1. FACULTÉ DES SCIENCES SOCIALES ET POLITIQUES/
SOLVAY BRUSSELS SCHOOL OF
ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT
MEMOIRE
Présenté en vue de l'obtention du Master en Ingénieur de
gestion, à finalité spécialisée
Shifting advertising strategies and designs –
Consequences for brand perception
Par Michaël Perez‐Diaz
Directeur: Professeur Christian Bluemelhüber
Commissaire: Professeur Kim Oosterlinck
Année académique 2008 ‐ 2009

2. Abstract
The purpose of this research is to determine to what extent the impact of the shift from
provocative to more traditional advertising strategies for Benetton, Diesel, and Sisley on some
affective and conative variables – attitude toward the ad (Aad), attitude toward the brand
(Abr), and purchase intentions (PI) – is influenced solely by the effect of the change in the
picture/content of the advertisements or also by the effect of the consumers’ perceptions of
the product brands. Two main findings – (1) the provocative Benetton, Diesel, and Sisley ads
show lower Aad and Abr scores than the more traditional ones and the provocative Benetton
ad shows lower PI scores than the more traditional one ; (2) the Aad scores related to the
Benetton ads and the provocative Diesel ad and the Abr and PI scores related to the Benetton,
Diesel, and Sisley ads are based on an evaluation of the entire advertisements and are
influenced in a positive way by brand names – demonstrate that the impact of the shift from
provocative to more traditional advertising strategies on the Aad scores related to the
Benetton and Diesel ads and on the Abr scores related to the Benetton and Sisley ads is not
influenced solely by the change in the picture/content of the ads but also by the consumers’
perceptions of the product brands. It follows that Aad would be a predictor of brand attitudes
whereas Abr would be a predictor of ad attitudes and that PI are generally not influenced by
the brands’ advertising strategies considered but rather by the product brands considered. We
finally find evidence that brands which used to rely for several years on provocation can
change consumer perceptions more efficiently in terms of Aad and Abr scores by shifting to
more traditional advertising strategies under the same brand names than under new ones.
2

3. 1. Introduction
1.1. Provocation, it seems, does not sell like it used to
While the Italian clothing firm Benetton seems to be the originator of provocative appeals 1 in
advertising in the latter half of the 1980’s (sex appeals, on the other hand, were first used in
advertising as early as the 1850’s) – when it ceased to show in its advertisements the
company’s products and featured, instead, images referring to racial issues, religion, death,
disease, and war with the sole mention of the company slogan (United Colors of Benetton) –,
similar advertising strategies were quickly adopted by many other clothing and fashion
brands, and in other sectors as well. Consequently, provocation in advertising became such a
commodity that the notion it could persuade us to purchase unrelated commodities became
redundant. As advertisers searched for a way to draw attention to their messages, the use of
sexual/provocative appeals indeed increased, became more explicit, and appeared in
magazines with a broader audience over the years (Reichert, Lambiase, Morgan, Carstarphen,
and Zavoina, 1999 ; Shapiro, 1993 ; Soley and Kurzbard, 1986 ; Soley and Reid, 1998).
Nowadays, according to Manceau and Tissier-Desbordes (2005), provocation in advertising
seems confronted to a double constraint. The first is to arouse interest in a polluted advertising
environment 2 . While a look at the academic literature shows that the use of nudity and sexual
stimuli (e.g., Ford and LaTour, 1993 ; Steadman, 1969) and/or other provocative stimuli (e.g.,
Aaker and Bruzzone, 1985 ; De Pelsmacker and Van Den Bergh, 1996 ; Vézina and Paul,
1997) in advertising has the effect of increasing attention to advertisements (Baker, 1961 ;
Belch, Belch, and Villarreal, 1987 ; Bello et al., 1983 ; Chestnut, LaChance, and Lubitz, 1977
; Dudley, 1999 ; Reichert, Heckler, and Jackson, 2001 ; Reid and Soley, 1983) – but typically
without a corresponding advantage for brand information processing such as attention to the
product or brand, brand name recall, and brand recognition (Alexander and Judd, 1978 and
1983 ; Belch, Belch, and Villarreal, 1987 ; Blair, Stephenson, Hill, and Green, 2006 ;
Chestnut, LaChance, and Lubitz, 1977 ; Edell and Staelin, 1986 ; Grazer and Keesling, 1995 ;
Horton, Lieb, and Hewitt, 1982 ; Reichert, Heckler, and Jackson, 2001 ; Reid and Soley, 1981
and 1983 ; Richmond and Hartman, 1982 ; Steadman, 1969) –, most Americans report being
turned-off by sexy ads and less likely to purchase products that feature sexual imagery in ads
(Fetto, 2001). A study produced by HeadlightVision, a U.K. unit of the world’s second-largest
advertising company, WPP Group, and conducted in 14 cities indeed concludes that young
urban consumers are tired of sexually explicit advertising. In the same perspective, Britain’s
Chartered Institute of Marketing (CIM) found in a 2003 survey of 1,000 people above 15 that
only 6% enjoyed or were influenced by sexual images in ads (in Lynn, 2004). Matthew Hirst,
the editor of D_Code, a Headlight publication, accuses the quantity of sexual advertising ; a
few years ago, as much as one-fifth of magazine and web advertisements and one-tenth of
1
Defined as the “connection between the product being advertised and some need or desire that the audience
perceives” (Reichert and Lambiase, 2003, p.43). While logical or rational appeals try to induce a sale by
focusing on utilitarian needs associated with the product or service, emotional appeals focus on the satisfaction
that comes from purchasing the product and the fulfillment of the customer’s needs and desires.
2
As mentioned by Reichert and Lambiase (2003), “advertisements compete not only with each other, but also
with the whole range of choices available to consumers, with other channels, not to mention other media.”
(p.137)
3

4. television commercials featured sexual appeals 3 (Lin, 1998 ; Reichert, Lambiase, Morgan,
Carstarphen, and Zavoina, 1999 ; Reichert, 2007 ; Walker, 2000). According to him, “We are
dealing with a generation that has grown used to being surrounded by sexual imagery”, so
“explicit imagery doesn’t have the same impact any more” (in Lynn, 2004).
The second constraint provocation in advertising is facing today is to respond to the needs and
wants of contemporary men and women more concerned with egalitarism and ethics.
Although “Stratégies” 4 magazine saw dead and sex as the double major trends in advertising
in 2002, it seems that young people of today are more interested in traditional family values
and wholesome ad messages than the flash of a nipple to sell a product. “People are looking
for things that are more real, more wholesome, more pure”, says Paul Gostick of the CIM.
Even agencies specialized in striking provocative themes, such as TBWA, which invented the
controversial “FCUK” logo for U.K. retailer French Connection, a clothing brand, recognize
that a saturation point has been reached. “There has been a shift. We went through an era
where sex was a means of shocking consumers, and that doesn’t work any longer”, says
Andrew McGuinness, the agency’s chief executive.
As an illustration, French Connection’s profit and sales growth slowed about two weeks
before the decision to drop its “FCUK” logo from its next ad campaign was taken in 2004
(Lynn, 2004). Because the campaign with death-sentenced prisoners received a lot of bad
criticism in the USA and led to negative repercussions, Benetton is now focusing on peaceful
and loving campaigns, as well as Diesel which has also changed its advertising strategy
(Andersson, Hedelin, Nilsson, and Welander, 2004). Another example is U.S. retailer
Abercrombie & Fitch which successfully used sex appeals in the 1990’s – increasing its
revenues from $85 million to $1.35 billion over a nine-year period (Reichert, 2003) – but
decided in December 2003 to stop publishing a quarterly catalogue that sparked complaints
over photos of scantily clad models and led to a 13% sales decline at existing stores the month
before the decision was taken (Lynn, 2004). However, whereas certain disliked shock
advertisements (e.g., Benetton’s advertising campaign using death row inmates) did not
provide tangible benefits (de Chenecey, 2000 ; Lippert, 2000), others (e.g., Calvin Klein’s
1995 child exploitive advertisements) participated in the brand’s subsequent profitability
(Rees, 1995).
Consequently, provocative imagery must now be handled with extreme caution and any
marketer knows this perfectly well. Suggestions such as “provocation is likely to remain a
viable option for any advertiser striving to reach consumers in an increasingly tight and
saturated commercial environment” (Vézina and Paul, 1997, p.178) or “shocking pictures
have become ‘the most effective way of selling commodities today’” (Giroux, 1994, p.4 in
Andersson, Hedelin, Nilsson, and Welander, 2004) do not seem true anymore. “Instead, firms
will have to find another way to promote their goods. Maybe they could just say what it is,
what it does and how much it costs. Now, that really would be shocking.” (Lynn, 2004)
3
A few years ago, several analyses revealed that 26% of full-page or larger ads in high-circulation magazines
contained sexual images of people (Reichert and Carpenter, 2004), that 12% of prime-time commercials featured
a model in a state of undress and 8% of commercials contained sexual conduct or behaviour (Lin, 1998), and that
sexual content was present in 17% of ads on news sites and 23% of ads on sports sites (Ramirez, 2006 in
Reichert, 2007).
4
Stratégies (2002), “La mort leur va si bien” and “Montrez ce sexe”, N°1262, December 20, pp.8-10.
4

