• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
C3   impact of target marketing on advertising attitudes[1]
 

C3 impact of target marketing on advertising attitudes[1]

on

  • 336 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
336
Views on SlideShare
336
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    C3   impact of target marketing on advertising attitudes[1] C3 impact of target marketing on advertising attitudes[1] Document Transcript

    • Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (Taylor & Francis Group)Nontarget Markets and Viewer Distinctiveness: The Impact of Target Marketing onAdvertising AttitudesAuthor(s): Jennifer L. Aaker, Anne M. Brumbaugh, Sonya A. GrierSource: Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 9, No. 3 (2000), pp. 127-140Published by: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (Taylor & Francis Group)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1480407Accessed: 26/11/2008 08:42Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTORs Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTORs Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lebtaylorfrancis.Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with thescholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform thatpromotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (Taylor & Francis Group) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Consumer Psychology.http://www.jstor.org
    • OFJOURNAL CONSUMER PSYCHOLOGY, 127-140 9(3), ? LawrenceCopyright2000, Erlbaum Inc. Associates, NontargetMarketsand Viewer Distinctiveness:The Impactof TargetMarketingon AdvertisingAttitudes JenniferL. Aaker GraduateSchool of Business StanfordUniversity Anne M. Brumbaugh WeatherheadSchool of Management Case WesternReserve University Sonya A. Grier GraduateSchool of Business StanfordUniversity Thisresearch examines effectof target the marketing members theadvertisers on of intended audience wellas members inthetarget as not market: nontarget the market. results 3 ex- The of periments show that unfavorable nontarget marketeffects are stronger membersof for nondistinctive groups(e.g.,Caucasian individuals,heterosexual and individuals) favorable tar- getmarket for of effectsarestronger members distinctive groups(e.g.,African American indi- homosexual viduals, The of 2 individuals). results Experimentdemonstrate thepsychologi- that cal processes whichtarget nontarget by and market effectsoccurdifferby viewergroup: Felt similaritywithsources anadvertisement in drives targetmarketeffectsfordistinctiveviewers, whereas targetedness felt drivestarget market effectsfornondistinctiveviewers. Finally,Ex- periment showsthat 3 theseconsumer of or are feelings similarity targetedness associated with underlying processes identification internalization. of and Theoreticalimplications regarding of theimpact distinctiveness in theory consumer persuasioneffectsandpotential socialeffects marketing discussed. of target areImagineyou are channel surfingand find yourself watching Althoughconsumerbehaviorresearchhas focused on theBlack Entertainment Television, a cable channelwhose pro- impactof targetmarketingon those in the targetmarket,con-grammingandadvertisingaregearedtowarda predominantly siderablyless attentionhas focused on the impact of targetAfricanAmericanaudience.As a middle-agedWhiteperson, marketingon those not in the targetmarket-the nontargetyou are fascinatedby what you see, but you do not "get"all market.Froma theoreticalperspective,examiningattitudinalthatis going on. The show ends and a commercialfor Stove effects of the nontargetmarketcan lead to a greaterunder-Top Stuffing,just what you are aboutto have for dinner,ap- standingof the full range of responsesto persuasiveappealspears.You are amused and interestedto see this advertising (Friestad& Wright, 1994). Froma practicalperspective,ex-appealthat is very differentfrom any you have seen for the aminingthe reactionsof nontarget marketmembersto adver-brandbefore. You are confused because they are calling it tising intended for others sheds insight on how to betterdressing, although the box clearly says stuffing. What are manage multiple segments in an increasingly diverse andyour attitudestowardthe advertisementand brandnow? behaviorallycomplex marketplace. Thus, in this researchwe investigate the effects of target marketingon consumers not in the intended target market. for be to L. Uni- Stanford should sent Jennifer Aaker, We proposethatthe negative effects associatedwith feeling Requests reprints School Business, Memorial Stanford, Graduateversity, of 518 Drive, CA excluded from a marketersintended audience have conse- E-mail:94305-5015. aakerjennifer@gsb.stanford.edu quences for advertisingreactions that differ fundamentally
    • 128 AAKER, BRUMBAUGH,GRIERfroma merefailureto achievefavorabletargetmarketeffects. driven by consumersinference of similaritybetween someWe call these negative consequences nontarget marketef- characteristicsof the advertisement(e.g., source pictured,fects and explore the natureand impact of these effects in language used, lifestyle represented)and characteristicsofthree experiments. Experiment 1 demonstrates the basic the consumer(e.g., realityor desireof havingthe representedpropositionthat nontargetmarketmembersrespondless fa- lifestyle; Gronhaug Rostvig, 1978). Thus,persuasionis en- & vorablyto targetedmarketing efforts andhighlightsthe mod- hancedby a match between the characteristics the adver- in erating condition of viewer distinctiveness. That is, tisementand those of the consumer,relativeto when thereis individualsin numericallyraregroupsare more likely to ex- no such match (Whittler,1989; Whittler& DiMeo, 1991). hibittargetmarketing effects, whereasindividualsin a major- In contrast,negative nontargetmarketeffects may occur ity group are more likely to exhibit nontarget marketeffects. when the cues in an advertisement incongruent are with some Furthermore, results of this experimentsuggest thatper- the characteristic, need, belief, or value of the consumer.Forex- ceptionsof similarityto sourcesin the advertisement, well as ample,when an advertisement sourcehas characteristicsthat as perceptionsof inclusion in the targetmarketof the adver- differfrom those of the viewer (e.g., when the advertisement tisement, are related to targetand nontargetmarketeffects. featuresindividualsfroma groupof which the viewer is not a Experiment2 investigates two ways by which target and member),these favorableeffects should not accrue. Rather, nontargetmarketeffects may occur and shows that the dis- viewers in the nontargetmarketmay perceive dissimilarity tinctivenessof bothconsumersandadvertisement sourcesin- between themselves and the intendedtargetin the advertise- fluence the specific processes driving target and nontarget ment (as conveyed through source or nonsource targeting marketeffects. The combinedresultsof Experiments1 and2 cues). As a result, individualsmay infer that their tastes and imply that target marketinginduces identificationwith the preferencesare differentfrom that of the intendedtargetand sources among distinctive groups and internalization theof thus fail to adoptthe favorableattitudetowardthe advertise- message among nondistinctivegroups. Experiment3 con- ment. Anecdotalevidence suggests thatindividualsviewing firms that these underlyingpsychological processes lead to an advertisement has not been designedto appealto their that targetand nontargetmarketeffects. The implicationsof the marketsegment are likely to view the advertisement dis- as existence of nontargetmarketeffects and the psychological tracting or irritating(Star, 1989), may feel ignored or ne- processesthatunderliethese effects arediscussed in the con- glected (Greco, 1989), or even become alienatedor offended text of our theoreticaland practical understanding con-of (Lipman, 1991). Thus, nontargetmarketeffects are marked sumerresponse to targetedmarketingefforts. not by a failureto achieve favorabletargetmarketeffects, but rathera decreasedpreferencefor an advertisement people by who believe they are not the targetof the advertisement.1 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF TARGET MARKETAND NONTARGET MARKETEFFECTS THE MODERATINGEFFECT OF VIEWER DISTINCTIVENESSTargetmarketing refersto the identificationof a set of buyerssharingcommon needs or characteristics a companyde- that In the process of creatingtargetedadvertisements, single acides to serve (Kotler,Armstrong, Starr,1991). It has argu- & is largemarket dividedinto separate segmentson the basisof aably been the driving force behind the success of many meaningfulvariable(s).The meaningfulnessof the specificwell-knownbrands(e.g., Pepsi, Mercedes-Benz,MillerLite) segmentation variableis likely to influencethe strength tar- ofandprovidesthe basis of a predominant branding strategy,the get andnontarget marketing effects.Morespecific,research onuserpositioningapproach, which the brandis closely asso- in persuasion effects suggeststhatanyvariable leadsindivid- thatciatedwitha particular orcustomer(e.g., Maybellineand user uals to makesimilarity judgmentsbetweenthemselvesandanthe girl next door). Underlyingthe use of targetmarketingis advertisement source(e.g., culturalorientation,Aaker& Wil-the premise that those who are targeted,or spoken to, will liams, 1998; social class, William & Qualls, 1989; ethnicity,have strongaffinityfor the brand(Aaker,1999). A numberof Wooten, 1995) shouldimpactthe degree to which targetandresearchers have examinedhow varioustargetmarkets(e.g., nontarget marketeffects occur.However,the morepersonallyolder consumers, women, African Americans)arrive at thehigherlevels of affinity for the brand.For example,researchhas shownthatracialsimilarity(Whittler,1989), role congru- This research distinguishes between target marketingfrom the mar-ence (Meyers-Levy,1989), labeling(Tepper,1994), intensity keters (actualtargetmarket)versus the consumers (perceivedas being inof ethnic identification(Williams & Qualls, 1989), shared the targetmarket)perspective.Althoughthe two constructsare often highlyculturalknowledge (Brumbaugh,1997), and ethnic salience related,target marketeffects are only examined from the consumers per- market spective in this research.In addition,we focus on negative nontarget(Deshpande & Stayman, 1994) all evoke positive effects effects (orthe decreasedpreferenceforan advertisement nontarget by marketamongthe targetmarket.This researchhas generallydemon- vs. targetmarketmembers).Futureresearchis neededto identifythe limitingstratedthatthe process by which targetmarketingoperatesis conditionsunderwhich positive nontargetmarketeffects may occur.
