Consumer Response in the New Free Market Economies of Central and Eastern Europe
The Case of the Czech Republic
Elena S. Millan and Banwari Mittal
Abstract: This study investigates the structure of consumer beliefs and attitudes toward advertising in a leading-edge,
new market economy of Central and Eastern Europethe Czech Republic. Based on a national sample, Czech consumers
beliefs about advertisings informational value and its role in the nations economy explained their attitudes toward advertising significantly. Our data also revealed five consumer segments ranging from enthusiasts to severe critics. Segments
with unfavorable attitudes saw advertising as being short on information and long on falsity. As such, the studys findings
signal a need to steer the practice of advertising toward more product information, truth, and ethical standards. The first
of its kind in Central and Eastern Europe, the study underscores the need to map consumer attitudes in other Central and
Eastern European nations, and toward that agenda, it provides a framework for measurement of consumer belief profiles
and identification of diverse attitude segments.
ADVERTISING LANDSCAPE
IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Consumer advertising as it is known in the advanced market economies did not exist in the Czech Republic (and in
other Central and Eastern European countries) before 1989.
During the years of central planning, consumer demand
chronically exceeded supply, and consumerist cravings were
held in contempt by the communist regime. Anticonsumerist propaganda was embedded in the ideological discourse
throughout the 1970s and 1980s (Slater 1990). All media
were state-owned, and advertising was allowed mainly to
promote state or cooperative department stores, to inform
consumers about the availability of new types of products,
and to promote cultural and sporting events (C u+ lk 2004).
Under communist rule, a common view held by Czech
consumers was that if a product was advertised, it was in
oversupply and of poor quality (Elliott 1992).
With the end of the socialist system, the advertising landscape changed radically. The advent of market economy accelerated the development of the fledgling Czech advertising
industry. Multinational advertising agencies (e.g., Young&
Rubicam, Leo Burnett Advertising, and Mark BBDO) were
quick to enter the Czech market, often following the entry of
their large international clients. The monopoly of the statecontrolled press, radio, and television was broken, and private
media were established in the 1990s (BBC 2010).
Extant Research on Central and Eastern European
Advertising
Advertising research for the region has been scant and has
focused mainly on counting the ad content in various media.
A few studies have focused on assessing the relative persuasiveness of different appeal types (De Pelsmacker and Geuens
1998; Koudelova and Whitelock 2001; Taylor, Bonner, and
Dolezal 2002; vanHerpen et al. 2000). Directly focusing on
attitudes toward advertising are two studies on Russian consumers, separated by more than a decade. In the first of these
studies, Andrews, Durvasula, and Netemeyer (1994) found
that Russian consumers held a more positive overall attitude
toward advertising than U.S. consumers (5.92 versus 5.36 on
a seven-point scale). Back then, Russian society had barely
begun its move toward a market economy, and consumers
were understandably welcoming of the new tools of marketing, including advertising. But in the latter of the two studies
(Wells, Van Auken, and Ritchie 2007), Russian attitudes had
turned more negative (mean 3.9 on the seven-point bad-good
scale). These findings are in line with Pierces (1971) argument that consumer attitudes toward advertising become
more negative as a country moves from an underdeveloped
to a developing to a developed economy stage, a theme cor-
Fall 2010 83
FIGURE 1
The Seven Belief Factor Model of Consumer Attitudes Toward Advertising
economy) and three are negative (namely, that it spreads materialism, corrupts our values, and promotes falsity/no sense). In
various factor analyses, Pollay and Mittal found the measures
to, by and large, cohere and load on their intended factors.
They also found that the three personal factors were mutually
distinct; however, among the four societal factors, materialism
and value corruption merged into a single factor, yielding a
six-factor belief model. Thus, of interest to the present study
is the question of whether the original or a modified factor
structure holds in the Czech context; in particular, whether
Czech consumers also distinguish the personal benefits of advertising from its societal consequences. Pollay and Mittals
conceptual model is shown in Figure1 and is used here to
frame our own measurement and analyses.
