deal more caution than other advertising (Rose, 1993). Furthermore, there are a large number of studies that suggest that advertising techniques have changed over the last fifty years or so, moving from advertising campaigns based primarily on political issues to campaigns based on improving public image (Diamond and Bates, 1988; Boiney and Paletz, 1991). Brand-loyalty is a common trait with consumers, who are often willing to pay extra to stick with their brand (Tom et al, 2007, p118). Karlsson (2007) argues that advertising is often the initiator in the buying process of a consumer, whereby the consumer interprets the information provided in mass communication building up brand awareness and knowledge as they do so. The knowledge is then translated into a greater desire and need for the product. Allenby and Lenk (1995) suggest that

following price promotions on a competitor brand, households will immediately revert to their normal brand, suggesting that advertising and promotion may temporarily cause consumers to switch brands, but in the long-term they maintain a brand loyalty. This is substantially backed up with a number of other studies. They further stipulate, again, with a large number of background studies, that advertising the brand is less effective than significantly lowering the price (Allenby and Lenk, 1995, p281). Studies Allenby and Lenk (1995) use to reinforce their claims include: Gupta (1988), Kumar and Leone (1988), Blattberg and Nelson (1990), Bucklin and Lattin (1991) and Bass (1993). There have been a number of advertising campaigns targeting specific issues, such as underage drinking (often driven by the government, for example, the Drink Aware campaign). Austin et al (2006), argue that connections between good advertising campaigns and the drinking habits of young people do exist, and attribute this, in part, to mediated reference groups. They state that if children admire a mediated reference group such as models in an advertisement, they will tend to expect that imitating the models behaviors will bring positive results (Austin et al, 2006, p376). It is often argued that advertising and marketing of drinks (Collins et al, 2007) has a strong persuasive effect on young people, which may counter advertising campaigns seeking to lessen underage drinking. However, Moschis and Moore (1982) argue that advertising is more likely to change attitudes and opinions than reinforce them (Moschis and Moore, 1982, p280). Are we affected? Obermiller and Spangenberg (1998) argue, in their study on advertising scepticism, that a persons attitude toward an advertisement is connected to their persuasion knowledge (Friestad and Wright; 1994)* and their ad scepticism. The distinction being that people with high persuasion knowledge may be persuaded by an advertisement, albeit difficultly, but people with high ad scepticism would be unlikely to believe the advertisement at all (Obermiller and Spangenberg, 1998, p163). Bargh (2002), however, argues for the case that certain aspects of receptiveness to advertising maybe automatic and nonconscious, rather than fully-considered choices (Bargh; 2002, Tom et al; 2007). Thus inferring that certain demographics may not be entirely in control, irrespective of how they view their own susceptibility, and cannot ignore their impulsivity toward advertising (Bargh, 2002, p280-282). In addition to this, a number of other factors can be added to the mix to understand peoples susceptibility and scepticism, including social structural variables (sex, education etc.), socialisation agents (peers, parents), age, learning properties and learning processes (Moschis and Moore, 1982, p280). A number of other studies have found correlations between self-esteem, intelligence and advertising susceptibility (McGuire, 1968; Rhodes and Wood, 1992). Age is also considered an important factor, with increasing age and experience increasing the resistance and scepticism (Gaeth and Heath; 1987, Obermiller and Spangenberg; 1998). Considering the wide variety of factors influencing the consumers scepticism and susceptibility, including certain automatic responses, it could be argued that a consumer is not entirely in control of how they respond to advertising (Bargh, 2002, p280). However, it is important to consider how the consumer believes they respond to advertising. Gender is used below to highlight one aspect of how consumers assess their susceptibility. The last fifty years has seen a large shift in female body ideals, and over the last few years similar shifts have been occurring in the perceived male body ideal (Grogan, 1999, p.77). Eagly and Steffen (1984) using social role theory, suggest that men, who are encouraged to be dominant and assertive, often consider themselves as having a good degree of self-control. Women, they argue, are more likely to be encouraged to play social roles involving agreeableness and support for others (Obermiller and Spangenberg, 1998, p165). This serves to illustrate how consumers may view their susceptibility with respect to how they view their role in society; judging oneself as susceptible may be undesirable for men, but harmless for women. *persuasion knowledge refers to learning that consumers use to interpret, evaluate and respond to influence attempts from advertisers and salespeople (Friestad and Wright, 1994, p1).