5. 1.2. Research purpose
The research purpose is to determine whether the impact of the shift from provocative to more
traditional advertising strategies recently operated by many brands on some affective and
conative variables 5 – attitude toward the ad, attitude toward the brand, and purchase
intentions – is influenced solely by the effect of the change in the picture/content of the
advertisements or also by the effect of the consumers’ perceptions of the product brands.
After a review of the literature, Part 2 of the article will present the research methodology as
well as the hypotheses and research questions considered to meet the research purpose. The
results of the experiment will then be presented and discussed in Part 3. Finally, the important
facts, limitations, and recommendations for future research will be discussed in Part 4.
2. The theoretical research
2.1. Literature review
2.1.1. Rationale
The research purpose has been driven by the view according to which “The values that are
spread [by the ad and/or brand] and how they in turn effect the consumer are important for the
future of the product (Hägg et al., 1972 [in Andersson, Hedelin, Nilsson, and Welander, 2004,
p.103]).” As an illustration, the authors found that the attitudes toward a Benetton
advertisement used in their research “were mostly feelings about their advertising campaigns
through the years and not only the picture itself.” (ibid., p.107) Moreover, it is widely
recognized that advertisers do not only use sexual appeals to grab attention to their ads, but to
position their brands as sexual. If the same holds true for other provocative stimuli, then the
question is whether brands which used to rely for several years on provocation – considered
as an original and distinctive execution strategy (Vézina and Paul, 1997) – can easily change
consumer perceptions by shifting to more traditional advertising strategies. Mitchell (1986)
indeed asks whether the attitude toward the ad is based only on the effect of the picture used
in the ad or on a general evaluation of the entire advertisement (including the brand name). If
the latter appears to be true, then the attitude toward the ad would be a better predictor of
brand attitudes than a measure of the subjects’ evaluation of the picture used in the
advertisement. This is the rationale for the research purpose presented in section 1.2.
2.1.2. A definition of provocation in advertising
The definition of provocation in advertising that will be adopted in this research 6 is the one
given by Vézina and Paul (1997) which is as follows : “a deliberate appeal, within the content
5
The principal measures of advertising effectiveness constitute of three steps typically ranging from the
cognitive (awareness, knowledge), to the affective (liking, preference), to the conative (conviction, purchase)
variables. Because awareness and knowledge of advertisements depend on various factors hardly measurable or
controllable in the context of an experiment, these will not be assessed in this research. For instance, the
advertising budgets, which determine the level of the ad’s exposure (repetitions), remain unknown and consumer
awareness may result more from exposure to stores than from exposure to advertisements (Vézina and Paul,
1997).
6
The provocation considered in this research is associated with the advertising execution (Dahl et al., 2003 ; De
Pelsmacker and Van Den Bergh, 1996 ; Vézina and Paul, 1997) and not with the product advertised (Fahy et al.,
5

6. of an advertisement, to stimuli that are expected to shock at least a portion of the audience,
both because they are associated with values, norms or taboos that are habitually not
challenged or transgressed in advertising, and because of their distinctiveness and ambiguity.”
(p.179) Equally, De Pelsmacker and Van Den Bergh (1996) recognize that provocation in
advertising appears to operate through the three constructs highlighted by the previous authors
– distinctiveness, ambiguity and transgression of a social or cultural taboo – and, drawing on
the findings of Vézina and Paul (1997), Pope, Voges, and Brown (2004) note that
“Transgression of a social or cultural taboo is perhaps the most crucial element in a
provocative advertising effort” (p.70). This definition, coupled with the other main feature of
provocative advertising, which is that the product is usually not a central element in the ad 7
(Maclnnis and Stayman, 1993), will serve as a basis for selecting the provocative ads used in
this research, with the more traditional ads being those that do not meet this definition.
2.1.3. Affective variables
Implicit in studies analyzing advertisements for one form as opposed to another is the idea
that consumer response to one is different from the response to the other. As argued by
previous literature conducted in the field, such a difference in response would be found in
respondents’ attitude 8 toward the ad (Aad) and attitude toward the brand (Abr).
Aad appears to be an important mediator within the persuasion process (Mitchell and Olson,
1981). However, contradictory results emerge as to the impact of sexual and/or other
provocative stimuli in advertising on Aad. On the one hand, such appeals have been shown to
result in a significantly less favorable Aad than ads that contain little or no such appeals (De
Pelsmacker and Van Den Bergh, 1996 ; Henthorne and LaTour, 1994 ; LaTour, Pitts, and
Snook-Luther, 1990 ; Reichert et al., 1999 ; Sanbonmatsu and Kardes, 1988 ; Smith et al.,
1995), and to lead to more offensive evaluations of the ads (Belch et al., 1981). On the other
hand, they have also been shown to create a more favorable Aad than ads that contain little or
no such appeals (Pope, Voges, and Brown, 2004 ; Reichert, Heckler, and Jackson, 2001 ;
Severn, Belch, and Belch, 1990), possibly resulting from an increase in attention (Lang,
Schneider, and Deitz, 1999 ; Yoon et al., 1998). One plausible explanation for these
contradictory findings of previous research is related to methodological aspects : “Most
studies hardly isolate the consequences of the taboo presence from the other elements making
up an ad.” (Manceau and Tissier-Desbordes, 2006, p.17) Besides the picture/content of the ad,
other factors such as the product brand represented might have an influence on Aad, hence the
interest of this research.
Previous research findings concerning the impact of controversial stimuli in advertising on
Abr seem to be more straightforward, several studies (e.g., Henthorne and LaTour, 1994 ;
Lundstrom and Sciglimpaglia, 1977 ; Reichert et al., 1999) revealing that an ad that contains a
strong overt sexual appeal results in a significantly less favorable Abr than an ad that contains
1995 ; Katsanis, 1994 ; Shao and Hill, 1994 ; Triff et al., 1987 ; Waller, 1999 ; Wilson and West, 1981) because,
as Vézina and Paul (1997) suggested, “Advertisements for firearms or for certain contraceptive methods, for
instance, could be perceived, in many countries, as highly provocative even if the copy were presented in a
traditional format” (p.190).
7
Klinthage (1998 in Andersson, Hedelin, Nilsson, and Welander, 2004, p.100) indeed states that “Because of the
way Diesel has chosen to create their advertising, it is not always easy to understand at first sight what the
pictures really are advertisements for.”
8
Defined as “a general and enduring positive or negative feeling about some person, object, or issue” (Petty and
Cacciopo, 1981, p.7), attitudes are often considered relatively stable over time, and should hence be useful
predictors of consumers’ behaviour toward a product or service (Mitchell and Olson, 1981).
6

7. little or no sexual appeal. Other authors go one step further by arguing that a strong overt
sexual content, while increasing attention and interest, might lead to a denial of the ad and be
harmful to the brand image (Aaker and Bruzzone, 1985 ; De Pelsmaker and Van Den Bergh,
1996 ; LaTour and Henthorne, 1995 ; Severn, Belch, and Belch, 1990 ; Vézina and Paul,
1997). Consequently, and similarly to the remark previously made for Aad, besides the
product brand represented, other factors such as the picture/content of the ad seem to have an
influence on Abr. The interest of this research therefore also appears here. We indeed know
from the findings of Gardner (1985) and those of Mitchell and Olsen (1981) that Abr is
formed from brand attribute information already held by the consumer, combined with
attitude toward the picture/content of the ad. This relationship between both variables (Aad
and Abr) may be bidirectional – the indirect effects model (Homer, 1990 ; MacKenzie, Lutz,
and Belch, 1986) which states that preexisting Abr would translate and interact with Aad in
the formation of new Aad and Abr – or direct and singular from Aad to Abr – the independent
effects model (Biehal, Stephens, and Curlo, 1992) which states that Aad has a direct effect on
brand choice and an indirect effect through Abr. “Each model appears to operate at different
times and they may, in fact, work in conjunction.” (Pope, Voges, and Brown, 2004, p.71) A
critical implication to bear in mind is that a negative Aad does not necessarily lead to a
negative Abr (e.g., De Pelsmacker and Van Den Bergh, 1996) because “positive and
preexisting feelings about a brand might moderate, or even remove, any negative impact of
Aad on Abr.” (Pope, Voges, and Brown, 2004, p.71) On the other hand, the positive
association model (like the ad, like the brand) will tend to hold in situations where there is a
low motivation to process information (Petty and Cacioppo, 1981 ; Ray and Batra, 1983).
2.1.4. Conative variables
As the use of sexual and/or other provocative stimuli in ads has been shown to create arousal
(Belch et al., 1982 ; LaTour, 1990 ; Smith et al., 1995), such arousal may itself influence
purchase intensions (PI), stimulate the consumer, and give a direction to his/her intentions
(Reichert, 2002). However, while some studies demonstrate that the use of sexual appeals in
ads may influence PI in a positive way (Dudley, 1999 ; Grazer and Keesling, 1995 ; Severn et
al., 1990), others reveal that an ad which contains a strong overt sexual appeal results in a
significantly less favorable level of PI than an ad that contains little or no sexual appeal
(Henthorne and LaTour, 1994 ; Reichert et al., 1999). Yet, some authors argue that PI do not
vary according to the degree of provocation of the ads ; the relation between both variables
would be very weak (Bello et al., 1983 ; De Pelsmacker and Van Den Bergh, 1996). In this
latter case, critical consumer attitudes toward a brand’s advertising strategy would translate
into a minimal reduction in PI (Pollay and Lysonski, 1993), and criteria other than the content
of the ad would therefore influence PI such as brand loyalty, brand recognition, and product
(dis-)satisfaction. This research will allow to verify this hypothesis.
2.2. Research methodology
2.2.1. Experimental design and overall plan of analysis
In order to meet the research purpose presented in section 1.2, the following experimental
design, composed of four samples, and plan of analysis, composed of three steps, will be
adopted.
Respondents were randomly assigned to one of the four samples. In Sample 1, respondents
answered questions about three different ads, each one associated with a different brand – the
7

