Scribd Logo
Unggah

Selamat datang di Scribd!

  • Advertising Attitudes and Advertising Effectiveness

    Diunggah oleh

    Ahmad Sidqi
    19 tayangan6 halaman
    Advertising Attitudes and Advertising Effectiveness

    Hak Cipta

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Format Tersedia

    PDF atau baca online dari Scribd

    Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

    Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

    Laporkan Dokumen Ini
    Advertising Attitudes and Advertising Effectiveness

    Hak Cipta:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Unduh sebagai PDF atau baca online dari Scribd
    Tandai sebagai konten tidak pantas
    19 tayangan6 halaman

    Advertising Attitudes and Advertising Effectiveness

    Diunggah oleh

    Ahmad Sidqi
    Advertising Attitudes and Advertising Effectiveness

    Hak Cipta:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Unduh sebagai PDF atau baca online dari Scribd
    Tandai sebagai konten tidak pantas
    dari 6
    ABHILASHA MEHTA Gallup & Robinson, Inc. Baton a presenting at the Lat Ward Print Werke hapa the ARE Wak of Werk ‘haps, Oxo 198 Advertising Attitudes and Advertising Effectiveness Print advertising performance is influenced by consumers’ attitudes toward advertising in general, Respondents with more favorable attitudes toward advertising recalled a higher number of advertisements the day after exposure and were more persuaded by them. The implications are discussed here. EXECUTIONAL AND MEDIA FACTORS significantly in- uence advertising performance. Substantial re- search is conducted to determine the most effec- tive creative executions and media dollars alloca- tions. Individuel personality variables and attitudinal orientations as factors influencing ad- -ertising effectiveness have received les attention in the industry, While researchers have explored ‘consumer attitudes to advertising in general, they have not evaluated how these attitudes affect re sponse to specific advertising. Tn the context of real-world copy testing, do gen- coral attudes toward advertising influence adver- ‘ising reactions? If so, in what ways? This study has been designed to answer these questions. The results should provide learning for advertisers and advertising researchers in creating, as well as in evaluating advertising, In the print medium, the reading experience is controlled by the reader who decides the pace and time spent on any specific advertisement. A consumer's own pre-disposition toward advertising in general, ether favorable or unfavorable, would influence how she or he ‘would respond to any advertisement: Previous o*- ploratory research at Gallup & Robinson showed that this may be the case (Melita and Purvis, 1995). G&ER's Impact system for copy testing is de signed to obtain multiple measures. Two key mea- sures were selected for use as indicators of adver- tising effectiveness in this study: Intrusiveness, an indicator of attention-getting power and memora- bility of the advertising, and Persuasion, measured as the favorable buying interest for the advertised products. ‘The main objectives of this research were to test the hypotheses that consumers with more favorable attitudes toward advertising in general would (1) recall more advertisements the day after exposure, and (2) be more persuaded by the advertisements. ‘THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ‘The influence of attitudes towaed advertising in general on advertising effectiveness is an impor- tant area of study because the results have impli- cations for the industry, Greyser (1972) discussed at length how consumers’ overall perceptions of advertising impact the effectiveness of advertising and the rote of advertisers. Moreover, the study of attitudes to advertising may be especially signifi- cant because i influences attitudes-toward-the ad, an important antecedent of brand attitudes (¢4, Lutz, 1985; Mackenke, Lutz, and Belch, 1986; Mace Konaie and Lutz, 1989; Muebling, 1987; Shimp, 1981; Thorton, 1981). The influence of attitudes- toward-the-ed on brand attitudes has been found to be even more significant under low-involve- ment conditions and for emotionally based adver- ising. Further, findings of the ARF Copy Research Validity Project (Haley and Baldinger, 1991) also showed commercial liking (similar to attitudes: toward-the-ad) was among the strongest predlc- tor of sales differences attributable to advertising for the cases studied. Recently, along similar ines, researchers have suggested there may be value in ‘May * June 2000 JOURNAL OF ABUCRTISING RESEARCH 67 AD ATTITUDES. coploring the effect of attitudes-toward- the website in evaluating the effectiveness of web advertising (Chen and Wells, 1998). While many researchers have explored attitudes toward advertising in general among adult consumers (see Zanot, 1981; ‘Milt, 1994; Shavitl, Lowrey, and Haef- ner, 1998), student samples (Dubinsky and Hensel, 1984; Larkin, 1977, Muehling, 1987; Sandage and Leckenby, 1980; Petro- hias, 1986), as well as evaluated cross- ‘cultural differences (eg, Andrews, Ly: sonski, and Dutvasula, 1991; Santes, 1976), ot mediaspecific advertising atti- tudes (eg, Alwitt and Prabhaker, 1994), the influence of general advertising alti- tudes directly on advertising effectiveness has hardly been studied. Researchers have suggested that general atitudes