Czech Advertising Beliefs and Attitudes:
Hypotheses Development
Attitude Toward Advertising
Czech attitudes toward advertising have to be understood
against the backdrop of their attitudes toward the market
reforms per se. At the onset of market economy, consumer
attitudes toward both the market and advertising were likely
to have been positive. Although communist propaganda had
labeled everything in the West bad, people believed the opposite and were therefore eager to embrace everything from
the West, especially the consumerist aspects of life (C u+ lk
1995). Vclav Klaus, prime minister of the Czech Republic
from 1992 to 1997, was eager to bring accelerated economic
prosperity by propagating the ideology of free market commercialism: Business is what matters and morals are irrelevant
in business, where the market principles rule (quoted in
Hraba 2001). The launch of market reforms might have led
influences suggest that overall Czech consumer attitudes toward advertising will be in the middle, neither very positive
nor very negative. Thus,
H1: Czech consumers attitudes toward advertising will be, on
average, in the middle range.
Advertising Beliefs Structure
An important question relating to the advertising belief structure is whether the seven belief factors proposed by Pollay and
Mittal (1993) will emerge as independent beliefs for Czech
consumers. Underlying the presence of the seven-factor structure of ad beliefs is the assumption that consumers are able
to process ad messages analytically, paying attention to and
reflecting on their multiple facets. This assumption is likely
to be less reflective of Czech consumers for two reasons: main
motivational focus on functional benefits, as opposed to symbolic benefits, and lack of prior cognitive framework to process
symbolic elements of commercial messages. First, the tradeoff between serving a functional need and a symbolic need is
likely to be less salient to consumers in still-evolving market
economies. Several years into the transition to capitalism,
consumer behavior in these economies is still influenced by the
relatively low (compared with Western standards) consumer
purchasing power. As some prior related research has shown
(e.g., Hill and Gaines 2007), low purchasing power keeps
consumers motivated to appraise products for their core functional benefits rather than to aspire for any symbolic benefits.
Anticonsumerist sentiments and cultural values embedded
in pre-1989 conditions such as thrift, moderation, frugality,
and contentment with a simple way of living are also likely
to keep subdued peoples interest in symbolic consumption
(see Belk 1988; Hovet, Gosling, and Mudranincova 2005).
Accordingly, the distinction between information and social
role/image beliefs is less likely to be present in the salient
choice criteria of Czech consumers.
Second, when exposed to a new product (and commercial
messages about it), the audience attention tends to focus,
naturally, on the core form and benefits of the stimulus, to the
exclusion of symbolic trappings. According to prior research
in semiotics (symbolic elements of a stimulus), discerning and
interpreting these symbolic elements require prior cognitive
learning, which comes with prior exposures to those signs in
those specific contexts (Mick 1986). It has been suggested that
consumers in these new economies lack sufficient knowledge
of the foreign brands heritage, and, consequently, they tend
to put their trust in the product and not the brand and the
images that come with it (Crain 2006; Keller and Moorthi
2003). In effect then, on the whole, Czech consumers are likely
to lack both the motivation (no pressing need yet for symbolic
benefits) and the ability (i.e., lack of the necessary prior cogni-
Fall 2010 85
because the social image factor may not be discerned (as per
H2a), which is a necessary condition for any factor to play a
role in subsequent attitude formation. If discriminated, its role
is likely to be less important, especially compared to the role
of product information. This notion derives from the greater
relevance of product information (than the social role and imagery) to the Czech, and for that matter Central and Eastern
European, consumers, which is underpinned by several factors
such as the influx of previously unknown products and brands,
the relatively limited exposure to commercial advertising,
and the general lack of previous experiences with decoding
ad messages and playing with brand and lifestyle imagery, as
well as the still greater importance of the product than the
brand. Also relevant here is the role of uncertainty avoidance as
a cultural trait. The high uncertainty avoidance tendencies fed
by the socialist policies and practices and the financial, health,
and other risks associated with purchasing unknown products
may also play a role. It has been argued that, motivated by risk
aversion and problem solving, consumers in high uncertainty
avoidance cultures, among which the Czech Republic (see
Hofstede 2001) ranks high, may exhibit a stronger preference
for tangible product attributes, since the tangible attributes
can unambiguously solve or prevent a problem (see Millan,
DePelsmacker, and Wright 2010).