8. three ads include a provocative content and the brand names are shown (brand-test) – ; in
Sample 2, respondents answered questions (the same as in Sample 1) about three different
ads, each one associated with a different brand (the three brands are the same as in Sample 1)
– the three ads include a more traditional content and the brand names are shown (brand-test)
– ; the design of Sample 3 is the same as Sample 1 except that the brand names are hidden and
renamed “I”, “J”, and “L” 9 (blind-test) ; the design of Sample 4 is the same as Sample 2
except that the brand names are hidden and renamed “I”, “J”, and “L” (blind-test). The
experimental design is illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1 : Experimental design
Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4
Brand‐Test Brand‐Test Blind‐Test Blind‐Test
Benetton Brand Benetton Brand (renamed "I") Benetton Brand Benetton Brand (renamed "I")
Provocative ad Non‐provocative ad Provocative ad Non‐provocative ad
Brand‐Test Brand‐Test Blind‐Test Blind‐Test
Diesel Brand Diesel Brand (renamed "J") Diesel Brand Diesel Brand (renamed "J")
Provocative ad Non‐provocative ad Provocative ad Non‐provocative ad
Brand‐Test Brand‐Test Blind‐Test Blind‐Test
Sisley Brand Sisley Brand (renamed "L") Sisley Brand Sisley Brand (renamed "L")
Provocative ad Non‐provocative ad Provocative ad Non‐provocative ad
The questionnaires were administered in French via the Internet. The blocks of questions
pertaining to each ad, as well as the questions within each block, were randomized so that
respondents did not all started to answer to the same questions pertaining to the same ad. An
answer to every question, except to the socio-demographic ones (gender, age, and year of
study), was required for the questionnaires to be submitted. Ad exposure was not limited :
each ad was visible as long as an answer to every corresponding question was not given. “As
argued by Calder and Sternthal (1980), showing the stimulus commercials again allows a
direct comparison of reactions to the commercials across treatment conditions without
distortion by subjects’ memory of the commercials.” (Batra and Ray, 1986, p.243) However,
the conditions for ad processing were atypical for two main reasons : (1) ad exposure was
forced, thus respondents were processing in a fairly high involvement state ; (2) ad exposure
was isolated, but the environment surrounding respondents at the time they completed the
questionnaires might have diverted processing.
The first step of the analysis will be to determine whether the impact of the shift from
provocative to more traditional advertising strategies recently operated by many brands on
Aad (in the case of hypothesis 1), Abr (in the case of hypothesis 2), and PI (in the case of
hypothesis 3) is significant for each of the three brands considered. The following
methodology will be adopted. Aad (in the case of hypothesis 1) will be measured in the four
samples for the three ads of each sample. If the shift from provocative to more traditional
9
To eliminate the influence of prior brand learning on the advertising content, fictitious brand names (the letters
“I”, “J”, and “L”) were used in the blind-tests on the basis that individuals make relatively few associations with
these letters (Mitchell and Olson, 1981). Similarly, this approach has been used previously by other authors
(Peterson and Kerin, 1977 ; Simpson, Horton, and Brown, 1996 ; Stafford and Day, 1995).
8

9. advertising strategies has an impact on Aad for a particular brand, the difference in Aad
between Sample 1 and Sample 2 and/or between Sample 3 and Sample 4 should be significant
for the brand considered. The same methodology will be adopted for Abr (in the case of
hypothesis 2) and PI (in the case of hypothesis 3).
The second step of the analysis will be to control for the change in the picture/content of the
advertisements to determine whether the influence of the product brand on Aad (in the case of
research question 1), Abr (in the case of research question 2), and PI (in the case of research
question 3) is significant for each of the six ads considered. The following methodology will
be adopted. Aad (in the case of research question 1) will be measured in the four samples for
the three ads of each sample. If there is no influence of the product brand on Aad for a
particular provocative ad, the difference in Aad between Sample 1 and Sample 3 should not
be significant for the provocative ad considered. If there is no influence of the product brand
on Aad for a particular more traditional ad, the difference in Aad between Sample 2 and
Sample 4 should not be significant for the more traditional ad considered. If significant
differences in Aad are observed between Sample 1 and Sample 3 for a particular provocative
ad or between Sample 2 and Sample 4 for a particular more traditional ad, then this would
provide strong evidence that Aad, for the ad considered, is based on an evaluation of the
entire advertisement and hence that the brand name influence Aad. The same methodology
will be adopted for Abr (in the case of research question 2) and PI (in the case of research
question 3).
The third step of the analysis will be to determine whether the impact of the shift from
provocative to more traditional advertising strategies on Aad, Abr, and PI is influenced solely
by the effect of the change in the picture/content of the advertisements or also by the effect of
the consumers’ perceptions of the product brands. The following methodology will be
adopted. Firstly, using the results from the first step, only the cases where the impact of the
shift from provocative to more traditional advertising strategies on Aad, Abr, or PI is
significant both in the brand- and blind-tests will be considered 10 , i.e. the cases where the
difference in Aad, Abr, or PI between Sample 1 and Sample 2 and between Sample 3 and
Sample 4 is significant. Secondly, using the results from the second step, if the impact of the
shift from provocative to more traditional advertising strategies on Aad for a particular brand
is influenced solely by the effect of the change in the picture/content of the advertisements,
then the difference in Aad between Sample 1 and Sample 3 and between Sample 2 and
Sample 4 should not be significant for the brand considered. If the difference in Aad between
Sample 1 and Sample 3 and/or between Sample 2 and Sample 4 is significant for a particular
brand, then this would provide strong evidence that the impact of the shift from provocative to
more traditional advertising strategies on Aad for the brand considered is not influenced
solely by the change in the picture/content of the advertisements but also by the consumers’
perceptions of the product brand. And similarly for Abr and PI.
2.2.2. Brand advertisements
The advertisements used in this research were selected according to three main criteria.
Firstly, the type of media : the ads used for the experiment are print ads appearing worldwide
on posters, billboards, and in magazines 11 . Secondly, the sector : the ads used for the
10
Otherwise, no comparison is made possible between the impact of the shift from provocative to more
traditional advertising strategies on Aad, Abr, and PI in the brand-tests and in the blind-tests.
11
Cosmopolitan, Elle, Elle Belgium, Elle UK, Gael, Glamour, Glamour Spain, Marie Claire, Marie Claire Spain,
and Vogue Paris.
9

10. experiment are ads for clothing and fashion brands. Due to the fact that the majority of the
provocative ads found in the print media belong to brands in the clothing and fashion sector
(Reichert, 2002), this particular product category was selected. This sector was also targeted
by several studies on the use of nudity and provocation in advertising (e.g., Vézina and Paul,
1997). Thirdly, the execution strategy : the brands used for the experiment have been famous
for their provocative advertising but have recently operated a shift toward more traditional
advertisements. The provocative ads used for the experiment meet the definition of
provocation in advertising adopted in this research (given in section 2.1.2) whereas the more
traditional ads used for the experiment do not meet this definition. The three following brands
and six following ads (two for each brand, one provocative and another more traditional) were
selected 12 : Benetton brand (provocative ad taken from the February 1992 campaign and more
traditional ad taken from the August 2008 “Victims” campaign) ; Diesel brand (provocative
ad taken from the 1997 campaign and more traditional ad taken from the Autumn/Winter
2008/2009 campaign) ; Sisley brand (provocative ad taken from the 2001 “Jamaica”
campaign and more traditional ad taken from the Spring/Summer 2008 campaign).
These three brands selected all offer clothes for men and women, are used and purchased by
both males and females, and enjoy a more or less equivalent market coverage 13 . The three
provocative ads used in this research embed different kinds of provocative appeals : the
provocative Benetton ad relies on the theme of death, the provocative Diesel ad relies on the
theme of violence, and the provocative Sisley ad relies on the theme of sex. Distinctiveness of
the ad execution may indeed provide greater resistance to ad-specific, or related, information.
As analyses are conducted one type of provocation or brand at a time, the purpose of the
replication is not to draw conclusions based on one arbitrary example chosen to represent
each type of provocation or brand, which is not reasonable, but to allow for explicit attention
to the variability of the effect of the shift from provocative to more traditional advertising
strategies from one type of provocation or brand to another (Jackson, O’ Keefe, and Brashers,
1994). However, because there is strong reason to expect that all types of provocation or
brands share a common, invariant effect, we assume fixed effects (National Research Council,
1992).
2.2.3. Subjects
The four samples are composed of students from first, second, and third study cycles between
17 and 28 years of age (the few respondents over 28 were not included in the final samples)
randomly contacted by e-mail 14 among students from the ULB and other universities and
higher education schools in French-speaking Belgium. Although far from being representative
of the greater population and despite the fact that the use of non-probabilistic samples can
skew findings and threaten external validity (Abelman, 1996 ; Courtright, 1996 ; Potter et al.,
1993), these consumer samples are similar in many respects to market segments regularly
12
The ads used in the experiment are presented in Appendix 1.
13
Yet, it was not possible to introduce a control for all the possible variables that might intervene within the
advertisements selected (Vézina and Paul, 1997). For example, the ad characteristics were not held fixed : the
ads differ from each other in terms of overall form/size and content (only the provocative Diesel ad includes text
and they do not all contain a picture of the clothes in use). Nevertheless, “these limitations […] are inherent to
any research using examples of real advertisements – as opposed to those created specifically for research
purposes” (Vézina and Paul, 1997, p.183).
14
To test for non-response bias, extra incentives (cinema tickets) were used. Because selection error may have
biased the results of the convenience samples – i.e., students interested in participating in a research study on
advertising appeals may be different from non-participants in their attitudes toward provocative contents (Grazer
and Keesling, 1995) –, the true research purpose was hidden to respondents.
10