    • NONTARGET MARKETS ANDVIEWER DISTINCTIVENESS 129meaningful variable, morelikelythatsimilarity the the withthe Mackie, 1990; Mackie, 1987; Nemeth, 1986). Although thesourcewill be felt (Tajfel, 1981). literatureis mixed in terms of whetherminorityor majority Onemeaningful variable viewerdistinctiveness, is whichre- sources exert greaterinfluence (Latane & Wolf, 1981) andfers to the numerical rarityof a particulargroupof individuals how they exert influence (Maass & Clark, 1983), this re-(McGuire,1984; McGuire,McGuire,& Winton, 1979).2Dis- searchdoes suggestthattargetedadvertisingfeaturingminor-tinctiveness theorypredicts an individuals that traits distinctive ity versus majoritysources should lead to differenttypes ofwill be more salientto himself or herselfthancommonlyheld effects among target and nontargetmarketmembers.Moretraitsbecausesuch highly distinctivetraitsare morecentralto specific, bothtargetandnontarget consumersarelikely to re-theself-concept. Thus,individuals belongto a distinctive who or spond similarly to advertisements that feature majoritynumerically raregroup (e.g., Native Americans,professional sourcesbecause they tend to be viewed as representing moreathletes,handicapped individuals)tendto be highly awareand accurate and valid viewpoints relative to minority viewsmindfulof thecharacteristics shared thatgroupandaremore by (Baker& Petty, 1994). In contrast,appealsfeaturingminoritylikely to incorporate groupidentityinto theirself-concept that sourcestend to lead to more divergentthoughtsandless tacitthanindividuals who do not belongto sucha group.Forexam- acceptanceof the message (Nemeth, 1986) and may induceple, McGuire, McGuire, Child,andFujioka (1978) foundthatof more enduringattitudechange (Mackie, 1987).the numerically predominant White studentsin an American This line of researchsuggests an asymmetryin responsesgradeschool,only 1%spontaneously mentioned theirethnicity to targetedadvertisingdepending on the numeric status ofin describing themselves, whereas14%of theminority Hispanic boththe sourcein the advertisement the viewer of the ad- andand 17%of the minorityBlack studentsdid so. These results vertisement. Because numerically raretraitshave a greaterin-havebeenmirrored studieswithothertraits, in including height, fluence on an individuals self-concept than do commonlywearing glasses (McGuire & McGuire, 1979), hair color, held traits, perceived similarity between a viewer and aweight, birthplace(McGuire& Padawer-Singer, 1976), and sourcein an advertisement shouldbe strongerwhen the basisgender(Cota & Dion, 1986). of that similarityis a distinctive versus nondistinctivetrait. In a consumer context, distinctiveness affects how con- This heightenedperceivedsimilarityshouldresultin strongersumers respond to marketingstimuli targetingnumerically target marketeffects (Aaker, 1999). In other words, targetraregroups (Forehand& Deshpande, 1999; Wooten, 1995). market effects should be enhanced for distinctive viewersFor example, Deshpandeand Stayman(1994) found thatnu- who are being targetedon the basis of that distinctive traitmeric ethnic composition in a populationinfluenced the sa- thanfor nondistinctiveviewers who arebeing targetedon thelience of a persons ethnicity and, subsequently, the basis of a more common, nondistinctivetrait.effectiveness of targetedadvertisements. More specific, their In additionto suggestingdifferentreactionsto advertisingresults showed thatan advertisement targetedtowardan eth- targetingtheir own groups, distinctiveness theory suggestsnic minoritygroupis viewed more favorablyby membersof differences among distinctive and nondistinctiveviewers inthat ethnic group when they were a minority of their local theirreactionsto advertisements targetedtowardindividualspopulationthanwhen they compriseda greaterproportion of outside their group. In this case, distinctivenesstheory pre-their local population.Although the targetedadvertisement dicts a varyingeffect of minorityversusmajoritygroupmem-enhancedfavorabletargetmarketeffects amongall members bership based on heightened awareness of dissimilarityof an ethnic group, differences in the local demography (McGuire,1984). Because advertisements targetingnumericstrengthenedthat effect for individuals for whom ethnic minoritiesarerelativelyrarein mainstream media(Ringhold,groupmembershipwas particularly distinctive. 1995), such advertisementsshould be particularlysalient to We extend these findings to propose that consumer dis- nondistinctiveindividualsoutsidethatgroup,inducingstron-tinctiveness-that is, the numericminority-majority statusof ger perceptionsof dissimilaritybetween themselves and thean advertisement viewer-will moderate both target and source. These perceptions of dissimilarity should lead tonontarget marketeffects. In addition,we proposethatthe dis- more unfavorableattitudes toward the advertisementthantinctivenessof the advertisement sourcewill influencethe ex- would occur when individualsin distinctivegroupsview ap-tentof targetandnontarget marketeffects. This propositionis peals targetingnondistinctiveindividuals.In contrast,adver-supportedby the large body of researchon minorityand ma- tising targeting nondistinctive groups is common injority influence (e.g., Baker & Petty, 1994; Kruglanski& mainstream mediaandmay notbe perceivedas being particu- larly salientby eitherindividualsin the targetmarketor those in the nontargetmarket(Penaloza, 1996). Thus, such adver- tisements targetingnondistinctivegroups should not lead to that 2The assumption numeric minority-majority influences status the similarity judgments or induce dissimilarity judgmentsawareness the distinctive of attribute with associated ones self andothersdoesnotexclude possibility otherfactors the that influence salience the of among distinctivenontargetmarketsbecause the prevalence Additional factors makespecificattributes that distinctive of such advertisementsdoes not make their distinctive traitgroupidentity.shouldprovoke similartheoretical processes(e.g., socialstatus;Grier& salient. In fact, membersof distinctive segments may makeDeshpande,1999). similarityjudgments on relevantbases other than their dis-
    • 130 AAKER, BRUMBAUGH,GRIERtinctivetraitandmay notfeel excludedfromthe targetmarket It should be noted that, although this set of stimuli in-(Williams, Quails, & Grier, 1995). As a result, negative creasedthe externalvalidityin the experiment,it also madeitnontarget marketeffects arenot likely to occurfor distinctive moredifficultto isolate effects attributed specific targeting toreviewersrelativeto nondistinctiveviewers. cues. To addressthis limitation,differencesin the advertise- ments (including the productsfeaturedin each) were con- trolled for statistically through the use of advertisement EXPERIMENT1: OVERVIEW in dummyvariablesin this experiment.Furthermore, Experi- ments 2 and 3, we controlledfor the numberand type of tar-Experiment1 examines the hypothesizedasymmetryin tar- geting cues by relying on fictitious advertisements.get and nontargetmarketeffects due to the interactionbe-tween the distinctiveness of the perceived targetin the per-suasion appeal (i.e., whether the intended target is a Participants and Proceduresminorityor majoritygroup)and viewer distinctiveness (i.e.,numerical majority vs. minority status of the participant). Sixty-threeparticipants(60% were men; 80% were 18-25Thus, Experiment 1 relies on a 3 (viewer distinctiveness: years of age, and 20% were 25-45 years of age) were re-White heterosexual viewers, Black heterosexual viewers, cruitedthroughMastersof Business Administration (MBA)and White homosexual viewers) x 3 (targetdistinctiveness: marketing classes andBlack MBA and gay andlesbiangrad-White heterosexual target, Black heterosexual target, and at uate studentorganizations a privatemidwesternuniversityWhite homosexual target), within-subjectfactorial design. in returnfor compensationto theirgroups (e.g., $10 per par-Viewer distinctivenessis operationalizedby using Whitein- ticipantdonated to the organization).PredominatelyWhitedividuals as nondistinctiveviewers (74.8% of the U.S. pop- studentscomprisethe MBA class (92%)and gay and lesbianulation; U.S. Bureau of Census, 1994), Black viewers organizations (100%),whereasonly Black studentscomprise(12.4% of the U.S. population; U.S. Bureau of Census, the Black studentgroup.Genderandage profileswere similar1994), and homosexual viewers (2.5%-10% of the U.S. across the three groups. All responses in Experiment 1, aspopulation;Penaloza, 1996) as distinctive viewers. Target well as in the subsequentexperiments,were collected underdistinctivenessis operationalizedby selecting threepairsof privateconditionsin which participants a small groupses- inadvertisementspretestedto be targetedsolely to one of the sion completed the questionnaireby themselves, separatedthreetargetdistinctiveness groups. Thus, in this design, hy- fromothersby a tableor a cubicle.3Furthermore, participantspothesized targetmarketeffects occur in the diagonal cells in the small groups were in the same viewer distinctivenessand are compared to nontarget market effects in the group to minimize potential situational distinctiveness ef-off-diagonal cells. fects (i.e., effects based on experimentalgroupcontext).4 Each participant informedthat the purposeof the ex- was perimentwas to obtainreactionsto current advertisingfromaStimuli Selection diverse group of consumersand was given a questionnaire packet containingthe six advertisements. The first page in-To enhanceexternalvalidity,real advertisements were used. cludedthe introduction instructions and requestingtheirreac-A total of 18 print advertisementsthat targetedeach of the tionsto a seriesof advertisements. wereinstructed Participants forthreetargetdistinctivenessgroups(6 advertisements each to look at eachadvertisement if theywereseeing it in a mag- asgroup)werepretestedwithWhite,Black, andgay andlesbian azine and to move on to the questionswhen they were ready.participants.From this set of 18, 2 advertisementsfor each Followingeach advertisement, participantsratedtheiratti-target distinctiveness group were identified as being most tude towardthe advertisement = .95) on 7-point scales: 1 (astronglyassociatedwith thatgroupand least associatedwith (verybad) to 7 (verygood), 1 (veryunfavorable) 7 (veryfa- tothe othertwo groups by membersof all of the groups.Each vorable),and 1 (dislikeverymuch)to 7 (likeverymuch).Then,advertisementtargeted a particularviewer distinctivenessgroupthroughmultiplecues, includingsources in the adver-tisement (i.e., White, Black, or White gay and lesbian 3Thisprocedure adoptedbecausepriorresearchsuggeststhatattitudi- wassources), advertisingcopy (e.g., "Coca-Colasalutes Black nal responses to majority and minority sources can differ depending onHistorythis monthand always"),and signs or symbols asso- whether attitude measures are taken in public or private (Kruglanski&ciatedwiththe group(i.e., pinktriangleor Kentecloth). The 2 Mackie, 1990). In this research,participantswererunindividuallyin isolatedadvertisementstargetingBlack consumersincluded 1 for a cubiclesandwere assuredof theiranonymousparticipation; thus,the focus islemon-lime soft drinkand 1 for a cable movie service; the 2 on privateattitudechange ratherthanpublic compliance. Data from two participants were eliminatedbecause of incompletere-advertisements targetinggay andlesbianconsumersincluded sponses, and data from six participants were eliminatedbecause they were1 for a sportingevent and 1 featuringnovelty products(e.g., not fromone of ourthreeviewerdistinctivenessgroups.Intotal,330 observa-T-shirts, mugs); the 2 advertisementstargetingWhite con- tions from 23 White, 16 Black, and 16 White gay and lesbian participantssumersincluded 1 for a snack crackerand 1 for bluejeans. were used in the analyses.