As to the role of the hedonic factor, it is likely to be positive
and substantial, independent of the role of the other factors.
Whereas the role of humor on brand attitude is more complex,
being contingent on factors such as prior brand attitude and
congruence with the brand message (see Chattopadhyay and
Basu 1990), its role in inducing positive mood and likability
for the source is affirmed by prior research (e.g., De Pelsmacker
and Geuens 1998; Duncan and Nelson 1985; Moran 1996;
Weinberger and Gulas 1992). Sources include the specific
humor-enactor in the ad as well as the ad itself, and indeed,
in the body of literature on this topic, the hedonic factors
positive link to general attitudes toward advertising is nearly
universal (e.g., Shavitt, Lowrey, and Haefner 1998). This logic
alongside Taylor, Bonner, and Dolezals finding that humor
and clever creative approaches are a very important aspect of
advertising in the Czech Republic (2002, p.143) suggests
that if advertising is seen as entertaining, the humor-loving
Czechs are likely to be more favorably inclined toward it.
Finally, we expect the good-for-the-economy factor to have
a weak effect on Czechs overall attitude toward advertising.
We expect Czech consumers to recognize this effect because a
better economy is the very raison dtre for why consumers
in controlled polity have been eager for liberation; accordingly, the link of the Western-style marketing (and its visible
instrument, advertising) to ensuing economic benefits to society is likely to be grasped by these consumers. However, the
personal benefits of a products use are ostensibly presented in
most ads, whereas societal benefits are not. The latter require
Fall 2010 87
TABLE 1
Czech Consumers Beliefs About Advertising
Beliefs about advertising
SD
2.83
2.83
2.63
3.03
.84
1.06
1.07
1.13
2.48
2.54
2.51
2.37
.88
1.07
1.10
1.03
Hedonic/pleasure (.73)
7. More enjoyable than other
8. Amusing and entertaining
9. Take pleasure in recalling
3.01
3.13
3.23
2.68
.93
1.17
1.09
1.20
Good-for-the-economy (.49)
10. Helps economy
11. Not wasteful of economic resources*
2.67
2.73
2.62
.93
1.14
1.14
Materialism (.67)
12. Makes ours a materialistic society
13. Buy things not needed
14. Persuades . . . should not buy
15. Overspend . . . show off
16. Induces living in fantasy
3.35
3.40
3.70
3.47
3.09
3.09
.70
1.09
1.02
1.05
1.11
1.10
3.08
3.21
2.95
.86
1.07
1.01
3.27
3.13
3.03
3.64
.83
1.06
1.13
1.03
2.82
2.83
2.80
1.07
1.15
1.22
Product
information
Social role
and image
Hedonic/
Pleasure
Product information
Social role and image
Hedonic/pleasure
Good for the economy
Materialism/value corruption
1
.95
.77
.86
.43
1
.65
.76
.30
1
.75
.28
1
.73
Falsity/no sense
Item loadings*
.58
.72, .70, .48
.46
.77, .69, .72
.49
.66, .67, .74
.87
.54, .60
Materialism/
value
corruption
Falsity/
no sense
1.0
0.82
.51, .49, .60, .57,
.44, .57, .64
1.0
.73, .70, .12,
(.60)
Notes: For falsity/no sense, .60 is cross-loading of the third item on product information.
* Item sequence corresponds to that shown in Table 1.
Fall 2010 89
TABLE 3
Regression of Advertising Beliefs Factors on Global Attitude ( Coefficients)
Predictors
Product information
Social role and image
Hedonic/pleasure
Materialism/value corruption
Falsity/no sense
Good for the economy
Variance explained
Regression A
.697
.248
.403
.282
.285
.571
Regression B
p
.073
.519
.000
.000
.000
.000
87%
.434*
.412
.290
.294
.570
Regression C
p
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
85.4%
.513*
.452
.354
.380
p
.000
.000
.000
.000
73.6%
* b coefficients of the merged personal usefulness factor (comprising product information and social role and image factors).
