2. USA Today’s “Ad Meter”
• The Super Bowl's annual adfest has become the biggest marketing
event of the year as advertisers tap in to the biggest TV event of the
year.
• USA TODAY created the Super Bowl Ad Meter in 1989 to gauge
consumers' opinions about TV's most expensive commercials.
• In 2007 USA TODAY assembled 207 adult volunteers in Phoenix and
McLean, Va., and electronically charted their second-by-second
reactions to ads during the Super Bowl.
• Fieldwork Phoenix and Shugoll Research chose the volunteers, who
used handheld meters to register how much they liked each ad.
• A computer continuously averaged the scores.
• Scores are the highest average for each ad.
3. Bud Light Super Bowl Commercials
• The star of the No. 1 ad in 2007: A refrigerator
stocked with Bud Light with the ability to
disappear to keep unwelcome guests from
grabbing the brew. The fridge disappears via a
revolving wall that, unbeknownst to the fridge's
owner, spins it into the adjoining apartment.
• For the guys next door, it becomes the "magic
fridge" — an idol to be worshipped.
4. Power of Advertising: Overwhelming?
Body Image: Super-thin models, “heroin look”.
• Sources: Magazines, TV shows, movies, fashion shows.
Cigarette use by teens: Marlboro Man, Joe Camel.
Obesity: McDonald’s and other fast-food chains.
Consumerism: Promotion of spending.
Advantage to large companies with big advertising
budgets … ?
6. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1992
Pepsi-Cola Plans Big Effort To Exploit ‘Uh-huh’ Theme
As soon as Pepsi-Cola introduced Ray Charles as the spokes-singer for its Diet
Pepsi brand, growling, "You got the right one baby, uh-huh!" it seemed the decision had
indeed been the right one.
Consumers immediately took to the infectiously cheerful advertising created by
BBDO Worldwide, ranking the campaign among the most likable and memorable of
1991. The phrase entered the vernacular, appearing on a line of licensed clothing and on
cans and bottles of the soft drink.
There was just one uh-uh amid the uh-huhs: Diet Pepsi's market share ended the
year as flat as day-old cola, according to Beverage Digest, an authoritative industry
newsletter. It ranked fourth among America's leading soft drinks in 1991, with an 8
percent share, unchanged from 1990.
So, eager to translate Diet Pepsi's advertising success into sales, Pepsi executives are
planning one of the industry's most extensive, and expensive, marketing blitzes ever on
behalf of the 28-year-old brand. Beginning during CBS's telecast of the Grammy Awards on
Feb. 25, Diet Pepsi will embark on an elaborate series of events intended to convince
America that this April is "National Uh-huh Month."
7. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1992
Is ‘Heartbeat’ Campaign Selling Cars?
It is one of the best-known advertising campaigns in the country and yet the product it sells
has experienced a slide in market share since the effort began four years ago.
The television commercials of Lintas Campbell-Ewald's “Heartbeat of America” campaign
for Chevrolet are famed for slow-motion shots of parents frolicking with their children and the
insistent thump of the “Listen to the Heartbeat of America” song.
Although print ads are often less memorable than television, both “Heartbeat” executions
have scored consistently high in consumer recall. The “Heartbeat” campaign scored No. 3 in
Adweek's “America's Favorite Print Campaigns,” behind Ford and Pepsi-Cola.
Yet Chevrolet is losing ground. According to Ward's Communications Inc., a leading trade
publisher, Chevrolet's share of the American car market in 1986, when “Heartbeat” began, totaled
about 15 percent. By 1989, it declined to 13.6 percent.
Bob Garfield, a columnist for Advertising Age, took notice of the gap between the campaign's
visibility and Chevrolet's sales. “I may be the only person in the hemisphere to think so,” he wrote
recently, “but my view is that ‘Heartbeat’ is simply a glitzy, stylish, somewhat sexy, extremely
catchy, painstakingly cultivated archetype of puffery – because Chevrolet is not the heartbeat of
America.”
He added, “It's a declining entry level car brand, and it desperately needs to communicate
quality and value, not some fading vestige of ubiquity.”
8. Practitioner Theories
Initially, assumption that people respond rationally to
advertising. “Main promise” of product basis for
advertising copy.
Doubt about ability to change preferences by rational
argument, led to psychoanalytic approach: products
associated with unconscious desires. Copy has to address
these unconscious forces.
Ogilvie: Brand image – set of associations to product that
places it in relation to a person’s life style.
Lannon & Cooper: Cultural context – advertising is
effective if it reflects the shared meaning in a social group
or society.