    • NONTARGETMARKETSAND VIEWERDISTINCTIVENESS 131to assess who they perceivedto be the targetof the advertise- comparethe reactionsof minorityandmajorityviewer groupsment,participants were askedto describethe intended targetof to advertisements targetingmembersof minorityandmajoritythe advertisement completinga checklistthatincludedeth- by groupsto assess whetherthe patternof responsesproposedisnicity (Hispanic, Asian, Caucasian,African American,and evident (Maxwell & Delaney, 1990). See Table 1 for means.other); sexualpreference (bisexual;heterosexual straight; or and The expectedViewer Distinctivenessx TargetDistinctive-homosexual, lesbian,or gay);and 13 filleritems,includingage, ness interaction significant, was F(4, 329) = 5.93,p < .01. Con-gender,socioeconomicbackground, education.Afterpar- and sistent with past literature, contrastsshowed that individualsticipantsfinishedthe questionsfor all six advertisements, they who were in the nontarget markethadsignificantlyless favor-completedthis checklistto describethemselves.Finally,to as- able attitudesrelativeto those in the targetmarket(target,M =sess if participantsperceptions distinctiveness of were in line 4.59; nontarget, = 4.02), F(1, 329) = 13.22, p < .01. Next, Mwiththeoperationalizations, participants askedto estimate were analysesto comparethe attitudes Black andgay andlesbian oftheproportion theU.S. population wasWhite,Black,and of that viewer distinctivenessgroupswith those of the White viewergay andlesbian,respectively. The orderof advertisements was distinctivenessgroup within and off the diagonal were con-counterbalanced, therewere no ordereffects. and ducted.As expected,distinctiveparticipants liked the adver- tisementstargetedtowardtheir respective groupsmore than nondistinctiveviewers liked the advertisements targetedto-Results wardtheirgroup (distinctivetarget,M = 4.75; nondistinctive target,M= 4.37), F(1, 329) = 2.15, p < .07, signalingmorefa-To check the targetdistinctiveness manipulation, participants vorable target market effects among distinctive versusestimates White,Black,andgay andlesbianpopulations of were nondistinctive viewers.Incontrast, nondistinctiveviewersdis- Asevaluated. expected,participants perceivedbothBlackindi- liked advertisementstargetingothers more than distinctiveviduals (M = 21.2%) and gay and lesbian individuals(M = viewers disliked advertisements targetingothers (distinctive11.5%)to be numericminorities Whiteindividuals be a and to M nontarget, = 4.18; nondistinctive nontarget, = 3.80), F(1, Mnumeric majority = 60.4%).To ensurethatparticipants (M un- 329) = 4.49, p < .05. These resultsindicatethatmoreunfavor-derstanding theintended of markets target matched threetar- the able nontarget marketeffects occur for nondistinctiveversusget distinctiveness groups,responses thetarget to market check- distinctiveviewers, as predicted.listforeachadvertisement werecompared theintended to targetdistinctivenessgroup for that advertisement. participants Allcorrectly identified intended the for targets all advertisements as Discussionevaluated through theirresponses thetarget to market checklists. Thedatawereanalyzedwith a 3 x 3 within-subject factorial The results of Experiment1 show that the effects of targetanalysis of variance (ANOVA) crossing viewer distinctive- marketingare moderatedby viewer distinctiveness. Favor-ness andtargetdistinctiveness.To statisticallycontrolfor the able targetmarketeffects arestrongerfor distinctiveviewers,six different advertisementsand products, all analyses in- whereasunfavorable nontargetmarketeffects arestronger forcludedfive advertisement product or factors(nestedwithintar- nondistinctiveviewers. This asymmetry was predictedbe-get distinctiveness groups). Also, to control for repeated cause of the differentialimportance placed on a traitbasedonmeasuresacross55 participants, analysesincluded52 par- all its distinctiveness.More specific, we proposedthat numericticipant factors(nestedwithinviewer distinctivenessgroups). minority-majority statusdrovepositive targetmarketeffectsInthisdesign,a significantinteraction betweenviewerdistinc- and negative nontargetmarketeffects via participantsper-tivenessandtargetdistinctiveness a plannedcontrast and com- ceptions of similarityor dissimilarityvis-a-vis the intendedparing the mean of the diagonal cells with the mean of the target.Consistentwith identificationtheory, this notion im-off-diagonal cells wereusedto assesstargetandnontarget mar- plies that viewers interpretation targeting cues involve ofket effects. Additionalplannedcontrastswere conductedto theirevaluationof whetherthey are similarto a source in an TABLE 1 Attitude Toward Advertisement a Function Viewer TargetDistinctiveness the as of and (Experiment 1) Aad Distinctive Target (Black) Distinctive Target (Gay) Nondistinctive Target (White)ViewerDistinctiveness M SD M SD M SDDistinctive viewer (Black) 4.80 1.24 4.16 1.39 4.21 1.46Distinctive viewer (Gay) 4.50 1.39 4.69 1.74 3.84 1.60Nondistinctiveviewer (White) 4.39 1.08 3.20 1.37 4.37 1.32 = Note. Aad attitudetowardthe advertisement.