Bibliography ABRAMS, M. (1952). The Sources and Nature of Statistical Information in Special Fields of Statistics: Statistics in Advertising. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 115 (2), 258-264. ALLENBY, G.M. and LENK, P.J. (1995). Reassessing Brand Loyalty, Price Sensitivity, and Merchandising Effects on Consumer Brand Choice. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 13 (3), 281-289. AUSTIN, E. W. CHEN, M-J. and GRUBE, J.W. (2006). How does alcohol advertising influence underage drinking? The role of desirability, identification and skepticism. Journal of Adolescent Health, 38 (4), 376384. BARGH, J.A. (2002). Losing Consciousness: Automatic Influences on Consumer Judgment, Behaviour, and Motivation. Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (2), 280-285. BASIL, M. SCHOOLER, C. and REEVES, B. (1991). Positive and Negative Political Advertising: Effectiveness of Ads and Perceptions of Candidates. In: BIOCCA, F. (ed) Television and Political Advertising, Volume One, Psychological Processes. New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 245-262. BASS, F. M. (1993). The Future of Research in Marketing: Marketing Science, Journal of Marketing Research, 30 (1), 1-6. BAWA, K. and SHOEMAKER, R. W. (1987). The Effects of a Direct Mail Coupon on Brand Choice Behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 24 (4), 370-376. BINGLEY, L. (2007). Google Keeps Coining It In. [Online]. Last Accessed on 9 January 2008 at URL: http://lembingley.itweek.co.uk/2007/02/google_keeps_co. html. BLATTBERG, R. C. and NELSON, S. A. (1990). Sales Promotion, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall. BOINEY, J and PALETZ, D.L. (1991). In Search of the Model Model: Political Science Versus Political Advertising Perspectives on Voter Decision Making. In: BIOCCA, F. (ed) Television and Political Advertising, Volume One, Psychological Processes. New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 3-26. BUCKLIN, R. E. and LATTIN, J. M. (1991). A Two Stage Model of Purchase Incidence and Brand Choice. Marketing Science, 10 (1), 24-39. BROWN, S. and VOLGSTEN, U. (2006). Music and Manipulation: On the Social Uses and Social Control of Music. New York, Berghahn Books. COLLINS, R.L. ELLICKSON, P.L. MCCAFFREY, D. and HAMBARSOOMIANS, K. (2007). Early Adolescent Exposure to Alcohol Advertising and Its Relationship to Underage Drinking. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40 (6), 527534. COMPEAU, L.D. and GREWAL, D. (1998). Comparative Price Advertising: An Integrative Review. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 17(2), 257-273. DIAMOND, E. and BATES, S. (1988). The Spot: The Rise of Political Advertising on Television, Cambridge MA, MIT Press DRINK AWARE [Online]. Last Accessed 21 January 2008 at URL: http://www.drink

aware.co.uk/ DYER, G. (1988). Advertising as Communication. London, Routledge. EAGLY, A. and STEFFEN, V.J. (1984). Gender Stereotypes Stem from the Distribution of Men and Women into Social Roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46 (4), 735-754. THE ECONOMIST. (2005). Back on the Up: A Revival in Advertising Spending, Economist, 374 (8407), 48-49. FORD-HUTCHINSON, S. and ROTHWELL, A. (2002). The Publics Perception of Advertising in Todays Society. [Online]. Last accessed on 04 January 2008 at URL: http://www.asa.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/A351FFA3-22D2-4A03942EF653A70 0B6EC/0/ASA_Public_Perception_of_Advertising_Feb_2002.pdf. FRIESTAD, M. and WRIGHT, P. (1994). The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts, Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (1), 1-31. GAETH, G. and HEATH, T. (1987). The Cognitive Processing of Misleading Advertising in Young and Old Adults: Assessment and Training. The Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (1), 43-54. GRANT, M. and O'CONNOR, J. (2005). Corporate social responsibility and alcohol: The need and potential for