For Years Communications Practitioners have been vitally concerned with their believability. Since Aristotle's famous treatise on rhetoric, propagandists, ministers, writers, advertisers and other professional persuaders have sought the key to belief. The one group which has paid most attention to the believability of persuasive communications is advertisers.

Two basic premises have been implicit in advertisers’ traditional investigations of believability: first, that there are two alternative and mutually exclusive audience reactions to an advertisement once it has been noticed and understood: people will either believe it or disbelieve it; and second, that consumers’ overt analyses or ratings of an ad's content predict its effect.

With Large Resources and good research designs, we now can measure the sales effects of advertising campaigns (Wolfe, et al., 1962, 1963). But, except under very unusual circumstances, we cannot measure the sales effects of individual ads.

Without a real measure of sales effectiveness, advertisers have fallen back on other less obvious measures of an advertisement's worth. One of these is memorability, as measured by aided recall. Another is the recognition method used by Starch. And still another is direct rating of advertisements by consumers themselves.

The Appendix of nearly every communications research report (advertisement copy tests, for example) includes a reproduction of all respondent verbatims. This is often the bulk of the report as far as number of pages is concerned and represents a considerable portion of the research expense. Too often this qualitative material is left unanalyzed and hence remains largely “unpossessed” by the research report user.

The gross quantity of the verbatims, the variety and richness of the feelings and attitudes expressed, the intolerable ambiguities, and the lack of a simple structure to integrate these data all contribute to deter meaningful analysis. At the same time, these very characteristics suggest values that demand analysis.

To what extent do advertising agencies know whether their advertising campaigns are successful? Even more to the point, to what extent do agencies really set specific objectives for their campaigns? And in attempting to judge the success of a campaign, are the “proofs of success” relevant to the objectives stated?

For the first time, public statements by advertising agencies of campaign objectives and “proofs of success” of various campaigns have been set forth publicly in a form that permits systematic investigation of this question. The United States Trade Center for Scandinavia held an exhibition in Stockholm, Sweden, during May 1967, that featured advertisements from successful American advertising campaigns. One Swedish advertising agency, Annonsbyra, prepared and distributed a special booklet that contained descriptions of 135 “successful advertising campaigns” created by 40 American advertising agencies.

It has long been recognized that product or service benefits analysis may be useful in the development of marketing policy and new product/service designs (Banks, 1950). More recently, Haley (1968) suggested the use of product benefits as a basis for market segmentation. According to this view, individuals differ with regard to their evaluations of the want-satisfying attributes of products or services. For example, in the case of toothpastes some consumers may place high emphasis on a product's ability to whiten teeth while others attach greater importance to a toothpaste's decay preventativeness.

To the extent that brands are perceived to differ on valued attributes and the attributes themselves are valued differently, one can, in principle, develop market segments based on these differences. If one grants the usefulness of perceived product benefits as a basis for market segmentation (Frank, Massy, and Wind, 1972), there is still the measurement problem—how does one go about quantifying consumers’ utilities for various levels of valued product attributes?

Advertising is in an odd position. Its extreme protagonists claim it has extraordinary powers and its severest critics believe them. Advertising is often effective. But it is not as powerful as is sometimes thought, nor is there any evidence that it actually works by any strong form of persuasion or manipulation.

Instead, the sequence, awareness/trial/reinforcement, seems to account for the known facts. Under this theory, consumers first gain awareness or interest in a product. Next, they may make a trial purchase. Finally, a repeat buying habit may be developed and reinforced if there is satisfaction after previous usage.

Advertising has a role to play in all three stages. But for frequently bought products, repeat buying is the main determinant of sales volume and here advertising must be reinforcing rather than persuasive.

In each of two recent talks, to the AMA Attitude Research Conference in Las Vegas and to the ANA Media Workshop in New York, I pointed out the limitations of recall as an indicator of memory and tried to reposition the concept of perception. In Las Vegas I reviewed the implications of the new brain research on the theory of low involvement; in New York I reinterpreted some earlier data which suggested that three advertising exposures represented an optimal frequency. That two so different talks converged on a common focus suggests that there may be some value in looking at them together.