    • 132 AAKER, BRUMBAUGH,GRIERadvertisement (Kelman, 1961). The results of Experiment1 nondistinctivemajority groups. Although the independentprovide outcome-basedsupportfor this premise;the objec- variablesused in Experiment2 parallelthose of Experiment 2tive of Experiment is to explicitly test the proposedprocess. 1, fourchangeswere madein the stimuliandprocedure. First,In this experiment, we address the question, "If to examinetheprocesshypotheses,participants wereaskedtonondistinctive individualsmakedissimilaritybutnot similar- rate their perceptions of both felt similarity and feltityjudgments, how do marketers createpositive targetmarket targetedness.Second, to assess nontargetmarketeffects in aeffects among such viewers?"An understanding this pro- of more realistic context, stimulusadvertisements targetingei-cess, as distinctfromthatfollowed by distinctiveindividuals, therBlack or Whitecollege studentswere embeddedin a fic-should provideadditionalinsight into the psychology of tar- titious magazinecalled On Campusthat studentparticipantsget andnontarget marketeffects, as well as the moderating in- were asked to evaluate.Third,to betterisolate the targetandfluence of viewer distinctiveness. nontargetmarketeffects and enhanceconsistency across the Researchin persuasionhas demonstrated consumers that manipulated 2 conditions,Experiment relies on fictitious(vs.may feel targetedby or excluded from an advertisement for real) advertisements.Finally, because the within-subjectde-reasonsotherthansourcesimilarity (Williams et al., 1995).For sign of Experiment 1 may have accentuated target andexample,creativecues, such as music type, slang, or tone of nontargetmarket effects by making salient differences inappeal, are frequentlyused by marketersto indicate the in- marketersintendedaudiences,a between-subjectsdesign istendedtarget.Likewise,mediaplacementindicatesto viewers used in Experiment2 to minimize the salience of targeting isthatan advertisement targeted towardthemif it is placedin manipulation reducethe chance of demandeffects. andmediatheyroutinely (Woods, 1993).Becausesourcesimi- uselarityshouldbe less influentialfor nondistinctive versusdis-tinctive consumers,these other targetingcues may enhance Stimuli Developmentnondistinctiveconsumers identificationwith the advertise-ment and thus drive targetand nontargetmarketeffects. In Two color advertisements promotingspring break vacationotherwords,a viewersperception an advertisement in- that is opportunities studentswere created.To convey the ads fortendedforthem,whichmaynotnecessarily involvea matchon target, two targeting cues were used. First, we created athe demographic traitsused by the marketer, shouldinfluence nonsourcetargetingcue: an organization campusthatwas onwhetherthe viewerfeels targeted the advertisement re- by and pretestedto be more associatedwith Black (White)students.spondsfavorably(positive targetmarketeffect) versus unfa- The distinctive(nondistinctive)conditionread,vorably(negativenontarget marketeffect). This notion of felt similarity with an advertisingsource For SpringBreak ... Wouldnt You RatherBe Here?suggests how the process underlying target and nontarget Langley Traveloffers many springbreaktrips,includ-market effects maydifferfor distinctiveversusnondistinctive ing airfare,cruises,beachrentalsandactionvacations.viewers resultingin the observedasymmetricresponses.For Pricesstartat only $199 for 5 days,4 nights.Contactthenondistinctive viewers, similarity with a nondistinctive African-American StudentUnion (WindsurfingClub)sourceis not diagnosticbecausethe groupmembership nei- is and otherstudentorganizations information this for onthersalientnormeaningful(McGuireet al., 1979). However, special promotionaloffer.viewers subjectiveevaluationof whetherthey are the focusof the marketingeffort-that is, their feelings of being tar- Second, we createda source cue by placing threestudentsingeted (felt targetedness)-should influencetargetmarketef- the advertisement.In the nondistinctive target condition,fects among nondistinctiveconsumers. As a consequence, threeWhitestudentsendorsedthe brand; the targetdistinc- infavorable target market effects should occur for tive condition, three minority studentsendorsed the brand.nondistinctive viewers because of felt targetednessrather All other aspects of the advertisement,including tropicalthan felt similarity.In other words, althoughfelt similarity beach photo, backgroundcolor, and font, were identicalmay be sufficientto drivetargetmarketeffects for distinctive across conditions.consumers, it may not be adequatefor nondistinctivecon- sumers.Experiment was conductedto testthishypothesis. 2 Participants and Procedures EXPERIMENT2: OVERVIEW A totalof 123 participants(52%weremen; 100%were 18-25 years of age; 39 were Black and 84 were White) were re-Experiment2 relies on a 2 (viewer distinctiveness:White cruitedvia a campus electronic mail notice to participateinviewersandBlack viewers) x 2 (targetdistinctiveness:White marketingresearchfor $5. All were told that the purposeoftargetand Black target)between-subjectsdesign to evaluate the researchwas to evaluate a prototypeof a new magazinethe proposed asymmetries in the causes of target and for college students.The magazine containedthree articlesnontarget market effects among distinctive minority and unrelatedto the distinctivenessmanipulationsand two ficti-
    • NONTARGETMARKETSAND VIEWERDISTINCTIVENESS 133tious color advertisements;the first was a filler advertise- A 2 x 2 ANOVA crossing viewer distinctivenessand tar-ment, whereasthe second was the targetadvertisement. get distinctivenessparalleledthe resultsfoundin Experiment Participantswere assignedrandomlyto the targetdistinc- 1. Individualsin the nontargetversus targetmarkethad lesstive or nondistinctivecondition and asked to read the maga- favorableattitudestowardthe advertisement (nontarget, =Mzine as they normally do. When finished, participants 3.29; target,M = 4.37), F(1, 122) = 11.52, p < .01. Further-evaluated each advertisement,the editorial content of the more, contrastsshowed that favorabletargetmarketeffectsmagazine,the magazineslayout,andtheiroverallperception were strongerfor distinctive versus nondistinctiveviewersof the magazine,consistentwith the cover story.Next, partic- (distinctivetarget,M= 4.78; nondistinctivetarget,M= 4.14),ipantswere askedtheirattitudetowardeach advertisement (a F(1, 122) = 2.74, p < .05. Nontarget market effects were= .96) andthencompletedthreefelt targetedness questions("I strongerfor nondistinctiveversus distinctive viewers (dis-feel the advertisementwas intendedfor people like me," "I tinctive nontarget,M = 3.81; nondistinctivenontarget,M =dont believe I was in the targetmarketthe companycreated 3.08), F(1, 122) = 2.74, p < .05.the advertisementfor" [reversecoded], and "The advertiser To explore whetherthe impactof targetingon attitudesismadethatadvertisement appealto people like me").These to mediated by felt similarity for distinctive viewers and feltfelt targetednessitems were evaluated on 7-point scales: 1 targetednessfor nondistinctiveviewers, a series of regres-(disagreecompletely)to 7 (agree completely),a = .90. Partic- sions were conducted(Baron& Kenny, 1986). The firstset ofipantsthen completedfive questionsevaluatinghow similar equationsrepresentsthe effect of the targetingmanipulationthey felt to sources in the advertisementsbased on overall on felt similarity, felt targetedness,and attitudetoward thelifestyle, culturalbackground,dress, appearance,and basic advertisement.The second set examines felt similarity andvalues: 1 (not at all similar) to 7 (very similar), a = .87 felt targetednessas predictorsof attitudetoward the adver-(Whittler,1989). To assess who they perceivedto be the tar- tisement.The thirdset includesFelt Similarityx Viewer Dis-get of the advertisement,participantscompletedthe checklist tinctivenessand Felt Targetednessx Viewer Distinctivenessused in Experiment 1. Finally, participantscompleted the as predictorsof attitudetowardthe advertisement examine tochecklistto describethemselvesandestimatedthe proportion the moderating role of viewer distinctivenesson the main ef-of the U.S. populationthat was Black and White. fects of felt targetednessand felt similarity.The final set of equationsincludes all independentvariablesused previouslyResults to assess the effects of felt similarityand felt targetednessas mediatorsof the impactof targetingon attitude towardthe ad-All participants correctlyidentifiedthe intendedtargetsfor all vertisement, andimpactof viewer distinctivenessas a moder-advertisements evaluated as through theirresponses thetarget to atorof these effects. In these analyses,viewer distinctivenessmarketchecklists.All participants recognizedthatBlacks also was coded as 1 for distinctive (Black) viewers and 0 forwerea minority group,whereas Whiteswerea majority group. nondistinctive(White) viewers. Also, targetdistinctiveness Analysis of the resultsfor the filler advertisement (which was coded as 1 for advertisements targeting distinctivewas forlunchmeatandcontainedonly a sandwich;no specific (Black) viewers and 0 for advertisements targetingtargeting cues) showedthatdistinctiveness no effect on felt had nondistinctive(White) viewers. Table 2 shows the means intargetedness or attitudetowardthe advertisement, < 1,ps > Fs each cell; Table 3 shows the mediationresults..20. However,felt targetedness favorably influencedattitudes Theresultsfromthefirstset of equations indicatethatthe in-for all viewers,F(1, 122)= 8.01,p < .05, indicating if a par- that teraction betweenviewerdistinctiveness targetdistinctive- andticipant did feel targetedby the lunch meat advertisement, ness was significant attitude for toward advertisement the (2.11,morefavorableattitudes resulted.These resultssuggestedthat p < .01),feltsimilarity(1.64,p < .01),andfelttargetedness (2.02,in the absenceof targetingcues, viewer distinctivenessalone p < .01), as expected.The resultsfromthe secondset of equa-does not heightentargetedness enhanceattitudes. or tions show thatfelt similarity favorablyinfluencedattitude to- TABLE 2 AttitudeTowardthe Advertisement,Felt Targetedness, and Felt Similarity a Function as of Viewer and Target Distinctiveness (Experiment 2) Aad Targetedness Similarity Distinctive Nondistinctive Distinctive Nondistinctive Distinctive Nondistinctive Target (Black) Target (White) Target (Black) Target (White) Target (Black) Target (White)ViewerDistinctiveness M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SDDistinctive viewer (Black) 4.78 1.39 3.81 1.25 3.86 1.28 3.89 1.67 4.34 1.40 3.15 1.27Nondistinctiveviewer (White) 3.08 1.68 4.14 1.55 3.16 1.82 5.30 1.28 3.47 1.29 3.91 1.19 = Note. Aad attitudetowardthe advertisement.