FIGURE 2
Estimated Model of Advertising Beliefs and Attitudes
Note: Item numbers refer to those in Table 1. The scores of item 11 are reversed.
Fall 2010 91
TABLE 4
Consumer Segments by Attitudes Toward Advertising
Variables
Segments
Enthusiasts
(n = 118)
Ambivalent
(n = 151)
Unbothered
(n = 76)
Conflicted
(n = 113)
Severe critics
(n = 57)
Global attitude*
3.83
3.06
2.84
2.18
1.32
Product information
Social role and image
Hedonic/pleasure
Good for the economy
Materialism/value corruption
Falsity/no sense
3.51
3.26
3.73
3.55
2.80
2.07
3.02
3.03
3.29
2.79
3.35
3.26
2.44
1.81
2.49
2.90
2.84
2.44
2.20
1.91
3.00
2.09
3.68
3.71
1.64
1.39
1.49
1.40
3.82
4.31
22.9
29.3
14.8
21.9
11.1
* Segments are based only on the six belief categories. Global attitude was not used in cluster analysis.
(product information and social trends information) or finding any amusement/entertainment value. Furthermore, they
feel neutral about the role of advertising for the economy
(M=2.90) and do not view advertising as having significant
negative societal effects either (M=2.84 for materialism/value
corruption, and M=2.44 for falsity/no sense).
The conflicted segment views advertising as an amalgam
of bad and perhaps some good. With overall negative attitude
(M=2.18), its constituents do not perceive advertising to be
a useful provider of marketplace information or to bring any
value to the economy either. Instead, they tend to see it as
promoting materialism and corrupting values (M=3.68) and
advancing falsity/no sense as well (M=3.71). However, they
do find advertising somewhat entertaining.
The last segment, severe critics, does not see any personal
benefits of advertising, with scores on the product information,
social role and image, and hedonic/pleasure factors being the
lowest of all the segments. Its members do not see any benefit
to the economy either. And they see advertising as a source of
the two ills studied here, with their scores on the materialism/
value corruption and falsity/no sense factors being the highest
of all segments. Accordingly, their global advertising attitude
is the most unfavorable (M=1.32).
The Demographics of Consumer Attitudes
Toward Advertising
We cross-tabulated the proportion of the two extreme segments
with consumer demographics (see Table5). Contrasting the
two segments, the enthusiasts were found to be significantly
younger (2(1)=7.67, p<.01), with lower levels of education
(2(1)=5.27, p<.05), and to be living in larger settlements
(2(4)=11.71, p<.05) than the severe critics. As to income,
the c2 value across the four income groups was not significant.
Segments
c2 value
Age
Below 40
61.8
38.9
40 and above
38.2
61.1
7.67
.006
Education
Primary and vocational
70.3
52.6
Secondary and college/university
29.7
47.4
5.27
.02
4.37
.22
11.71
.02
Enthusiasts
General Discussion
Factor Structure of Advertising Beliefs
The measurement model developed in the United States by
Pollay and Mittal (1993) worked well for our Czech consumers
in that the items supposed to measure a factor all coalesced
on that factor. Furthermore, similar to previous findings (e.g.,
Dvila and Rojas-Mndez 2001; Korgaonkar, Karson, and
Akaah 1997; Pollay and Mittal 1993), for our Czech sample:
(1)materialism and value corruption factors were not discriminated, but all others were; (2)the measured beliefs significantly
explained overall ad attitudes; and (3)five distinct segments
were obtained with belief profiles similar to the U.S. study.
One exception was the lack of clear discrimination between
the product information and social image factors, a result we
had in fact hypothesized. In the theory section, we advanced
two main reasons for this: (1)the main motivational focus on
functional benefits as opposed to symbolic benefits, and (2)a
lack of prior cognitive framework to process the symbolic
elements of commercial messages.