11. targeted by firms in the clothing and fashion business such as those considered in this
research and are more familiar with, interested in, and open to the brands and ads used in this
research than older people. Moreover, some have argued that randomization techniques can
minimize or solve the non-probabilistic sampling issue (Basil, 1996 ; Lang, 1996) and, while
being crucial in the case of surveys, the arguments against the use of convenience samples are
less problematic in the case of experiments, which primary goal is to ensure internal validity
and determine whether variables are causally related (Lang, 1996 ; Sparks, 1995).
Furthermore, most studies concerning the use of nudity and provocation in advertising (e.g.,
Reichert, Heckler, and Jackson, 2001 ; Simpson, Horton, and Brown, 1996 ; Vézina and Paul,
1997) have used student samples driven by the assumption according to which students
demonstrate similar attitudes toward advertising as those expressed by the population at large
(Barnes, 1982 ; Zanot, 1984) and seem appropriate subjects for research on causal
mechanisms (Kardes, 1996).
2.2.4. Construction of the samples
The experiment took place from the 20th of March to the 6th of May 2009. Samples 1, 2, 3,
and 4 were initially composed of respectively 172, 148, 232, and 217 observations. In the four
samples, the questionnaires included a commercial recognition question (respondents were
asked to mention whether they had already seen each of the three ads presented before the
experiment) and, only in the blind-tests (Samples 3 and 4), a brand name recognition question
(respondents were asked to mention whether they knew which brands were associated with
each of the three ads presented). Because respondents’ prior exposure to the advertisements
represents uncontrollable influences in any study involving materials from the real world
(Richmond and Hartman, 1982), respondents of Samples 3 and 4 who mentioned that they
knew which brand(s) was/were associated with at least one of the three ads presented – and
who gave the corresponding brand name(s) – were deleted 15 from the final samples (45
observations in Sample 3 and 21 observations in Sample 4) 16 , as well as respondents from
each sample who mentioned that they had already seen at least one of the three ads presented
before the experiment (17 observations in Sample 1, 9 observations in Sample 2, 5
observations in Sample 3, and 7 observations in Sample 4) 17 .
After these treatments, Sample 1 has a final size of 155 observations, Sample 2 of 139
observations, Sample 3 of 182 observations, and Sample 4 of 189 observations. Figure 2
shows the distribution of samples according to the gender 18 and product involvement 19 of
respondents. We observe that the percentage of women is higher than the percentage of men
in each of the four samples (55% of women, except Sample 3 which is made of 63% of
women). Concerning respondents’ product involvement, there is a higher number of
respondents having a high level of involvement with respect to clothing in Samples 1, 2, and 3
15
These respondents were not compared with the rest of the sample to which they belonged to see whether there
were statistically significant differences between the two groups for each sample because too many differences
might have been found and should have been analyzed (in provocation, Aad, Abr, and PI scores for the
provocative and more traditional ads, in the brand- and blind-tests). Therefore, responses of the respondents who
recognized the brands and/or who had already seen the ads were not pooled with the other responses.
16
The corresponding statistics are given in Appendix 2.
17
The corresponding statistics are given in Appendix 3.
18
The corresponding statistics are given in Appendix 4.
19
Each sample was divided into two classes according to respondents’ product involvement scores : “High”
(scores ≥ 4.5) and “Low” (scores < 4.5). The threshold of 4.5 was selected because the median of product
involvement scores across the four samples varied from 4.2 to 4.8. The corresponding statistics are given in
Appendix 5.
11

12. (respectively 61%, 55%, and 64%) whereas, in Sample 4, the number of respondents having a
high level of involvement with respect to clothing is lower (44%). Appendix 6 and Appendix
7 give the distribution of samples according respectively to the age and year of study of
respondents.
Figure 2 : Distribution of samples according to the gender and product involvement of respondents
100% 100%
90% 90%
80% 80%
70% 70%
60% 60%
50% 50%
Homme
Men 40% Low
40%
30% Women
Femme 30% High
20% 20%
10% 10%
0%
0%
Sample Sample Sample Sample
Sample Sample Sample Sample
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
2.3. Hypotheses and research questions
Based on the research purpose presented in section 1.2 and the theoretical developments
discussed in section 2.1, the following hypotheses and research questions are proposed.
2.3.1. Hypotheses
The first hypothesis (H.1) suggests that respondents’ reported attitude (Aad) and reaction
toward an advertisement using a provocative content will be significantly less favorable than
the attitude and reaction toward a different advertisement for the same brand using a more
traditional content, as well in the brand-tests as in the blind-tests.
Attitude toward the ad is measured by the mean of a six-item, seven-point semantic
differential scale borrowed from the Madden, Allen, and Twible (1988) inventory with known
psychometric properties and reused by Spears and Singh (2004). The adjectives are
“unpleasant/pleasant”, “unlikable/likable”, “boring/interesting”, “tasteless/tasteful”,
“artless/artful”, and “bad/good”. A higher mean score on these six scales indicates a more
positive Aad.
The adjective checklist methodology (Lavidge and Steiner, 1961 ; Mehrotra et al., 1981) is
also used in order to gain further insight into the nature of consumer reaction toward
provocative and more traditional ads. The questionnaires included an adjective checklist of 16
adjectives – “young”, “violent”, “cheerful”, “trite”, “peaceful”, “indecent”, “original”, “ugly”,
“shocking”, “funny”, “too classic”, “sweet”, “sad”, “wise”, “disgusting”, and “tender” –
borrowed from several item-analysis scales published (e.g., Leavitt, 1970 ; Wells, 1964) and
adopted by Vézina and Paul (1997). The respondents were then asked to pick the adjective(s)
which they felt best represented their opinion of each ad.
The second hypothesis (H.2) suggests that respondents’ reported attitude toward a brand
(Abr) associated with a provocative advertisement will be significantly less favorable than the
12

13. attitude toward the same brand associated with a more traditional advertisement, as well in the
brand-tests as in the blind-tests.
Attitude toward the brand 20 is measured by the mean of a five-item, seven-point semantic
differential scale borrowed from Spears and Singh (2004) that exhibits adequate levels of
internal consistency and discriminant validity. Moreover, comparative analyses have
indicated the efficacy of these measures over competing ones. The adjectives are
“unappealing/appealing”, “bad/good”, “unpleasant/pleasant”, “unfavorable/favorable”, and
“unlikable/likable”. A higher mean score on these five scales indicates a more positive Abr.
The third hypothesis (H.3) suggests that respondents’ reported level of purchase intentions
(PI) associated with an advertisement using a provocative content will be significantly less
favorable than the level of purchase intentions associated with a different advertisement for
the same brand using a more traditional content, as well in the brand-tests as in the blind-tests.
Respondents’ level of purchase intentions is measured by the mean of a five-item, seven-point
semantic differential scale borrowed from Spears and Singh (2004) that exhibits adequate
levels of internal consistency and discriminant validity. Moreover, comparative analyses have
indicated the efficacy of these measures over competing ones. The adjectives are
“never/definitely”, “definitely do not intend/definitely intend to buy”, “very low/high
purchase interest”, “definitely not/definitely buy it”, and “probably not/probably buy it”. A
higher mean score on these five scales indicates more positive PI.
2.3.2. Research questions
The first research question (R.Q.1) asks whether respondents’ reported attitude toward an
advertisement (Aad) using a provocative or a more traditional content will be significantly
less favorable in the blind-tests than in the brand-tests.
The second research question (R.Q.2) asks whether respondents’ reported attitude toward a
brand (Abr) associated with a provocative advertisement or a more traditional advertisement
will be significantly less favorable in the blind-tests than in the brand-tests.
The third research question (R.Q.3) asks whether respondents’ reported level of purchase
intentions (PI) associated with an advertisement using a provocative content or a more
traditional content will be significantly less favorable in the blind-tests than in the brand-tests.
2.4. Manipulation checks
Manipulation check is carried out to ensure the internal validity of the experiment. It has to be
ensured that the provocative ads are perceived as significantly more provocative than the
more traditional ads, both in the brand-tests and in the blind-tests. In each sample,
respondents rated the degree to which they perceived the three ads they viewed as provocative
on a single-item, seven-point semantic differential scale (1 = “not at all provocative” ; 7 =
20
Abr is measured following exposure to the ads as well in the brand-tests as in the blind-tests. In the latter case,
the Abr is measured without revealing to the respondents the true brand names but, instead, by asking them to
rate their attitude toward brands (named “I”, “J”, and “L”) that would use such ads in their advertising
campaigns. Consequently, in the brand-tests, respondents base their Abr on their preexisting learning and
experience of these brands but also on the picture/content of the ads whereas, in the blind-tests, respondents base
their Abr only on the picture/content of the ads.
13