    • 134 AAKER, BRUMBAUGH,GRIER TABLE 3 MediationAnalysis (Experiment 2) Dependent Variable Aad Targetedness Similarity EquationSet Equation Equation Set 1 Set 1 1 2 2 3 3 4Independentvariable Viewer distinctiveness -1.41 (.01) -.32 (ns) -.76 (ns) - - 2.58 (.01) .80 (ns) .28 (ns) Targetdistinctiveness -2.14 (.01) -1.06 (.01) -.45 (.04) -. 12 (ns) Viewer x TargetDistinctiveness 2.11 (.01) 2.02 (.01) 1.64 (.01) -- .26 (ns) Targetedness -- -.34 (.01) - .46 (.01) - .43 (.05) x Targetedness Viewer Distinctiveness - - -.42 (.02) - -.49 (.01) Similarity - .48 (.01) - .31 (.02) .07 (ns) Similarityx Viewer Distinctiveness - - --- .39 (.06) .62 (.01) R2 .27 .09 .15 .14 .15 .24 .21 .37 The first numberin the table is the regressioncoefficient with p value in parentheses. Note. Aad= attitudetowardthe advertisement. wardthe advertisement (.48, p < .01) as did felt targetedness tive target market viewers felt more similar to like-type (.34, p < .01). As predicted,these effects are moderated by sources than did nondistinctivetarget marketviewers, and viewerdistinctiveness. Morespecific,the thirdset of equations this felt similarity, in turn, favorably influenced their atti- demonstrates theimpactof felt similarity attitude that on toward tudes. In contrast, felt similarity did not differ for the advertisement strongerfor distinctiveviewers (.70, p < is nondistinctiveindividuals viewing sources like or not like .01) thanfor nondistinctive viewers(.31, p < .02). In addition, them. Rather,nondistinctivetargetmarketviewers felt more the impactof felt targetedness attitude on toward advertise- the targetedby advertisements intendedfor theirgroupthandid ment was significantonly for nondistinctive viewers (.46, p < distinctivetargetmarketviewers,andthis felt targetedness, in .01) but not for distinctiveviewers(.04, ns), as predicted. turn, favorably influenced attitudes. These results suggest Finally,a modelincludingall independent variables pre- as that distinctiveand nondistinctiveviewers differ in the pro- dictorsof attitude towardthe advertisement shows thatthe in- cess by whichtheirattitudesareformedor alteredin response tended target no manipulation longerimpacts attitudetoward the to targeted advertisements.The next step is to understand advertisement (.26, ns), indicating thatfelt similarityand felt what felt similarityand targetednessrepresentin relationto targetedness mediate impactof intended the target attitude on to- consumerattitudestowardtargetedmarketingefforts. wardthe advertisement. Furthermore, predicted, similar- as felt Attitudesaregenerallythoughtto be formedthroughpro- ity is significant distinctive for viewers(.69,p < .01) butnotfor cesses of identificationor internalization(Kelman, 1961).5 nondistinctive felt viewers(.07,ns), whereas targetedness sig- is Identification occurswhen one adoptsthe position advocated nificantfor nondistinctive viewers(.43,p < .01) butnot fordis- by anotherbecause doing so preservesor enhancessome as- tinctiveviewers(-.06, ns). pect of self relatedto the other advocatingthe position. For example,a young manmay be persuaded a sneakeradver- by Discussion tisement featuringanotheryoung man because he feels that the spokespersonhas similar needs, goals, and a common The resultsof Experiment2 replicatethose of Experiment1, lifestyle. In suchcases, persuasionmay occurbecauseone ac- showing againthattargetand nontargetmarketeffects exist, cepts the message of a similarother and desires to maintain butthey aremoderated viewerdistinctiveness.Individuals by positive self-esteem in light of their sharedtraits(e.g., Wil- in the nontargetmarketof an advertisement more unfa- had liams & Qualls, 1989). In contrast, internalizationoccurs vorableattitudestowardthat advertisement thanindividuals in the target market, and this effect was stronger for nondistinctiveviewers. On the otherhand,individualsin the 5Inaddition identification interalization,processesof compliance to and can target marketof an advertisementhad more favorableatti- underliepersuasion outcomes.Here,one adoptsanothers positionbecauseof tudes toward that advertisement than individuals in the normative rewards occurbecauseof the attitude that changeorin fearof punish- mentsthatoccurbecauseof noncompliance (Kelman,1958).However,because nontarget market,and this effect was strongerfor distinctive is a advertising generally privately-accepted messagenot delivered powerful by viewers. More important,the mediationresults showed that othersdirectly inducesatti- related the viewer,it is less likelythatadvertising to this asymmetryis the resultof differenttypes of feelings gen- tudechangeviacompliance to (relative identification interalization); and there- eratedby distinctive versus nondistinctiveviewers. Distinc- fore,the compliance processwas not exploredin this research.
    • NONTARGETMARKETSAND VIEWERDISTINCTIVENESS 135when the attitudeadvocated is congruentwith ones value differentlyfor each of these two tasks. For the first task, it issystem andone finds it internallysatisfyingto adoptit. Thus, operationalized the school in which an undergraduate as stu-a differentyoung manmay be persuadedby the same sneaker dent is enrolled. Two schools, nursing and business, eachadvertisementbecause he feels the spokespersonis knowl- comprise about 10%of the undergraduate populationat theedgeableaboutwhich sneakersaremost effective on the bas- school wherethe studywas conducted,whereasthe engineer-ketball court. Such expert opinion is thought to influence ing and arts and science schools each comprise about 40%.attitudesvia internalization because ones desire to be accu- Thus,viewer distinctivenesswas high for studentsfromnurs-rateandcorrectis confirmedor enhancedby being congruent ing or business schools, but low for studentsfrom the engi-with the expert (Wilson & Sherrell, 1993). neering or arts and sciences schools. The second task was The resultsof Experiment suggest thatfelt similarityand 2 identicalto Experiment in the respectthatdistinctivenessis 2targetednessreflect differentmechanismsby which positive operationalized as a numerical majority-minority ethnictargetmarketing effects may occur.As notedpreviously,sim- group(for purposesof replication).ilarity effects occur via an identificationprocess (Kelman,1961), wherebyindividualsinfer thattheirtastes and prefer- Stimuli Developmentences arecommonto those of the sourceand,therefore,adoptthe attitude or behavior of the source (Eagley, Wood, & For the first task, four advertisementspromotinga web siteChaiken, 1978). When this source is a character an adver- in where studentscould purchasetextbooksat discountedpricestisement, for example, the tendency to infer similaritywith weredeveloped. sourcesandtextusedin theadvertisements Thethe source should lead to more favorableattitudes(i.e., posi- wereidentical, exceptforthetextbooks pictured (tailored each totive target market effects). Therefore, distinctive viewers school) and the headlinein the appeal ("Hey Nursing/Busi-feelings of similaritywith sources who sharethe distinctive, ness/Engineering/Arts ScienceStudents!"). strengthen & To thepersonally-relevant shouldlead to identificationwith the trait targetdistinctiveness the websiteat thebottomof manipulation,source.However,nondistinctiveviewers shouldnot feel sim- the appeal incorporated name of the target school (i.e., theilarbecausethe traitthey shareis not as personallyrelevantor For www.cheaptexts.com/nursing/). thesecondtask,thetwo ad-salient.Therefore,sharedgroupmembershiphas little influ- vertisements were those used in Experiment However,to be 2.ence. Rather,the results of Experiment2 suggest thatfavor- consistentwiththe cover storyof the experiment, websitead- aable targetmarketeffects are evoked among nondistinctive dresswas addedat the bottomof each appeal.See Appendix.target marketconsumers because the feelings of being tar-geted promptthem to accept the advertisedposition as their Participants and Proceduresown. That is, viewers who perceive that an advertisement isdesigned to resonate with them should base their attitudes A total of 180 participants(55%were men; 98% were 18-25more on an assessment of value congruencyrelative to per- years of age, and2%were 25-45 yearsof age; 21 participantsceived similaritywith the source. were enrolled in business, 18 in nursing,78 in engineering, In summary,we hypothesizethattargetmarketeffects oc- and 56 in arts and science; 11 studentswere Black, 39 werecurfor distinctiveconsumersvia identification,whereastarget Asian, and 123 were White) were recruitedvia campus fliermarket effects occurfornondistinctive consumersvia internal- and electronic mail notices inviting them to participateinization.Exploringthis predictionis the primaryobjective of Internet-based marketing researchfor $5. Participants, in- runExperiment The secondobjectiveis to ensurethattheresults 3. dividually,were assignedrandomlyto one of the four adver-of the previousexperimentsare drivenby viewer distinctive- tisementsoperationalizing targetdistinctivenessfor the firstness, ratherthanpotentialconfoundingvariables,such as so- task, and one of the two advertisements operationalizing tar-cial categoryor stigmatization. Therefore,Experiment relies 3 get distinctivenessfor the second task. Participantsreceivedon anotheroperationalization distinctivenessand includes of anexperimentbookletcontainingthe two appealsfor theiras-processmeasuresof identification internalization. and signed conditions;the questionsfollowed each appeal.After viewing the advertisement,they completed the attitudeto- EXPERIMENT3: OVERVIEW wardthe advertisement measures(Task 1, a = .81; Task2, a = .93), seven identificationmeasures(Task 1, a = .82; Task2, aExperiment3 relies on the same design as in Experiment2, =.85; Mackie, 1987; OReilly & Chatman,1986), and threebut uses two conceptualreplications(termedtasks later) to internalization measures (Task 1, a = .83; Task 2, a = .88;determinethe extent to which identificationand internaliza- OReilly & Chatman,1986).6Finally,participants completedtion arethe underlyingprocessesdrivingtargetmarketeffectsfor distinctive and nondistinctive individuals. Under theguise of evaluating advertisementsfor two new web retail Four additionalidentificationmeasureswere included in Experiment3outlets,participantswere exposed to two advertisementsand based on Mackie (1987). However, because these items yielded lowaskedto complete identification,internalization, attitude and inter-itemcorrelations amongeach other,as well as the threeotheridentifica-measuresfor each. Viewer distinctivenessis operationalized tion measures(OReilly & Chatman,1986), they were not used.