to adver- tising need to be studied since these atti- fades should have an impact on how con- ‘sumers respond to advertising, Among the few studies exploring this relationship, results of a study of outdoor (billboard) advertising suggest respon- dents who had a positive attitude toward advertising in general seemed to recall ‘more outdoor advertisements than those who had a negative attitude (Donthu, ‘Cherian, and Bhargava, 1993), In another study, James and Kover (1992) evaluated the impact of advertising in general on ad- vertising “involvement,” measured as the ‘amount of time spent looking at print ad- vertisements, Results suggest that those who felt advertising was not manipulative and was a good way to Jearn about prod- tacts were more involved with the adver- ‘isements, that is, spent more time looking at the advertisements. On the other hand, ‘those who said they were irritated by pro- ‘gram interruptions (by commercials on television) and thought that products do not perform as well as advertisements ‘laim were generally also more involved with the print advertisements. The au- thors suggest this may be a result of a hunt for flaws, or a compensation for itr- tation with television advertising not shown when reading print advertise: iments which allows more respondent con- trol. The authors suggest that overall ad- vertising attitudes are likely to affect other aspects of advertising communications as well, Advertising intrusiveness and pet- suasiveness were explored in the present study. ‘The construct Although itis generally agreed that atti- tude toward advertising in general can be defined as “a learned predisposition to re spond in the consistently favorable or un- favorable manner to advertising in gen- ral” (Lutz, 1988), its scope and measure- ment has widely varied in the literature, Various measures of the construct have ‘been used: from 2 measure of an “overall favorability oF unfavorability” to a set of belief items related to positive and nega- tive outcomes of advertising in the eco- ‘nomic and social areas (Bauer and Grey- ser, 1968), Perceptions telated to other a8 pects of advertising include informational Value, entertainment, interruptive nature, sexual content and use of women, ethics, and deception and falsehood. These were later included in the belief set related to attitudes toward advertising by other re- searchers (Alwitt and Prabhakes, 1994; Haller, 1974; Durand and Lambert, 1985; James and Kover, 1992; Larkin, 1977; Lute, 1985; Muebling, 1987). Media-specfic ad- vertising atfitudes have also been studied and compared, More recently, thought listings in reac- tion to the word “advertising” were used to measure attitudes toward advertising Dy categorizing them into areas such as function, atective response, practice, in- dustry, and usertelated, and general. By far, scaled statements about advertising have been most often used by researchers. 68 JOURIRL OF ADUERTISING RESEARCH May + sune 2000 A battery of relevant attitudinal state- _ments related to advertising in terms ofits entertaiumnent and informational value, trustworthiness, and impact on product quality were selected for use in the present study. Methodology G&R’s Magazine Impact Research Sys- {ems (MIRS) methodology for print adver- tising testing was tsed to obtain data for the study. A total of1,974 adult (18+ years of age) regular magazine readers from over 30 geographically dispersed markets nationwide participated in the study. Of these, 608 were men and 1,306 were ‘women. Participants were recruited on the basis of their readership of four difer- ent types of magazines: general, news, ‘women's general, and women's fashion, Readers qualified for the study if they read two out ofthe last four issues of se- lected magazines. (One ofthe key strengths of MIRS is that it is a real-world, in-magazine, at-home copy testing system. As such it s thought to approximate actual advertising re- sponse more closely than other designs such as forced exposure or portfolio test ing. Respondents, naive to the true pur- [pose of the study, were recruited to par- ticipate in a magazine readership study. A hone interview was scheduled for the day after exposure to discuss the omaga- ine editorial and content. Advertising ef fectiveness measures were obiained dur- ing this interview. Intrusiveness recall messures were first taken, followed by idea communication and persuasion mea- sures. Then demographic information was collected. Finally, the attitudes toward ad- vertising battery was administered. Attitudes toward advertising, Various at- titudinal statements were used to measure attitudes regarding advertising on an 11- point (0-10) seale whore 10 denoted “strongly agree” and 0 was “strongly dis- agree.” For each attitudinal statement, xe- spondents were grouped as those who “agree” (8-10), those who were “neutral” (67), and those who “disagree” (0-3) for farther analysis. Two of the statements ‘were rotated and only one of the two was asked in any test, Intrusiveness/recall. Fifteen selected ad- vertisements in each test magazine were cued by brand name. Respondents who claimed to recall any of these advertise: rments were asked open-ended questions ‘The responses to these were used as evi- ence to prove thatthe particular adver- tisement was actually recalled. Proved ‘all is a more stringent measure of alten- tioa-getting power and memorsbilty of ‘an advertisement than claimed recall. The total number of advertisements that apar- ticular respondent proved recalling, in- sexed to the sample mean recall of adver: tisements, was used as the measure of i trusiveness foe analysis. Persuasion/buying interest. Recallers of an advertisement who had not purchased the brand last were asked to indicate on a Scpoint scale to what extent the particular advertisement increased their interest in buying the advertised precuct. The buy- ing interest for each particular advertise. iment was indexed to its category average and averaged across all advertisements re- ‘called by any respondent. This average buying interest index computed for each respondent was used as a measure of per- suasion in further analysis. Results Attitudes toward advertising. While substantial proportion of the respondents feel advertising keeps them up-to-date TABLE 1 AD ATTITUDES Attitudes toward Advertising in General Sem Advertising helps me keep uptodate ‘about products and services that | need or would like to have. ‘Too many products do not perform ‘Advertising is more manipulative fron its formative, ten of ecertsing is way too anna. (On average, brands that are ‘advertised are better in quality than brands thet are not advertised, [Attitudes toward Advertising ‘Rare 0910 whee 10 “Ag Seog" and Dis “Dsgre Song"; Ae = 10: Nl = 6-7; Disa = 0-3 ase ie 1.14 for ttre exp as mate a ine 046 ase 2853. about products and services in the mar- kketplace, as shown in Table 1, «high pro- pportion of respondents also believe prod- ‘ucts do not perform as well as advertise- ments claim. Similarly, although many readers enjoy looking at advertising, any also feel much of advertising is an- ‘roying and more manipulative than infor- _mative, Relatively few (only about one in five) respondents agreed that advertised Tbrands are better than those brands that are not advertised, ‘These results are generally in line with ‘past research: although the vest research literature on the subject shows a variety of measurement and analysis methods, mak- ing comparisons difficult, the research ‘generally shows siiar positive reactions to the informational value of advertising sand more negative responses to its ma- nipulative, intrusive, and deceptive na- ture (see Shavitt, Lowrey, and Haefner, 1998), Mittal (1994) found that attitudes toward TV advertising, were significantly less positive than those toward print ad- vertising. Results for the impact of advertising at- titudes on intrusiveness and persuasion are presented in Tables 2 and 3. No sex differences were found and results have been presente for the full sample Intrusiveness/recall. The total number of advertisements recalled was significantly influenced by three out of the six adver- tising attitudes studied: those related to liking to look at sdvertising, the informa- tional value of advertising, and the per- ception regarding advertising being more manipulative than informational (see Table 2). It appears that respondents who like advertising and feel advertising pro- ‘May + June 2000 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH es AD ATTITUDES TABLE 2 Intrusiveness by Attitudes toward Advertising Statements Advertising helps me keep uptodate about products ike to look at advertising. “Much of advertising is way 190 annoying. ‘Mean Recall Index by Disagree Agroe. nd, On average, brands that are advertised are better {n quality than brands that not advertised. Too may products do not perform as well as the ‘Advertising is more manipulative than itis informative. sity higher a 9% Conese Leip <0, ‘signet lero 0%, Cefn Le (p< 01) ‘vides useful information also notice and recall more advertisements than those ‘who do not feel this way. ‘Overall, the results reported here are similar to those reported by Donthu, Che- sian, and Bhargava (1999) in their study of ‘utdoor advertising. Our results are also partially similar to those of the James and. Kover (1992) study who found that time spent looking at print advertisements Cinvolvement”) was influenced by simi- lar attitudes. Their results, however, also showed that those who thought products do not perform as well as advertisements claim spent more time looking at print ad~ vertisements, whereas the results of this study do not show a difference in recall of advertisements, If hunt for flaws is the reason for spending more time looking at the advertisements by the former group of respondents, as suggested by James and Kover, it appears that this does not trans- late to better memory of brands in adver- ‘isements seen by these respondents. It should be noted that there were other ‘methodological differences in the two studies (directed exposure to series of ad- vertisements versus in-magazine acvertis- ing exposure with recall measures. ob- tained the day after advertising exposure). Persuasion/buying interest. Buying inter- ‘est was significantly influenced by five of the six tested attitudinal statements, as ‘shown in Table 3. It appears that reactions toward advertising related to liking to TABLE 3 look at advertising, its informational value as well as perceptions regarding how truthful or manipulative advertising 4s all impact how persuaded respondents will generally be by an advertisement, CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION ‘The above findings clearly show that in-

    Anda mungkin juga menyukai