9. Models of Advertising Effectiveness: Price of
Product
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Price
Sales
Volume
Advertising
No advertising
10. Models of Advertising Effectiveness: Time
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Time
Sales
Volume
Campaign
begins
Campaign
ends
12. Change in Sales as a Function of Change in
Advertising Budget (Ackoff & Emshoff, 1975)
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
-100 -50 0 50 100 150 200
% Change in Advertising Budget
%
Change
in
Sales
Budweiser Beer
13. The BehaviorScan® System
The BehaviorScan® system, a service of IRI, is a real-life laboratory in
which manufacturers test marketing variables within a controlled environment
for both new and established brands. The current BehaviorScan® markets are
Pittsfield, MA; Marion, IN; Eau Claire, WI; Midland, TX; Grand Junction,
CO; and Cedar Rapids, IA. Past BehaviorScan® markets utilized for tests
contributing to this study included: Williamsport, PA; Rome, GA; Salem, OR;
and Visalia, CA. The markets are large enough to test in, but small enough to
allow precise control of testing variables and product distribution, and virtually
complete coverage of grocery store product purchasing. BehaviorScan®
testing occurs at the consumer level. Consumer purchasing information is
electronically collected from each representative household that has been
recruited and maintained in each BehaviorScan® market. Panel members shop
with an ID card which is presented at checkouts in scanner-equipped grocery
and drug stores, allowing IRI to electronically track over time each household's
purchasing, item by item.
14. The BehaviorScan® System
For tests of alternative T.V. advertising plans, the
BehaviorScan® household panels are split into two or more
subgroups that are balanced on past purchasing, demographics,
and stores shopped over a one-year base period. This matching
procedure makes it easier to attribute differences in the test period
to the effect of the treatment rather than to preexisting differences
between groups or to an interaction between the test variable and
pre-existing differences. After a suitable period of time (usually a
year), the test is ended and the results are analyzed using analysis
of covariance to remove any consistent influence of uncontrolled
factors (e.g., competitive and test brand promotions), so that the
impact of the test treatment can be seen more clearly.
15. The BehaviorScan® System
Using split cable technology, commercials can be substituted
at the individual household level, allowing one subgroup to view
a test commercial, while the other views a control ad, or enabling
one subgroup to receive heavier advertising weight than the other.
In all of the BehaviorScan® markets, cable is the most viable
way of receiving an acceptable television signal. In each market,
IRI maintains permanent warehouse facilities and has an in-
market staff to control distribution, price, and promotions.
Competitive activity in all categories is monitored and a complete
record of pricing, displays, and features permits the covariate
adjustment of differences that occur across stores.
16. The BehaviorScan® System: Major Findings
(Lodish, et al., 1995)
T.V. advertising alone is not enough.
There is no simple correspondence between increased T.V. advertising and increased
sales, regardless of whether the increased spending is compared to competition or not.
Higher levels of trade display correspond with a reduction in the ability of T.V.
advertising to positively affect sales.
There is no strong relation between measures of T.V. commercial recall and either
persuasion or sales impact for established brands.
New brands or line extensions tend to be more response to T.V. advertising than
established products.
Higher boosts in prime time T.V. advertising are correlated with larger increases of
sales for new products, but not for established products.
17. Functions of Advertising
Most important: Introduce / inform about a new product
(e.g., direct marketing). Helps companies sell their
products. Benefits economy.
Gain market share: Much more difficult. Benefit to
economy less obvious.
18. Issues in Advertising
Continued reliance on discredited Hovland approach.
• Source credibility – “doctors”, “overheard” endorsements.
• Source likeability – endorsement by well-known personalities.
• Audience factors – market segmentation by demographics, etc.
Uncertainty regarding use of peripheral vs. central
approaches (long before ELM).
• New products often introduced by central route.
• For many products (e.g., soft-drinks, difficult to come up with
strong arguments – but, example of 7-Up).
21. Subliminal Persuasion? Democrats See, and
Smell, Rats in G.O.P. Ad
Sept. 2000: Republican TV commercial criticizing
Al Gore’s prescription drug plan: “bureaucRATS
decide” …
22. Theories of Buying Behavior
Some complex theories proposed, e.g., Howard & Sheth
(next slide).
24. Theories of Buying Behavior
Simpler models – (central processing is assumed).
• Brand attitude determines brand choice.
• Multi-attribute (expectancy-value) model of brand attitude.
• Focus on brand image, image of corporation.
• Simpler choice model: Elimination by aspects (Tversky).
25. Theory of Planned Behavior Applied to
Buying Product X
Behavioral
Beliefs About
Buying
Product X
Normative
Beliefs About
Buying
Product X
Control
Beliefs About
Buying
Product X
Attitude
Toward
Buying
Product X
Subjective
Norm About
Buying
Product X
Perceived
Control Over
Buying
Product X
Intention
to buy
Product X
Buying
Product X
26. Correlation Between Brand Attitudes and Buying
Attitudes (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1980)
Brand
Attitude Toward
Buying
Attitude Toward
Buying in Next 3
Years
Ford .82* .58*
Volkswagen .78* .59*
Chevrolet .75* .30*
Mercedes .28* –.01
Jaguar –.04 –.31*
27. Correlations Between Attitudes and Buying
Intentions (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1980)
Intention to Buy Intention to Buy in
Next 3 Years
Brand
Brand
attitude
Buying
attitude
Brand
attitude
Buying
attitude
Ford .58 .63 .45 .73
Volkswagen .62 .74 .58 .44
Chevrolet .46 .72 .29 .73
Mercedes .09 .53 .01 .51
Jaguar .00 .45 –.11 .44
28. Mean Attitudes Toward Ad and Toward Brand
(Madden & Ajzen, 1991)
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
A-ad A-brand
Attitude
No humor
Humor
29. Mean Attitudes Toward Ad and Toward Brand
(Madden & Ajzen, 1991)
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
A-ad A-brand
Attitude
No added info
Added info