    • 136 AAKER, BRUMBAUGH,GRIERthe targetednessmeasuresused in Experiments1 and2 (Task with our hypotheses.As expected,identification a favor- had1, a = .92; Task 2, a = .95), measuresof attitudetowardall ableinfluenceon attitudes all fourmodels,suggestingthatif intarget groups, and estimates of the proportionof all target people identifywith the advertisement source,they are likelygroupsat the universityas manipulation checks. to adopta favorableattitude.More important, threeof the in four regressions,the interactionof identificationand viewer distinctivenesswas significant and positive, indicatingthatResults identification a greaterinfluenceon attitudesfor distinc- had tive viewerscompared nondistinctive to viewers.Furthermore,The patternof manipulation checks mirrored those found in as expected,the interaction internalization distinctive- of andExperiments 1 and 2. Participantswhose academic school ness was significantand negativefor all fourregressions.Thematched the school mentioned in the appeal felt more tar- expectedpositivemaineffect of internalization significant wasgeted by the advertisement (target,M = 4.61; nontarget, = M only for Task 2, however.7These resultsprovidepartialsup-4.35; p < .03). Similarly, participantswhose ethnic group portfor the premisethatinternalization a strongerimpact hasmatchedthe grouptargetedby the second advertisement felt on attitudetowardthe advertisement nondistinctive for view-marginally more targeted(target,M = 4.50; nontarget,M = ers thandistinctiveviewers.4.20; p < .07). As anticipated, therewere no differencesin at-titudetowardthe differentschools (business,M = 5.05; nurs-ing, M = 5.06; artsand sciences, M = 5.06; engineering,M= Discussion4.83;ps > .20). AttitudetowardAmericanWhitestudentsandAmericanminoritystudentsdid not differ (p > .20), although The contribution Experiment was twofold.First,the local of 3attitude toward internationalstudents was slightly lower distinctiveness manipulation usedin Experiment extendsthe 3(White,M = 5.24; ethnicminority,M = 5.19; international, M generalizability of theresultsin Experiments and2, strength- 1= 4.95; p < .05). Furthermore, both the business and nursing ening the premisethatviewer distinctiveness(rather thanpo-schools were perceived as distinctive comparedto the arts tentialconfoundedvariables,such as social categoryor stig-and sciences and engineeringschools (business,M = 16.2%; matization)accounts for the asymmetricattitudinaleffects.nursing,M = 11.1%;engineering,M = 29.1%; arts and sci- Second,the analysescomplementthe findingsof Experimentences, M= 43.7%;all pairwisecomparisonssignificantatp < 2, suggestingthatidentification drivesfavorable targetmarket.05), and Americanminoritystudentsand international stu- effects more for distinctive versus nondistinctiveviewers,dents were both perceivedas distinctivecomparedto White whereasinternalization drivesfavorabletargetmarketeffectsstudents(White,M= 60.1%;ethnicminority,M= 25.5%;in- more for nondistinctive versusdistinctiveviewers.ternational, =14.3%;all pairwisecomparisonssignificant M Although the influence of internalizationon attitudesre-at ps < .05). ceived less convergentsupportacross both tasks, this unex- To test the hypothesisthatan identification processunder- pected result is consistent with the notion thatidentificationlies the persuasion effects for distinctiveviewers exposed to a and internalizationprocess can occur simultaneouslyor hi-targetedadvertisementwhile an internalization process un- erarchically (Kelman, 1958, 1961). Although internaliza-derlies those for nondistinctiveviewers, attitudetowardthe tion may be a primary route of persuasion (as directlyadvertisement was regressedon viewer distinctiveness(a di- supportedin Task 1 and indirectlysuggested in Experimentchotomousvariable),identification,internalization, identifi- 2), processes of identificationmay also play a role in the per-cation by viewer distinctiveness, and internalization by suasion process for nondistinctiveviewers. Indeed, Mackieviewer distinctiveness.We expected thatthe main effects of (1987, p. 51) suggested that"theoperationof factorssuch asidentificationand internalization would be positive and sig- majorityendorsementillustrate difficulties of maintainingnificant,indicatingthatbothlead to morefavorableattitudes. such distinctions as those between internalizationand iden-However,these main effects should be moderatedby viewer tification (Kelman 1958)" and highlights conditions underdistinctiveness. The interactionbetween identificationand which internalizationand identification can jointly occur.viewer distinctivenessshould be significantand positive, in- Additional research is needed to pull apartthese two pro-dicating that identificationhas a strongereffect on attitudes cesses to better understand when or to what extentfor distinctive than nondistinctiveviewers. The interaction nondistinctiveindividualsmay follow an identificationpro-betweeninternalization viewer distinctivenessshouldbe andnegativeand significant,indicatingthatinternalization a hasweaker or nonsignificant effect for distinctive versusnondistinctiveviewers. Theresultsof theseregressions withall individ- Identification interalizationwerehighlycorrelated and (Task1,p = .52,p < (performed .01;Task2, p = .56,p < .01), andwhenentered in the regression first model,in-uals andonly with individualswho felt targetedby the adver- teralization was positiveand significant.However,it becamenonsignificanttisementat 3.5 or higheron the felt targetedness manipulation in whenidentification included themodel,suggesting thetwo processes was thatcheck for each task) are shown in Table 4 and are consistent may operate jointly or hierarchically.
    • NONTARGET MARKETS ANDVIEWER DISTINCTIVENESS 137 4 TABLE Regression Results for Attitude Toward the Advertisement, Felt Targetedness, and Felt Similarity as a Function of Viewer TargetDistinctiveness and (Experiment 3) Task I Task 2 All Observationsa TargetedOnly All Observationsa Targeted OnlycIntercept 2.97(.00) 2.69(.00) 1.24(00) 2.32 (.00)Viewer distinctiveness -1.50 (.03) -1.44 (.05) .51 (ns) -.37 (ns)Identification .35 (.00) .42 (.00) .68 (.00) .35 (.02)Interalization -.02 (ns) -.03 (ns) .11 (ns) .26 (.07) xIdentificationViewer Distinctiveness .73 (.00) .74 (.00) .15 (ns) .58 (.03) xIntemalizationViewer Distinctiveness -.46 (.01) -.48 (.02) -.34 (.07) -.64 (.01) Note. Thefirstnumber thetableis theregression in coefficient p valuein parentheses. with Comparisons basedon one-tailed are tests. n = 173. bn= 141. n = 103.cess, ratherthan one that more closely mirrorsa process of suggesting thatthe determination whetherthe majorityor ofinternalizationsuggested in this research. minority source is more influential depends on moderating variables,such as public versusprivateattitudes(Moscovici, 1980), expectations(Baker& Petty, 1994), and attitudetype GENERAL DISCUSSION (e.g., old vs. new opinions; Fazio, 1979; Kruglanski & Mayseless, 1987). This researchsuggests that,in a consumerThe purposeof this researchwas to shed light on the intended behaviorcontext,viewerdistinctivenessis animportant mod-andunintended effects of targetmarketing examiningcon- eratorof source effects. by In addition,this researchextends the work on distinctive-sumer responses to targetedadvertisements among both the marketand the nontargetmarket.The results demon- ness theoryby showingthatviewerdistinctiveness impactsthetargetstratethat favorabletarget marketeffects were strongerfor interpretation of, processingof, andreactionto persuasion ap-membersof distinctiveversusnondistinctive groups,whereas peals (Forehand& Deshpande, 1999; Grier & Brumbaugh,unfavorable nontarget market effects arestronger members for 1999; Wooten, 1995). These findingsdemonstrate targetthatof nondistinctive versusdistinctivegroups.Furthermore, these marketing operatesthrough differentmechanismsfor distinc- are the result of distinctfeelings evoked in dis- tive andnondistinctive individuals. Thatis, whethersimilarityasymmetriestinctive versus nondistinctiveindividuals. Favorable target ortargetedness felt by targetandnontarget is membersappearsmarketeffects occurfor distinctiveviewersbecauseof height- to influencethe natureof the consumerssubsequent process-ened levels of felt similaritywith a source,whereasfavorable ing of the advertisement. Additionalinvestigationof