14. “extremely provocative”) borrowed from Pope, Voges, and Brown (2004). A higher mean
score on this scale indicates a higher degree of provocation.
2.5. Confound checks
Although the factors discussed in this section are not of primary interest in this research, they
are included as moderator variables that might interact with the hypotheses and research
questions presented in section 2.3.
2.5.1. Are there any interactions between any of the hypotheses and/or research
questions and the gender of respondents ?
Reichert (2007) reports that gender is an important determinant of evaluations and
interpretations and that its impact is usually reflected in Aad and Abr. In addition, it is often
argued that attitude toward advertising in general (Shavitt et al., 1998), the receptiveness of
sex in advertising 21 (Elliott et al., 1995), and ad processing 22 (Ramirez and Reichert, 2000)
vary according to the gender of respondents. As a result, women might be more offended than
men by provocative ads, independent from the fact that they contain female depictions.
Nevertheless, the findings of De Pelsmacker and Van Den Bergh (1996) seem to challenge
this argument by showing that provocation in advertising is perceived equally by men and
women.
2.5.2. Are there any interactions between any of the hypotheses and/or research
questions and the product involvement of respondents ?
Depending on their level of product involvement, individual consumers differ in the extent of
their decision process and their search for information (Laurent and Kapferer, 1985), ad
processing (Pope, Voges, and Brown, 2004 ; Wright, 1975), Abr (Marks and Olson, 1981),
and purchase process and use of products (Rothschild, 1977 ; Traylor, 1981 ; Tyebjee, 1977).
Moreover, product involvement has been shown to influence the conative variables (Vézina
and Paul, 1997) and the advertising impact (Petty et al., 1983). As a result, the product
involvement of respondents appears to be relevant for setting advertising strategies (Ray,
1982 ; Rothschild, 1979 ; Traylor and Joseph, 1984 ; Vaughn, 1980).
The product involvement of respondents with respect to clothing is assessed by six-items
(“When other people see me wearing clothes, they form an opinion of me”, “You can tell a lot
about a person by seeing what brand of clothes he/she wears”, “Clothes help me express who
I am”, “Clothes are ‘me’”, “Seeing somebody else wearing clothes tells me a lot about that
person”, and “When I wear clothes, others see me the way I want them to see me”) borrowed
from Traylor and Joseph (1984) and scaled in a seven-point agree-disagree format. A higher
mean score on these six scales indicates a higher level of product involvement.
21
Several studies report that the attitude of women toward the use of sex in advertising is more negative, even
more hostile, than the attitude of males (e.g., Alexander and Judd, 1986 ; Fetto, 2001 ; Peterson and Kerin,
1977). In addition, despite contradictory results, previous research suggests that people react more favourably to
advertisements depicting opposite-sex nudity as opposed to same-sex nudity (e.g., Baker and Churchill, 1977 ;
Geuens and De Pelsmacker, 1998 ; LaTour, Pitts, and Snook-Luther, 1990).
22
Ramirez and Reichert (2000) show that 35% of the females respond to context compared to 20% of the males
and 28% of the females respond to proxemics (references to physical distance or relative interaction between
models) compared to 6% of the males. Moreover, female capacity for elaborative processing is greater than that
of males (Meyers-Levy and Maheswaran, 1991 ; Meyers-Levy and Sternthal, 1991 ; Meyers-Levy, 1994).
14

15. 3. The empirical research
3.1. Results
Each ANOVA conducted in this research is a sample (2) x gender (2) x product involvement
(2) factorial design with 8 groups (or cells) and consisting of seven significance tests : a test
for each of the three main effects – sample (with two levels : the two samples from which the
provocation, Aad, Abr, or PI scores that form the dependent variable are collected) ; gender
(with two levels : men and women) ; product involvement (with two levels : high and low) –,
a test for each of the three two-way interactions (sample*gender ; sample*product
involvement ; gender*product involvement), and a test of the three-way interaction
(sample*gender*product involvement). The results of the hypotheses (presented in section
3.1.2) and research questions (presented in section 3.1.3) all pertain to sample main effects.
Because a main effect for gender and product involvement would indicate a difference
between men and women or between highly and lowly involved respondents with respect to
the provocation, Aad, Abr, or PI scores collected from two different samples (across two
different treatment conditions), it is inconsequential from a theoretical point of view and has
no impact on the analyses. Therefore, only when an interaction between sample and gender
(presented in section 3.1.4) or between sample and product involvement (presented in section
3.1.5) is significant, significant gender and product involvement main effects will be reported
and discussed.
3.1.1. Manipulation checks
In order to ensure that the provocative ads are perceived as significantly more provocative
than the more traditional ads, both in the brand-tests and in the blind-tests, six ANOVAs are
performed :
- the first, second, and third ANOVAs have respectively the provocation scores related
to the Benetton, Diesel, and Sisley ads collected from Sample 1 and Sample 2 as the
dependent variable and the sample, gender, and product involvement as independent
variables ;
- the fourth, fifth, and sixth ANOVAs have respectively the provocation scores related
to the Benetton, Diesel, and Sisley ads collected from Sample 3 and Sample 4 as the
dependent variable and the sample, gender, and product involvement as independent
variables.
The results 23 show that, in the brand-tests (Sample 1 and Sample 2), the difference between
the means of the provocation scores related to the Benetton, Diesel, and Sisley ads collected
from Sample 1 and Sample 2 is statistically significant – Benetton : 5.43 vs. 4.19, F=34.52,
p<.0001 ; Diesel : 4.28 vs. 2.71, F=69.89, p<.0001 ; Sisley : 5.21 vs. 3.44, F=92.19, p<.0001
–, with the provocative ads (in Sample 1) having, on average, higher provocation scores than
the more traditional ads (in Sample 2). Similar results24 are found in the blind-tests (Sample 3
and Sample 4) – Benetton : 5.43 vs. 4.20, F=50.95, p<.0001 ; Diesel : 4.25 vs. 2.74, F=79.55,
p<.0001 ; Sisley : 5.41 vs. 3.73, F=108.43, p<.0001 –, therefore supporting the classification
of the ads.
23
The corresponding tables of means and ANOVA summary tables are presented in Appendix 8.
24
The corresponding tables of means and ANOVA summary tables are presented in Appendix 9.
15

16. In order to check whether significant differences are found between the blind-tests and the
brand-tests with respect to respondents rating the ads in terms of provocation, six ANOVAs
are performed :
- the first, second, and third ANOVAs have respectively the provocation scores related
to the Benetton, Diesel, and Sisley ads collected from Sample 1 and Sample 3 as the
dependent variable and the sample, gender, and product involvement as independent
variables ;
- the fourth, fifth, and sixth ANOVAs have respectively the provocation scores related
to the Benetton, Diesel, and Sisley ads collected from Sample 2 and Sample 4 as the
dependent variable and the sample, gender, and product involvement as independent
variables.
The results 25 show that, for the provocative ads (Sample 1 and Sample 3), the difference
between the means of the provocation scores related to the Benetton, Diesel, and Sisley ads
collected from Sample 1 and Sample 3 is not statistically significant at a .05 level – Benetton :
p=0.9861 ; Diesel : p=0.8866 ; Sisley : p=0.1712. Similar results 26 are found for the more
traditional ads (Sample 2 and Sample 4) – Benetton : p=0.9646 ; Diesel : p=0.8837 ; Sisley :
p=0.1462. No significant differences are therefore found between the blind-tests and the
brand-tests with respect to respondents rating the ads in terms of provocation, meaning that
blind-tests do not change the perceived provocation of the ads considered.
3.1.2. Hypotheses
In order to test for the hypotheses, and for possible interactions with the gender and the
product involvement of respondents (presented in sections 3.1.4 and 3.1.5), six ANOVAs are
performed for each hypothesis :
- the first, second, and third ANOVAs have respectively the Aad (in the case of H.1),
Abr (in the case of H.2), and PI (in the case of H.3) scores related to the Benetton,
Diesel, and Sisley ads collected from Sample 1 and Sample 2 as the dependent
variable and the sample, gender, and product involvement as independent variables ;
- the fourth, fifth, and sixth ANOVAs have respectively the Aad (in the case of H.1),
Abr (in the case of H.2), and PI (in the case of H.3) scores related to the Benetton,
Diesel, and Sisley ads collected from Sample 3 and Sample 4 as the dependent
variable and the sample, gender, and product involvement as independent variables.
3.1.2.1. First hypothesis
The first part of H.1 argues that respondents’ reported attitude toward an advertisement (Aad)
using a provocative content will be significantly less favorable than the attitude toward a
different advertisement for the same brand using a more traditional content, as well in the
brand-tests as in the blind-tests.
The results 27 show that, in the brand-tests (Sample 1 and Sample 2), the difference between
the means of the Aad scores related to the Benetton, Diesel, and Sisley ads collected from
Sample 1 and Sample 2 is statistically significant – Benetton : 3.18 vs. 4.37, F=65.62,
p<.0001 ; Diesel : 3.75 vs. 4.03, F=4.16, p<.05 ; Sisley : 3.20 vs. 4.10, F=43.86, p<.0001 –,
with the provocative ads (in Sample 1) being, on average, associated with lower Aad scores
25
The corresponding tables of means and ANOVA summary tables are presented in Appendix 10.
26
The corresponding tables of means and ANOVA summary tables are presented in Appendix 11.
27
The corresponding tables of means and ANOVA summary tables are presented in Appendix 12.
16