Severe critics
Consumer Segments
Among the five segments, the severe critics and the conflicted
segments require closer study to find the reasons for their
dismissal of advertisings supposed benefits. Our conceptual
reasons include (1)the negative attitudes toward advertising
ingrained during the years of communist rule may still linger
Fall 2010 93
Fall 2010 95
Fall 2010 97
APPENDIX
Factor Structure of Advertising BeliefsCalibration and Validation Samples
To ascertain that the factor structure of advertising beliefs (to be estimated) was not due to chance, we divided the total sample
into two random split-halves, designating them as calibration and validation samples. We conducted a series of CFAs on the
calibration sample and tested the fitted models on the validation sample using the fixed-structure cross-validation method (see
MacCallum et al. 1994). This approach requires all the coefficients in linear equations (factor loadings in the case of CFA) and
variances/covariances of exogenous variables (of factors in the case of CFA) to be held fixed when fitting the model to the validation sample. The models were fitted to the covariance matrices of both samples by the method of maximum likelihood.
Testing the entire model of measured beliefs on the split-half samples became infeasible due to the unfavorable ratio of estimated parameters to sample size. We therefore ran the procedure with two truncated submodels, with a subset of factors at
a time. Specifically, Model A comprised only the three individual advertising beliefs factors and Model B comprised only the
beliefs related to social and economic effects of advertising.
Next, to parallel the tests of various hypotheses with CFAs on the full sample reported in the text, we ran relevant portions
(i.e., submodels) on split-half samples as follows: ModelC comprised product information and falsity with item21 of falsity
cross loading on product information, ModelD comprised product information and social image (separate versus merged), and
ModelE comprised materialism and value corruption (separate versus merged).
Model A. Three Personal Belief Factors
Model
A1. Calibration (first half) sample
A2. Validation (second half) sample
c2
66.82
59.74
df
24
36
CMIN/DF GFI
2.78
.945
1.66
.950
AGFI
.898
.938
CFI
.946
.968
RMSEA
.083
.051
c2
146.31
123.79
df
51
66
CMIN/DF GFI
2.86
.911
1.88
.927
AGFI
.864
.91
CFI
.868
.919
RMSEA
.085
.058
Model C. Product Information and Falsity Belief Factors (With and Without Cross Loading of One Falsity Item on Product Information)
Model
C1. Calibration (first half) sample (no cross-loading)
C2. Calibration (first half) sample (with cross-loading)
C3. Validation (second half) sample (no cross-loading)
C4. Validation (second half) sample (with cross-loading)
c2
25.84
7.79
74.91
32.26
df
8
7
15
15
CMIN/DF
3.23
1.11
4.99
2.15
GFI
.965
.990
.907
.961
AGFI
.909
.969
.869
.945
CFI
.950
.998
.824
.949
RMSEA
.093
.021
.125
.067
GFI
.984
.981
.960
.960
AGFI
.958
.955
.943
.944
CFI
.991
.989
.970
.969
RMSEA
.047
.050
.062
.063
Model D. Product Information and Social Image Belief Factors (Separate Versus Merged)
Model
D1. Calibration (first half) sample (separate factors)
D2. Calibration (first half) sample (merged factors)
D3. Validation (second half) sample (separate factors)
D4. Validation (second half) sample (merged factors)
c2
12.50
14.84
29.59
30.12
df
8
9
15
15
CMIN/DF
1.56
1.65
1.97
2.01
Model E. Materialism and Value Corruption Belief Factors (Separate Versus Merged)
Model
E1. Calibration (first half) sample (separate factors)
E2. Calibration (first half) sample (merged factors)
E3. Validation (second half) sample (separate factors)
E4. Validation (second half) sample (merged factors)
c2
17.14
23.64
23.44
18.90
df
13
14
21
21
CMIN/DF
1.32
1.69
1.12
.90
GFI
.982
.974
.975
.979
AGFI
.961
.948
.966
.972
CFI
.986
.966
.992
1.00
RMSEA
.035
.052
.021
.000
As the above tables show, all models demonstrate good fit; the poorest of these are Models C1 and C3, both with no cross loading of item 21 (present a true picture of goods) on the product information factor. When this cross loading is freed, the resulting
models (C2 and C4) achieve better fit. More to the point, in each case, the validation sample data fit the model well, which was
first fitted on the calibration sample. Therefore, in the main text, we chose to report the same analyses on the entire sample.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.