the ante- effects for nondistinctiveviewersresultfromfelt cedentsand consequencesof differencesin the use of sourcetargetmarkettargetedness basedon some aspectsof the entireconfiguration and nonsourcecues among distinctiveversus nondistinctiveof advertisement cues. Unfavorablenontargetmarketeffects consumersis neededto lend additionaltheoreticalinsight.occurfor nondistinctive viewersbecauseof perceiveddissimi- Froma moreappliedperspective,these resultssuggestthatlaritywith a source,whereasunfavorable nontarget marketef- becausefeelings of similaritywith the sourcedrive favorablefects occurfor distinctiveviewersbecauseof perceivedexclu- targetmarketeffects for distinctiveviewers,advertisers court-sion from the intendedtargetmarket. ing minoritysegmentsmay considerpaying particular atten- This set of findings suggests thattargetmarketing induces tion to the selectionof sourcesin advertisements have the thatmore identificationwith the sources among distinctiverela- most impact on the intended target segment. In contrast,tive to nondistinctivegroups but internalization the mes- of sourcesappear play a less pivotalrole for nondistinctive to in-sage among nondistinctiveversus distinctive groups. These dividuals;therefore, advertisers may need to be moremindfulresultsreplicatethe basic findingthatmajoritysourcescan in- of the nonsourcetargetingcues they choose to include in ad-fluence attitudesvia an internalization process(wherethe au- vertisements aimedat majoritysegments.These findingsalsodience views the majority opinion as more likely to be imply thatcombiningdistinctivesources with othertargetingcorrect;Deutsch & Gerard,1955). However, they also sug- cues that attractnondistinctiveviewers may be an effectivegest thatthis process occurs only when the viewer belongs to way of reachingboth distinctiveand nondistinctive individu-the same majoritygroup as the source. In conditions where als. Thus,through carefulstrategy, advertiser an maybe abletothe viewer is of a numerically rare or distinctive group, reachmultipletargetsegmentswith one advertising appeal.greaterpersuasionoccurs when the sourceis of the same mi- However,these resultsalso highlighta potentialdownsidenority group. In these conditions, an identificationprocess to targetingminority (relative to majority)groups: Feelingoccurs (Kelman, 1961). In this light, our findings conceptu- excludedfromthe targetmarketappearsto lead to less favor-ally parallelmore recent findings in the persuasionliterature able advertising responses,but only amongnondistinctivein-
    • 138 AAKER, BRUMBAUGH,GRIERdividuals.Thatis, reducedlevels of persuasionoccur when a wouldallow for an understanding the interaction ethnic- of ofmember of a numericalmajoritygroup views an advertise- ity and socioeconomic variables.In addition,othertypes ofment featuringa minority group member. Furthermore, al- targetingcues, such as media placement(e.g., Ebony maga-thoughsome researchshows thatpeople process stigmatized zine vs. People magazine), humor type (e.g., sarcasm vs.sources such as gays, lesbians, and AfricanAmericanssimi- slapstick), music type (e.g., rap vs. classical), and colors inlarly (Petty, Fleming, & White, 1999), our results also sug- advertisements (e.g., brightvs. dark)need to be examinedtogest that potential backlash effects may vary dependingon determineconditions under which nontargetmarketeffectsthe specific marketbeing targeted. may be minimized(e.g., mediaplacement)or enhanced(e.g., source or languagein copy). Finally,this researchfocused on the positiveimpactof tar- AND FUTURE RESEARCH LIMITATIONS get marketing those in the targetmarketand the negative on impact of targetmarketingon those in the nontarget market.Thisresearch severallimitations affordareasforfuture has that However,the oppositepattern resultsalso meritsexamina- ofresearch. Moreimportant, these findingscontribute ourun- to tion. More specific, underwhatconditionswill targetmarket-derstanding of the processesunderlying responses to targeted ing have a negative impacton targetmarketmembersand amarketing amongbothtargetandnontarget market consumers. positive impacton nontarget marketmembers?For example,However,minimalattention paidto thepractical theo- was and the affinityof Generation-X membersto the "offbeatandun-reticalconsiderations the nontarget of marketeffects. For ex- usual"suggeststhattargetingthis marketdirectlymay have aample, what are the commercialand social effects of the ob- negativeimpact,whereasa more indirectapproach (e.g., oneserved processes, and what can be done to limit negative thatappearsto targetanothermarket)may prove more effec-effects? Althoughconsiderableresearchhas highlightedpo- tive. Furthermore, underwhatconditionswill creatingandnur-tentialconsequencesof targetmarketing (e.g., perpetuation of turing the perceptionof an existing nontarget marketbenefit,social stereotypesand exploitationof vulnerableconsumer rather thanlimitor hurt,marketers objectives(Turow,1997)?segments; Ringhold, 1995; Smith & Cooper-Martin, 1997; Addressingthese questionswoulddemonstrate continued thatSpradley,1993), this streamin general,and this researchin in the progress understanding dynamicsof targetmarketing areparticular,have not yet determined best way to limit these the enhancedby investigationsof the nontarget market.potentialnegativeconsequences.Insightintohow to acknowl-edge andcommunicate withparticular groupswho maybenefitfrom andappreciate targetingefforts(Elliott, 1994;Penaloza, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS1996)-while minimizing negative effects-is needed formarketers who targetmultiplesegments. The authorsall contributedequallyand sincerelythankCindy Furthermore, such marketplace targetingconflicts need to Huffman, JohnMury, Jay Dean, and BrianStemthalfor theirbe consideredconceptuallyin light of recentresearchon the helpfulcomments earlier on drafts. alsothank Bettman, We JimPersuasionKnowledgemodel, which suggests thatconsum- Doug Holt, andKentGraysonfor facilitating collaboration ourers understand marketingtactics and may reactnegativelyto on this project. This researchwas fundedin partby the GSB,communications are seen as manipulative inappropri- that or StanfordUniversity.ate attemptsto persuade.Friestadand Wright(1994) distin-guishedbetweentargetingeffortsthatareseen as welcome orappropriate attemptsto serve a targetmarketand those that REFERENCESare viewed as manipulativeor inappropriate. This researchsuggeststhattargetmarketmembersmay not necessarilyper- Aaker,J. (1999, February). malleableself: The role of self-expressionin Theceive targetmarketingto be an inappropriate tactic and thus persuasion.Journalof MarketingResearch, 36, 45-57. Aaker, J., & Williams, P. (1998). Empathyversus pride:The influence ofmay respond favorably toward targetingefforts. However, emotionalappealsacross cultures.Journal of ConsumerResearch,25,more researchon how differentviewer groupsuse targeting 241-261.cues to decideif targetedcommunications welcome orex- are Baker,S. M., & Petty, R. E. (1994, July). Majorityand minorityinfluence:ploitativeis needed. Source-positionimbalanceas a determinant message scrutiny.Jour- of Anotherlimitationof this researchlies in the set of target- nal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 67(1), 5-19. Baron,R. M., & Kenny,D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variabledis-ing cues used in the research.Althoughsimilarto those used tinctionin social psychologicalresearch:Conceptual,strategic,andsta-by advertisers,these cues were somewhat simplistic. Future tistical considerations.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,researchis neededto furtherexamine multiplebases of simi- 51(6), 1173-1182.larity, including combinations of demographic, Brumbaugh, M. (1997). Targetingtwo worlds: Theimpactof source and A. other cues on culture-bound responses to targeted advertisingpsychographic,and cultural variables (Aaker & Williams, (WorkingPaper).Cleveland,OH: Case WesternReserve University.1998). To illustrate,exploring responses to advertisements Cota, A., & Dion, K. (1986). Salience of genderand sex compositionof adtargetedtoward yuppies versus buppies, both within those hoc groups:An experimentaltest of distinctivenesstheory.Journal ofsegmentsas well as amongothersnot in those targetmarkets, Personalityand Social Psychology,50(4), 770-776.