17. than the more traditional ads (in Sample 2). Similar results 28 are found in the blind-tests
(Sample 3 and Sample 4) – Benetton : 2.76 vs. 3.78, F=77.22, p<.0001 ; Diesel : 3.45 vs.
3.85, F=10.20, p<.002 ; Sisley : 3.02 vs. 3.85, F=46.84, p<.0001 –, therefore supporting the
veracity of the first part of H.1 for the ads and brands considered.
The second part of H.1 argues that respondents’ reported reaction toward an advertisement
using a provocative content will be significantly less favorable than the reaction toward a
different advertisement for the same brand using a more traditional content, as well in the
brand-tests as in the blind-tests. The analysis of the responses obtained from the adjective
checklist indicates the following results 29 .
In the brand-tests (Sample 1 and Sample 2), the most frequently selected adjectives for the
provocative Benetton ad (in Sample 1) are rather extreme and negative : “violent” (20.80%),
“shocking” (20.80%), and “sad” (15.20%). The more traditional Benetton ad (in Sample 2)
raises some controversy, but at a seemingly lower level than the provocative one : “peaceful”
(21.70%) and “original” (20.80%) are the first two adjectives mentioned but are followed by a
more negative adjective, “shocking” (10.10%). The Diesel ads show a mix of positive and
negative adjectives, as well for the provocative ad (in Sample 1) – “original” (22.40%),
“violent” (18%), and “young” (13.20%) – as for the more traditional ad (in Sample 2) –
“young” (22.50%), “original” (19.50%), and “ugly” (12.60%) –, but one can argue that the
adjective “violent” describes a less favorable reaction toward the provocative Diesel ad than
the adjective “ugly” toward the more traditional Diesel ad. Similarly to Benetton, the most
frequently selected adjectives for the provocative Sisley ad (in Sample 1) are rather extreme
and negative : “indecent” (21.30%), “ugly” (15.20%), and “shocking” (14.30%). In contrast,
the adjectives selected to describe the more traditional Sisley ad (in Sample 2) do not carry
any negative connotation : “trite” (15.60%), “young” (15.30%), and “original” (13%). As the
most frequently selected adjectives for the Benetton, Diesel, and Sisley ads in the blind-tests
(Sample 3 and Sample 4) are similar to those in the brand-tests presented above, the veracity
of the second part of H.1 is therefore also supported for the ads and brands considered.
Aside from the specific adjectives selected, an analysis of the number of adjectives selected
per respondent indicates that the provocative ads attract, on average, a wider range of
adjectives than the more traditional ads, as well in the brand-tests as in the blind-tests, except
for Diesel. For instance, in the brand-tests (Sample 1 and Sample 2), 3 adjectives per
respondent are, on average, selected for the provocative Benetton ad (in Sample 1), while
only 2.4 adjectives per respondent are selected for the more traditional Benetton ad (in
Sample 2). “This factor can be interpreted in keeping with the previous discussion about the
high degree of ambiguity in provocative ads, since more adjectives may indicate a wider
range of interpretations.” (Vézina and Paul, 1997, p.186) Again, the numbers of adjectives
selected per respondent for the Benetton, Diesel, and Sisley ads in the blind-tests (Sample 3
and Sample 4) are similar to those in the brand-tests.
3.1.2.2. Second hypothesis
H.2 argues that respondents’ reported attitude toward a brand (Abr) associated with a
provocative advertisement will be significantly less favorable than the attitude toward the
28
The corresponding tables of means and ANOVA summary tables are presented in Appendix 13.
29
The responses obtained from the adjective checklist are presented in Appendix 14.
17

18. same brand associated with a more traditional advertisement, as well in the brand-tests as in
the blind-tests.
The results 30 show that, in the brand-tests (Sample 1 and Sample 2), the difference between
the means of the Abr scores related to the Benetton and Sisley ads collected from Sample 1
and Sample 2 is statistically significant – Benetton : 3.70 vs. 4.38, F=15.49, p<.0002 ; Sisley :
3.43 vs. 4.25, F=25.57, p<.0001 –, with the provocative ads (in Sample 1) being, on average,
associated with lower Abr scores than the more traditional ads (in Sample 2). However, the
difference between the means of the Abr scores related to the Diesel ads collected from
Sample 1 and Sample 2 is not statistically significant at a .05 level (p=0.3392). In the blind-
tests (Sample 3 and Sample 4), the results 31 found that the difference between the means of
the Abr scores related to the Benetton, Diesel, and Sisley ads collected from Sample 3 and
Sample 4 is statistically significant – Benetton : 2.32 vs. 3.30, F=59.40, p<.0001 ; Diesel :
3.21 vs. 3.78, F=16.49, p<.0001 ; Sisley : 2.70 vs. 3.89, F=69.22, p<.0001 –, with the
provocative ads (in Sample 3) being, on average, associated with lower Abr scores than the
more traditional ads (in Sample 4). The veracity of H.2 is therefore supported for the ads and
brands considered, except for Diesel in the brand-tests.
3.1.2.3. Third hypothesis
H.3 argues that respondents’ reported level of purchase intentions (PI) associated with an
advertisement using a provocative content will be significantly less favorable than the level of
purchase intentions associated with a different advertisement for the same brand using a more
traditional content, as well in the brand-tests as in the blind-tests.
The results 32 show that, in the brand-tests (Sample 1 and Sample 2), the difference between
the means of the PI scores related to the Benetton ads collected from Sample 1 and Sample 2
is statistically significant (3.15 vs. 3.52, F=4.97, p<.03), with the provocative ad (in Sample 1)
being, on average, associated with a lower PI score than the more traditional ad (in Sample 2).
However, the difference between the means of the PI scores related to the Diesel and Sisley
ads collected from Sample 1 and Sample 2 is not statistically significant at a .05 level – Diesel
: p=0.2331 ; Sisley : p=0.4296. In the blind-tests (Sample 3 and Sample 4), the results 33 found
that the difference between the means of the PI scores related to the Benetton, Diesel, and
Sisley ads collected from Sample 3 and Sample 4 is not statistically significant at a .05 level –
Benetton : p=0.0612 ; Diesel : p=0.6848 ; Sisley : p=0.2223. The veracity of H.3 is therefore
only supported for Benetton in the brand-tests.
3.1.3. Research questions
In order to test for the research questions, and for possible interactions with the gender and
the product involvement of respondents (presented in sections 3.1.4 and 3.1.5), six ANOVAs
are performed for each research question :
- the first, second, and third ANOVAs have respectively the Aad (in the case of R.Q.1),
Abr (in the case of R.Q.2), and PI (in the case of R.Q.3) scores related to the Benetton,
Diesel, and Sisley ads collected from Sample 1 and Sample 3 as the dependent
variable and the sample, gender, and product involvement as independent variables ;
30
The corresponding tables of means and ANOVA summary tables are presented in Appendix 15.
31
The corresponding tables of means and ANOVA summary tables are presented in Appendix 16.
32
The corresponding tables of means and ANOVA summary tables are presented in Appendix 17.
33
The corresponding tables of means and ANOVA summary tables are presented in Appendix 18.
18

19. - the fourth, fifth, and sixth ANOVAs have respectively the Aad (in the case of R.Q.1),
Abr (in the case of R.Q.2), and PI (in the case of R.Q.3) scores related to the Benetton,
Diesel, and Sisley ads collected from Sample 2 and Sample 4 as the dependent
variable and the sample, gender, and product involvement as independent variables.
3.1.3.1. First research question
R.Q.1 asks whether respondents’ reported attitude toward an advertisement (Aad) using a
provocative or a more traditional content will be significantly less favorable in the blind-tests
than in the brand-tests.
The results 34 show that, for the provocative ads (Sample 1 and Sample 3), the difference
between the means of the Aad scores related to the Benetton and Diesel ads collected from
Sample 1 and Sample 3 is statistically significant – Benetton : 3.18 vs. 2.76, F=11.89,
p<.0007 ; Diesel : 3.75 vs. 3.45, F=6.82, p<.01 –, with the ads being, on average, associated
with higher Aad scores in the brand-test (Sample 1) than in the blind-test (Sample 3).
However, the difference between the means of the Aad scores related to the Sisley ads
collected from Sample 1 and Sample 3 is not statistically significant at a .05 level (p=0.1819).
For the more traditional ads (Sample 2 and Sample 4), the results 35 found that the difference
between the means of the Aad scores related to the Benetton ads collected from Sample 2 and
Sample 4 is statistically significant (4.37 vs. 3.78, F=18.09, p<.0001), with the ad being, on
average, associated with a higher Aad score in the brand-test (Sample 2) than in the blind-test
(Sample 4). However, the difference between the means of the Aad scores related to the
Diesel and Sisley ads collected from Sample 2 and Sample 4 is not statistically significant at a
.05 level – Diesel : p=0.2034 ; Sisley : p=0.0578. Respondents’ reported attitude (Aad) toward
an advertisement using a provocative content is therefore significantly less favorable in the
blind-tests than in the brand-tests only for Benetton and Diesel whereas respondents’ reported
attitude (Aad) toward an advertisement using a more traditional content is significantly less
favorable in the blind-tests than in the brand-tests only for Benetton.
3.1.3.2. Second research question
R.Q.2 asks whether respondents’ reported attitude toward a brand (Abr) associated with a
provocative advertisement or a more traditional advertisement will be significantly less
favorable in the blind-tests than in the brand-tests.
The results 36 show that, for the provocative ads (Sample 1 and Sample 3), the difference
between the means of the Abr scores related to the Benetton, Diesel, and Sisley ads collected
from Sample 1 and Sample 3 is statistically significant – Benetton : 3.70 vs. 2.32, F=89.12,
p<.0001 ; Diesel : 4.23 vs. 3.21, F=48.96, p<.0001 ; Sisley : 3.43 vs. 2.70, F=21.75, p<.0001
–, with the ads being, on average, associated with higher Abr scores in the brand-test (Sample
1) than in the blind-test (Sample 3). Similar results 37 are found for the more traditional ads
(Sample 2 and Sample 4) – Benetton : 4.38 vs. 3.30, F=50.55, p<.0001 ; Diesel : 4.40 vs.
3.78, F=14.37, p<.0003 ; Sisley : 4.25 vs. 3.89, F=5.85, p<.02. Respondents’ reported attitude
toward a brand (Abr) associated with a provocative advertisement or a more traditional
34
The corresponding tables of means and ANOVA summary tables are presented in Appendix 19.
35
The corresponding tables of means and ANOVA summary tables are presented in Appendix 20.
36
The corresponding tables of means and ANOVA summary tables are presented in Appendix 21.
37
The corresponding tables of means and ANOVA summary tables are presented in Appendix 22.
19