partnership. In: BURKITT, H. (ed) Are Alcohol Advertisers Drinking in the Last Chance Saloon? New York, Routledge, 133-137. GROGAN, S. (1999). Body Image: Understanding body dissatisfaction in men, women and children. London, Routledge. GUPTA, S. (1988). Impact of Sales Promotions on When, What and How Much to Buy. Journal of Marketing Research, 25 (4), 342-355. HSU, J L. YANG, S-A. and SU, L-C. (2007). Who is Watching TV? Who is Listening to Radio? Consumer Perceptions of TV and Radio Advertising Information. Social Behaviour and Personality, 35, (2), 157-168. JASPERSON, A.E. and YUN, H.J. (2007). Political Advertising Effects and America's Racially Diverse Newest Voting Generation. American Behavioral Scientist, 50 (9), 11121123. KAID, L.L. POSTELNICU, M, LANDREVILLE, K, YUN, H.J and LEGRANGE, A.G. (2007). The Effects of Political Advertising on Young Voters. American Behavioral Scientist, 50 (9), 1137-1151. KARLSSON, L. (2007). Advertising Theories and Models. How well can these be transferred from text into reality? [Online]. Last accessed on 12 January 2008 at URL: http://dspace.hh.se/dspace/bitstream/2082/1206/1/Hela%252006112.pdf. KUMAR, V. and LEONE, R. P. (1988). Measuring the Effect of Retail Store Promotions on Brand and Store Substitution. Journal of Marketing Research, 25 (2), 178-185. MESSARIS, P. (1997) Visual Persuasion: The Role of Images in Advertising. London, Sage Publications. MCCOY, S. EVERARD, A. POLAK, P and GALLETTA, D.F. (2007) The Effects of

Online Advertising. Communications of the ACM, 50 (3), 84-88. MCGUIRE, W.J. (1968). Personality and Susceptibility to Social Influence. In: BORGATTA, E.F. and LAMBERT, W.W. (eds). Handbook of Personality Theory and Research. Chicago, Rand McNally, 171-196. METZLER, N.T. (2005). A shift from DTC television ads: the industry will move more towards cultural and educational campaigns. Pharmaceutical Executive, 25 (5), 32. MONK-TURNER, E. KOUTS, T. PARRIS, K and WEBB, C. (2007). Gender Role Stereotyping in Advertisements on Three Radio Stations: Does Musical Genre Make a Difference? Journal of Gender Studies, 16 (2), 173182. MOORE, E.S. and LUTZ, R.J. (2000). Children, Advertising, and Product Experiences: A Multimethod Inquiry. The Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (1), 31-48. MOSCHIS, G.P. and MOORE, R.L. (1982). A Longitudinal Study of Television Advertising Effects. The Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (3), 279-286. THE NIELSEN COMPANY. (2005). Online Global Consumer Study [Online]. Last Accessed on 07 January 2008 at URL: http://www.nielsen.com/media/2007/pr_07 1001.html. OBERMILLER, C. and SPANGENBERG, E.R. (1998). Development of a Scale to Measure Consumer Scepticism toward Advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7 (2), 159-186. OGILVY, D (2004). Confessions of an Advertising Man, 2nd ed, London, Southbank. RHODES, N. and WOOD, W. (1992). Self-esteem and Intelligence Affect Influenceability: The Mediation Role of Message Reception. Psychological Bulletin, 111 (1), 156-171. RISKEY, D.R. (1997). How T.V. Advertising Works: An Industry Response. Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (2), 292-293. ROSE, J. (1993) Government Advertising in a Crisis: The Quebec Referendum Precedent. Canadian Journal of Communication, 18 (2). [Online]. Last Accessed on 20 January 2008 at URL: http://www.cjc-online.ca/viewarticle.php?id=166& layout=html SILK, A.J. KLEIN, L.R. and BERNDT, E.R. (2001). The Emerging Position of the Internet as an Advertising Medium, Netnomics, 3 (2), 129-148. SPARKMAN, R.M. and LOCANDER, W.B. (1980). Attribution Theory and Advertising Effectiveness, Journal of Consumer Research, 7 (3), 219-224. TOM, G. NELSON, C. SRZENTIC, T and KING, R. (2007). Mere Exposure and the Endowment Effect on Consumer Decision Making. The Journal of Psychology, 141 (2), 117125. VAKRATSAS, D. and AMBLER, T. (1999). How Advertising Works: What Do We Really Know? Journal of Marketing, 63 (1), 26-43.