    • NONTARGET MARKETS ANDVIEWER DISTINCTIVENESS 139Deshpande, & Stayman, (1994).A taleof twocities:Distinctiveness R., D. W., W. McGuire, McGuire, V., & Winton, (1979).Effectsof household C. theory and advertisingeffectiveness. Journal of MarketingResearch, sex composition the salienceof ones gender the spontaneous on in 31, 57-64. self-concept. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 77-90.Deutsch, &Gerard, B. (1955).A study normative informational M., H. of and McGuire, McGuire, V., Winton, & Padawer-Singer, (1976). W., C. W., A. socialinfluences uponindividual Journal Abnormal judgement. of and Trait in salience the spontaneous Journal Personality self-concept. of Social Psychology, 51, 629-636. and Social Psychology, 33, 743-754.Eagley,A. H., Wood,W., & Chaiken, (1978).Causal S. inferences about Meyers-Levy, (1989).Theinfluence sexrolesonjudgment. J. of Journal of communicators their and effectonopinion Journal Person- change. of ConsumerResearch, 14, 522-530. ality and Social Psychology, 36(4), 424-435. Moscovici,S. (1980). Towarda theoryof conversion In behavior. L.Elliott, (1994,April14).Advertising gayconsumers. York S. and New Times, Berkowitz(Ed.), Advancesin experimentalsocial psychology, 13 (pp. p. C17. 209-239).NewYork: Academic.Fazio,R. H. (1979).Motives socialcomparison: construction-vali- for The Nemeth, J.(1986).Differential C. of and in- contributions majority minority dation distinction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, fluence. Psychological Review, 93, 23-32. 37(10),1683-1698. OReilly, A., &Chatman, (1986).Organizational C. J. commitment psy- andForehand, R., & Deshpande, (1999).What see makes whowe M. R. we us chological attachment: effectsof compliance, The and identification, in are: Ad typicalityas a source of elicited distinctiveness.Manuscript internalization prosocialbehavior.Journal of Applied Psychology, on of University Washington. preparation, 71,492-499.Friestad, & Wright, (1994).Thepersuasion M., P. model: knowledge How Penaloza, (1996).Werehere,werequeer, weregoingshopping! L. and A people cope with persuasionattempts.Journal of ConsumerResearch, perspective theaccommodation gaysandlesbians the critical on of in 21, 1-31. U.S. marketplace. Journal of Homosexuality,31, 9-41.Greco, J.(1989).Representationtheelderly advertising: orin- A. of in Crisis R. M. P. Petty, E.,Fleming, A., &White, H.(1999).Stigmatizedsources and consequence. Journalof ConsumerMarketing,6, 37-44. Prejudice a determinant argument persuasion: as of Journal scrutiny. ofGrier, A., & Brumbaugh, M. (1999).Noticing S. A. Ad differences: cultural Personalityand Social Psychology, 76(1), 19-34. meanings by and markets. created target nontarget Journal ofAdvertising, Ringhold, J. (1995).Socialcriticisms targetmarketing: D. of Processor 18(1), 79-93. product.AmericanBehavioralScientist, 38(4), 578-592.Grier,S. A., & Deshpande,R. (1999). Social dimensionsofconsumer distinc- Smith, C.,&Cooper-Martin, N. Ethics target E.(1997). and The of marketing: role tiveness: The influenceof social status on group identityand advertis- product andconsumer harm Journal Marketing, 1-20. vulnerability. of 61, (Working ingpersuasion Paper).Stanford, Stanford CA: University. Spradley, H. (1993).Targeting T. vulnerable in advertis- segments cigaretteGronhaug, & Rostvig,L. (1978).Target K., and mes- groups advertising ing:Ethical and criteria public Proceedings the policyimplications. of sages. Journalof AdvertisingResearch, 18(2), 23-28. Academyof MarketingScience, 26, 446-450.Kelman, C.(1958). H. and Three identification, internalization: Compliance, Star, H. (1989).Marketing itsdiscontents. S. and Harvard Business Review, processesof attitudechange.Journalof ConflictResolution,2, 51-60. (12), 148-154. H. ofKelman, C. (1961).Processes opinion PublicOpinion change. Quar- Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge,Eng- terly, 25, 57-78. land:Cambridge Press. UniversityKotler, Armstrong, &Starr, G.(1991).Principles P., G., R. (5th ofmarketing Tepper, (1994). roleoflabeling K. The in consumers processes elderly responses ed.).EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:PrenticeHall. cues.Journalof Consumer to age segmentation Research, 503-520. 20,Kruglanski, W.,&Mackie, M.(1990). A. D. and influence: Minority majority J. Breaking America: dark of target Turow, (1997,November). up The side Ajudgmentalprocessanalysis. W.Stroebe M.Hewstone In & (Eds.),Eu- AmericanDemographics,19(11), 51-54. marketing. ropeanreviewof social psychology 1 (pp. 229-261). London:Wiley. U.S.Bureau Census. of abstracts theUnited (1994).Statistical of Statesweb effects thesocialKruglanski, W.,&Mayseless, (1987).Motivational A. 0. in site [On-line Report].Retrieved December 1994 fromthe World 3, comparisonof opinions. Journalof Personalityand Social Psychology, WideWeb:http://www/census/gov/ftp/pop/statab/freq/94s001 1.txt 53(5), 834-842. Whittler, E.(1989).Theeffectsof actors in commercial T. race advertising:Latane, &Wolf,S. (1981). social B., The and impact minorities majorities. of Review and extension. Journal of Advertising,20, 54-60. Psychological Review, 88, 438-453. T. Whittler, E.,&DiMeo, (1991). J. reactions racial inadver- Viewers to cues J. 12). spinsoutof control.Lipman, (1991,December Strohad campaign tising stimuli. Journalof AdvertisingResearch, 31(6), 37-46. WallStreetJournal,p. B6. J. W. Middle-class consumers in- Williams, D.,&Quails, J.(1989). Black and A., R. versuscompliance:Maass, & Clark, D., III.(1983).Internalization Psychologyand Marketing, 263-286. tensityof ethnicidentification. 6, Differential underlying processes minority and influence conformity. Williams, D., Quails, J.,& Grier, A. (1995).Racially J. W. S. exclusive ad- EuropeanJournal of Social Psychology, 13, 45-55. Public vertising: for policyimplications fairhousing Journal practices. andMackie, M.(1987).Systematic nonsystematic D. of processing majority of Public Policy and Marketing,14, 225-244. andminority persuasive and Journal Personality communications. of Wilson, J., & Sherrell, (1993).Source E. D. effectsin communicationand Social Psychology, 53(1), 41-52. persuasion A research: meta-analysis effect size. Journalof the of andMaxwell,S. E., & Delaney, H. D. (1990). Designing experiments analyz- Academyof MarketingScience, 21, 101-112. ing data:A modelcomparisonperspective. Belmont,CA:Wadsworth. Woods, R. (1993, February 22). Why has advertisinggone blank? W. Search theself:GoingMcGuire, (1984). for beyondself-esteem there- and Brandweek,34(8), 14-17. active InR.A. Zucker, Aronoff, A. I. Rabin self. J. & (Eds.),Personality Wooten, B. (1995).One-of-a-kind a fullhouse: D. in Someconsequences of and thepredictionof behavior(pp. 73-120). New York:Academic. ethnic andgenderdistinctiveness.Journalof ConsumerPsychology, 4,McGuire, McGuire, V., Child,P., & Fujioka, (1978).Salience W., C. T. of 205-224. in ethnicity thespontaneous self-concept a function onesethnic as of distinctiveness the socialenvironment. in and Journal fPersonality Social Psychology, 365, 511-520. Accepted by FrankKardes.
    • ....: ." .: . ..... ??:?? ":::-.;; i:: Z:. ::: ::..... .::: : ; :.....:. :..:.: ..... ........" i:. . :...:.?........? .........:::::. : .;~ ........:, .:....-.:.:... .:... . ::.: .:..... .;:..... : ..... ............ ..... . . :... ......:.. .......:: :::: : ::::...:.::;...::: :-:....:..... :.:.:: .......... ........ :::::::: :. . ..:::: : ?;~ti "ii.-,:i:ii;: i.:.. **~.;:.- -;:... :.. "i~.-i!ii!;!!i8i!~~:i..-: :": ?~ilii~~~B". ?i .:li;ii:oi,i:i:~i;i~:ii:i::-.,. .?:":.."--. ...: .......... :,:; .. . . ;~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~.Ij.:,;.: ~ .::.i : ::I:::::::::::::.: ... I: .:.. ... . ri....:. . . . ..... ... :-.: :.. . ,:,:: : . . . . . ::::.:.:~, : .:.::"...:". .1 v:U1 Z.. ""? . ..(.- . :: :.:"::.:.}i...:.:. .. :::. ,is: : -:.:;i-. ." ! ii:::;P:;::: :./ i:: . ? "! .::..::::.::."":?.." :; .:.::.:Z- .:..::.:.." ~~-:;" .~: : :.:;:Z .:. : :-: ~ ::;;i::; ::.:i:::: :::: :i:; ; l: ?:;: :?;;i. :???:::::: i:: ::~~~~~~~~~~~Fi.: :: ::."?:.::::"".:.:.:-::.......":.:.,-iI :]""-. :::-.-:.~2. ?. ? .;:2:". ~~~~~~~~~~??:.:!.:... .. ? :.::.:~.::.:::;:"..;.:?;.:i ?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I? "..:: (...i:. ;~ ".: t.. .Z.: .?: : :..": .:...". 7~~~~~~~~:. Z:?.: ?". Z :: ...:...:"::.... :...:?.:?:" .......: x LU a. .... . . ...i.:.-:..i:: ::.i:*" Z.^ .:: ."".. : :.. ..:. . ^:....:....:.::". ? : . :.Z-. :".: ..:.. :. : ..... ... ..... . :. ........ .: .....,. . ? ::..:...w::?.? ..:: ." i:.?.? ??.:??.::-? ??? ::??. ?. -?::. ?.?.?. :knpr""?"------ -CYtt;LuC-LL?aL: i: .. ?:.III ? .... ::.: i.:.:.*:.:/S :? ~:..i;.:.?I...:? ..::;:"Z : 4i - ?. ;i. :.;7.... . . . ...~i.??? l: : :-... ....:: .... .fi: it ii i? : ::*f* /: :;i i:::;:::::|---: .*:; :?p;:? .;:.: .. ,: ?:" :i :; :;: : mi:a: :.., .I".-0. Cs a;:;~ (-~~.~...::.: .~. ...~. ?. ::? Ic:c- : :;q:t~?:-:: ::sO; * a. :L:., :.-... ::::::140