20. advertisement is therefore significantly less favorable in the blind-tests than in the brand-tests
for the ads and brands considered.
3.1.3.3. Third research question
R.Q.3 asks whether respondents’ reported level of purchase intentions (PI) associated with an
advertisement using a provocative content or a more traditional content will be significantly
less favorable in the blind-tests than in the brand-tests.
The results 38 show that, for the provocative ads (Sample 1 and Sample 3), the difference
between the means of the PI scores related to the Benetton, Diesel, and Sisley ads collected
from Sample 1 and Sample 3 is statistically significant – Benetton : 3.15 vs. 2.14, F=52.50,
p<.0001 ; Diesel : 3.66 vs. 2.77, F=35.35, p<.0001 ; Sisley : 2.78 vs. 2.42, F=6.02, p<.02 –,
with the ads being, on average, associated with higher PI scores in the brand-test (Sample 1)
than in the blind-test (Sample 3). Similar results 39 are found for the more traditional ads
(Sample 2 and Sample 4) – Benetton : 3.52 vs. 2.37, F=61.26, p<.0001 ; Diesel : 3.45 vs.
2.82, F=16.99, p<.0001 ; Sisley : 2.91 vs. 2.59, F=4.24, p<.05. Respondents’ reported level of
purchase intentions (PI) associated with an advertisement using a provocative content or a
more traditional content is therefore significantly less favorable in the blind-tests than in the
brand-tests for the ads and brands considered.
3.1.4. Gender
The results found several statistically significant interactions between the gender of
respondents and H.1. There exists a statistically significant interaction effect between sample
(1 and 2) and gender for the Aad scores related to the Diesel (F=5.10, p<.03) and Sisley
(F=5.18, p<.03) ads, and between sample (3 and 4) and gender for the Aad scores related to
the Benetton (F=6.98, p<.009), Diesel 40 (F=9.24, p<.003), and Sisley (F=5.74, p<.02) ads,
meaning that the sample effects depend on gender (see Figure 3 and Figure 4). However, the
main effect of gender for the Aad scores collected from Samples 1 and 2 is not significant at a
.05 level neither for Diesel (p=0.9324) nor for Sisley (p=0.0508), and the main effect of
gender for the Aad scores collected from Samples 3 and 4 is significant for Sisley (F=22.74,
p<.0001) but not for Benetton (p=0.5895) and Diesel (p=0.3651) at a .05 level. Concerning
the interaction for Diesel in Samples 1 and 2 and for Diesel in Samples 3 and 4, even if the
main effect of sample says that the means of the Aad scores are lower in Sample 1 than in
Sample 2 and in Sample 3 than in Sample 4, the interaction says that this only holds true for
women ; men indeed show higher Aad scores in Sample 1 and lower in Sample 2 and higher
Aad scores in Sample 3 and lower in Sample 4. Thus, the interaction is what is important
here. Concerning the interaction for Sisley in Samples 1 and 2 and for Benetton in Samples 3
and 4, even though the interaction (which says that the effect of sample is greater among
women) is significant, the main effect of sample is also worth paying attention to because it
holds true at all levels of gender (both men and women show, for Sisley, lower Aad scores in
Sample 1 than in Sample 2 and, for Benetton, lower Aad scores in Sample 3 than in Sample
4). Concerning the interaction for Sisley in Samples 3 and 4, even if both men and women
38
The corresponding tables of means and ANOVA summary tables are presented in Appendix 23.
39
The corresponding tables of means and ANOVA summary tables are presented in Appendix 24.
40
A sample (3 and 4) x gender x product involvement interaction is also significant for the Aad scores related to
the Diesel ads (F=4.31, p<.04). The gender x product involvement interaction is larger for Sample 4 than for
Sample 3. For Sample 4, the difference between men and women is much smaller for highly involved
respondents than for lowly involved respondents.
20

21. show lower Aad scores in Sample 3 than in Sample 4 (in line with the main effect of sample),
men show higher Aad scores in both Sample 3 and Sample 4 than women. In this case, even
though the interaction (which says that the effect of sample is greater among women) is
significant, the main effect of sample is also worth paying attention to because it holds true at
all levels of gender.
Figure 3 : Graph of means - Aad Diesel and Sisley - Samples 1 and 2
4,3 4,5
4,2 4
Aad Diesel ‐ Mean scores
Aad Sisley ‐ Mean scores
4,1 3,5
4 3
3,9
2,5
3,8 Women
Femme Women
Femme
2
3,7
Men
Homme 1,5 Men
Homme
3,6
3,5 1
3,4 0,5
3,3 0
Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 1 Sample 2
Figure 4 : Graph of means - Aad Benetton, Diesel, and Sisley - Samples 3 and 4
4,5 4,5
Aad Benetton ‐ Mean scores
4 4
Aad Diesel ‐ Mean scores
3,5 3,5
3 3
2,5 2,5
Women
Femme Femme
Women
2 2
1,5 Men
Homme 1,5 Men
Homme
1 1
0,5 0,5
0 0
Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 3 Sample 4
4,5
The results also found several statistically
4
significant interactions between the gender of
Aad Sisley ‐ Mean scores
3,5
respondents and H.2 and R.Q.2. There exists
3
a statistically significant interaction effect
2,5 between sample (3 and 4) and gender for the
Women
Femme
2 Abr scores related to the Diesel ads (F=9.66,
1,5 Men
Homme
p<.003), between sample (1 and 3) and
1 gender for the Abr scores related to the
0,5 Benetton (F=6.95, p<.009) and Sisley
0 (F=5.96, p<.02) ads, and between sample (2
Sample 3 Sample 4 and 4) and gender for the Abr scores related
to the Sisley ads (F=9.59, p<.003), meaning
that the sample effects depend on gender (see Figure 5, Figure 6, and Figure 7). However, the
main effect of gender for the Abr scores collected from Samples 3 and 4 is not significant for
Diesel at a .05 level (p=0.6665), the main effect of gender for the Abr scores collected from
Samples 1 and 3 is significant for Sisley (F=8.69, p<.004) but not for Benetton at a .05 level
(p=0.8878), and the main effect of gender for the Abr scores collected from Samples 2 and 4
21

22. Figure 5 : Graph of means - Abr Diesel - Samples 3 and 4 is not significant for Sisley at a .05 level
4,5 (p=0.3371). Concerning the interaction for
4 Diesel in Samples 3 and 4 and for Benetton
Abr Diesel ‐ Mean scores
3,5 in Samples 1 and 3, even though the
3 interaction (which says that the effect of
2,5 sample is greater among women) is
2
Women
Femme significant, the main effect of sample is also
1,5 Men
Homme worth paying attention to because it holds
1 true at all levels of gender (both men and
0,5 women show, for Diesel, lower Abr scores in
0 Sample 3 than in Sample 4 and, for Benetton,
higher Abr scores in Sample 1 than in
Sample 3 Sample 4
Sample 3). Concerning the interaction for
Figure 6 : Graph of means - Abr Benetton and Sisley - Samples 1 and 3
4,5 4
Abr Benetton ‐ Mean scores
4 3,5
Abr Sisley ‐ Mean scores
3,5 3
3
2,5
2,5
Women
Femme 2 Women
Femme
2
Men
Homme 1,5 Men
Homme
1,5
1 1
0,5 0,5
0 0
Sample 1 Sample 3 Sample 1 Sample 3
Figure 7 : Graph of means - Abr Sisley - Samples 2 and 4
5
Sisley in Samples 1 and 3, even if both men
4,5 and women show higher Abr scores in
Abr Sisley ‐ Mean scores
4 Sample 1 than in Sample 3 (in line with the
3,5 main effect of sample), men show higher Abr
3 scores in both Sample 1 and Sample 3 than
2,5 Women
Femme women. In this case, even though the
2
Men
Homme
interaction (which says that the effect of
1,5 sample is greater among women) is
1 significant, the main effect of sample is also
0,5 worth paying attention to because it holds
0
true at all levels of gender. Concerning the
Sample 2 Sample 4 interaction for Sisley in Samples 2 and 4,
even if the main effect of sample says that
the means of the Abr scores are higher in Sample 2 than in Sample 4, the interaction says that
this only holds true for women ; men indeed show lower Abr scores in Sample 2 and higher in
Sample 4. Thus, the interaction is what is important here.
3.1.5. Product involvement
The results found several statistically significant interactions between the product
involvement of respondents and H.1 and R.Q.1. There exists a statistically significant
interaction effect between sample (1 and 2) and product involvement for the Aad scores
22

23. related to the Diesel ads (F=6.83, p<.01),
Figure 8 : Graph of means - Aad Diesel - Samples 1 and 2
5 between sample (3 and 4) and product
4,5 involvement for the Aad scores related to the
Aad Diesel ‐ Mean scores
4 Benetton (F=6.16, p<.02) and Sisley
3,5 (F=4.32, p<.04) ads, and between sample (1
3 and 3) and product involvement for the Aad
2,5 High scores related to the Benetton ads (F=5.05,
2
Low p<.03), meaning that sample effects depend
1,5 on product involvement (see Figure 8, Figure
1 9, and Figure 10). However, the main effect
0,5
of product involvement for the Aad scores
0
collected from Samples 1 and 2 is significant
Sample 1 Sample 2
for Diesel (F=7.15, p<.008), the main effect
of product involvement for the Aad scores
collected from Samples 3 and 4 is significant for Sisley (F=5.68, p<.02) but not for Benetton
at a .05 level (p=0.8881), and the main effect of product involvement for the Aad scores
collected from Samples 1 and 3 is not significant for Benetton at a .05 level (p=0.5220).
Concerning the interaction for Diesel in Samples 1 and 2, even if the main effect of sample
says that the means of the Aad scores are lower in Sample 1 than in Sample 2, the interaction
says that this only holds true for highly involved respondents ; lowly involved respondents
indeed show higher Aad scores in Sample 1 and lower in Sample 2 (but lower than highly
involved respondents for both Sample 1 and Sample 2). Thus, the interaction is what is
Figure 9 : Graph of means - Aad Benetton and Sisley - Samples 3 and 4
4,5 4,5
Aad Benetton ‐ Mean scores
4 4
Aad Sisley ‐ Mean scores
3,5 3,5
3 3
2,5 2,5
High High
2 2
1,5 Low 1,5 Low
1 1
0,5 0,5
0 0
Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 3 Sample 4
Figure 10 : Graph of means - Aad Benetton - Samples 1 and 3
3,5 important here. Concerning the interaction
for Benetton in Samples 3 and 4 and for
Aad Benetton ‐ Mean scores
3
Benetton in Samples 1 and 3, even though the
2,5 interaction (which says that the effect of
2 sample is greater among highly involved
High respondents) is significant, the main effect of
1,5
Low sample is also worth paying attention to
1 because it holds true at all levels of product
0,5 involvement (both highly and lowly involved
0
respondents show, for Benetton, lower Aad
scores in Sample 3 than in Sample 4 and
Sample 1 Sample 3
higher Aad scores in Sample 1 than in
Sample 3). Concerning the interaction for
23

24. Sisley in Samples 3 and 4, even if both highly and lowly involved respondents show lower
Aad scores in Sample 3 than in Sample 4 (in line with the main effect of sample), highly
involved respondents show higher Aad scores in both Sample 3 and Sample 4 than lowly
involved respondents. In this case, even though the interaction (which says that the effect of
sample is greater among highly involved respondents) is significant, the main effect of sample
is also worth paying attention to because it holds true at all levels of product involvement.
The results also found a statistically significant interaction between the product involvement
of respondents and H.2. There exists a statistically significant interaction effect between
sample (3 and 4) and product involvement for the Abr scores related to the Benetton (F=4.46,
p<.04) and Sisley (F=4.89, p<.03) ads, meaning that sample effects depend on product
involvement (see Figure 11). However, the main effect of product involvement for the Abr
scores collected from Samples 3 and 4 is significant for Sisley (F=3.94, p<.05) but not for
Benetton at a .05 level (p=0.9244). Concerning the interaction for Benetton in Samples 3 and
4, even though the interaction (which says that the effect of sample is greater among highly
involved respondents) is significant, the main effect of sample is also worth paying attention
to because it holds true at all levels of product involvement (both highly and lowly involved
respondents show, for Benetton, lower Abr scores in Sample 3 than in Sample 4). Concerning
the interaction for Sisley in Samples 3 and 4, even if both highly and lowly involved
respondents show lower Abr scores in Sample 3 than in Sample 4 (in line with the main effect
of sample), lowly involved respondents show higher Abr scores in Sample 3 and lower in
Sample 4 than highly involved respondents. In this case, even though the interaction (which
says that the effect of sample is greater among highly involved respondents) is significant, the
main effect of sample is also worth paying attention to because it holds true at all levels of
product involvement.
Figure 11 : Graph of means - Abr Benetton and Sisley - Samples 3 and 4
4 4,5
Abr Benetton ‐ Mean scores
3,5 4
Abr Sisley ‐ Mean scores
3 3,5
3
2,5
2,5
2 High High
2
1,5 Low Low
1,5
1 1
0,5 0,5
0 0
Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 3 Sample 4
3.2. Discussion of results
The first step of the analysis was to determine whether the impact of the shift from
provocative to more traditional advertising strategies recently operated by many brands on
Aad, Abr, and PI was significant for each of the three brands considered. The results of
section 3.1.2 show that the shift from provocative to more traditional advertising strategies
has an impact on the Aad scores related to the Benetton, Diesel, and Sisley ads, on the Abr
scores related to the Benetton, Diesel (only in the blind-tests), and Sisley ads, and on the PI
scores related to the Benetton ads (only in the brand-tests), with the provocative ads, for these
brands, being associated with lower mean scores, for these variables, than the more traditional
ads – the results found no impact of the shift from provocative to more traditional advertising
24

25. strategies on the Abr scores related to the Diesel ads in the brand-tests, on the PI scores
related to the Benetton ads in the blind-tests, on the PI scores related to the Diesel ads, and on
the PI scores related to the Sisley ads. However, interactions between these results and the
gender and product involvement of respondents show that the provocative Diesel ad is
associated with lower Aad scores than the more traditional ad only for women and highly
involved respondents in the brand-tests and only for women in the blind-tests, that the
provocative Sisley ad is associated with lowly involved respondents showing higher Abr
scores than highly involved respondents, that the more traditional Sisley ad is associated with
lowly involved respondents showing lower Abr scores than highly involved respondents, and
that both the provocative and the more traditional Sisley ads are associated with men and
highly involved respondents showing higher Aad scores than women and lowly involved
respondents. Moreover, in the brand-tests, the impact of the shift from provocative to more
traditional advertising strategies is greater among women when it is on the Aad for Sisley. In
the blind-tests, the impact of the shift from provocative to more traditional advertising
strategies is greater among women when it is on the Aad for Benetton, on the Aad for Sisley,
and on the Abr for Diesel, and greater among highly involved respondents when it is on the
Aad for Benetton, on the Aad for Sisley, on the Abr for Benetton, and on the Abr for Sisley.
The second step of the analysis was to control for the change in the picture/content of the
advertisements to determine whether the influence of the product brand on Aad, Abr, and PI
was significant for each of the six ads considered. The results of section 3.1.3 show that the
Aad scores related to the Benetton and the provocative Diesel ads, the Abr scores related to
the Benetton, Diesel, and Sisley ads, and the PI scores related to the Benetton, Diesel, and
Sisley ads are based on an evaluation of the entire advertisements and are hence influenced by
brand names, with the ads in the blind-tests, for theses brands, being associated with lower
mean scores, for these variables, than the ads in the brand-tests – the results found no
influence of the product brand on the Aad scores related to the more traditional Diesel ad and
on the Aad scores related to the Sisley ads. However, interactions between these results and
the gender and product involvement of respondents show that the provocative Sisley ad is
associated with men showing higher Abr scores both in the brand- and blind-tests than
women, and that the more traditional Sisley ad is associated with higher Abr scores in the
brand-test than in the blind-test only for women. Moreover, the influence of the product brand
is greater among women when it is on the Abr for the provocative Benetton ad and on the Abr
for the provocative Sisley ad, and greater among highly involved respondents when it is on
the Aad for the provocative Benetton ad.
So far, the results of these two first steps allow to confirm the findings of authors such as De
Pelsmacker and Van Den Bergh (1996), Henthorne and LaTour (1994), LaTour, Pitts, and
Snook-Luther (1990), Reichert et al. (1999), Sanbonmatsu and Kardes (1988), and Smith et
al. (1995) – who find that sexual and/or other provocative stimuli result in a significantly less
favorable Aad than ads that contain little or no such appeals –, those of authors such as Bello
et al. (1983) and De Pelsmacker and Van Den Bergh (1996) – according to which PI are
generally not influenced by a brand’s advertising strategy but rather by brand loyalty, brand
recognition, and product (dis-)satisfaction –, and to generalize the findings of authors such as
Henthorne and LaTour (1994), Lundstrom and Sciglimpaglia (1977), and Reichert et al.
(1999) – who find that an ad that contains a strong overt sexual appeal results in a
significantly less favorable Abr than an ad that contains little or no sexual appeal – to other
provocative stimuli.
25