In 1977, 73,307,000 households in the United States had at least one television set (Arbitron Company, 1978), which accounts for all but about 2 percent of households. In a 1974 Gallup Opinion Index Survey, 46 percent of the population reported television as their favorite leisure-time activity. Reading ranked second, with 14 percent (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1977). The television set in an average household is on about seven hours a day. Television ranks as the most pervasive leisure-time activity in the United States.

Its importance has made it the subject of a substantial literature, ranging from articles in popular magazines to the most erudite of academic treatises. The vast majority of published work is about program content, viewing behavior, and/or criticism. Surprisingly little has been published regarding the general role of the medium in the lives of its audience. The two principal works are monographs by Steiner (1963) and Bower (1973).

A recent article by the author (Zufryden, 1981) reported empirical results from the use of a new methodology (ZAPEM) that relates exposures from particular TV media schedules to consumer purchase-response behavior.

The methodology, unlike its predecessors, predicts measures of media effectiveness that include a brand's trial, cumulative penetration, and repeat-purchase patterns as a function of alternative TV media plans. Hence, in contrast to previous methodologies that utilize lower-level media effectiveness criteria such as reach, frequency, cost-per-thousand, awareness, or even attitude change, the approach ties directly to higher-level, sales-related, company objectives.

The approach can be implemented on the basis of individual purchase panel data (i.e., such as that from MRCA or NPD Research, Inc.) from matched test markets during media weight tests. The approach can similarly be based on purchase data from UPC scanner panels such as that available from TRIM or the Behaviorscan system.

Market A is selected as the test city. Three levels of advertising “frequency” are to be tested by beaming corresponding numbers of commercials to three groups of randomly selected households. Sales to the three groups are to be measured with either diary panel data or scanner data. Since market A has been determined to be representative of the total area under consideration, the three levels of purchase probability associated with the levels of advertising are to be used in constructing an advertising-sales response function for budgeting purposes.

According to many (Simon and Arndt, 1980, for example), such an experiment manifests the state of the art for assessing the effects of advertising on sales. This paper argues that such state-of-the-art experiments overcontrol the environment, and hence may mismeasure the effects of advertising. More specifically, a single-market experiment may control “away” effects of advertising.

As consumer researchers we are all probably pleased about some of the recent progress in the area of understanding and researching consumers. A variety of approaches and methodologies are now available that examine the consumer from every conceivable angle. To my mind, however, no approach has been more enigmatic or has been held with such high expectations as that of personality research borrowed from the field of psychology.

The whole concept of personality and its relationship to how consumers respond has always had a lot of intuitive appeal to consumer researchers. If—as this feeling goes—we can only isolate and understand the basic driving force that predisposes consumers to act in certain ways, and personality traits must be one of those driving forces, then our jobs, of course, could be made much easier.

The purpose of this study was to answer the question: “What advertising executional devices influence the effectiveness of a television commercial?” This one question immediately raises two more questions: (1) What do we mean by an executional device and how many are there? and (2) What does the effectiveness of a television commercial mean? Answers to these two more fundamental definitional questions are necessary before the primary question can be answered. We would like to share with you our answers to the two more fundamental questions, and briefly introduce some of our findings with respect to the primary question.

The search for answers to the definitional questions began with a review of communication and advertising theory and an examination of previous studies on which this theory is based. Previous work has tended to progress along two rather independent tracts. There is work by academicians, and there is work by the industry. The paths of these two sets of researchers occasionally cross but, unfortunately, not very often.

Advertising researchers have long been conducting tests of the hypothesis that certain publications by virtue of their unique editorial environments will either enhance or detract from the way in which advertising appearing in the publication will be perceived by the readers. For example, a business advertisement in Business Week will be better perceived than will the same advertisement in a newsweekly, or an advertisement in The National Enquirer will be less favorably perceived than the same ad in a less sensational publication such as McCall's or Reader's Digest. The theory and the difficulties of conducting research in this area were well described by Weilbacher as early as 1960.

For many years, advertisers and researchers have been debating over the issues of advertising wearm and advertising weavout.

The wearm proponents have held that the power of advertising builds over time and with repeated exposures; that there is a “wearing-in” process which occurs between the advertising and the consumer; and, that this effectiveness cannot be measured with a single exposure or at a single point in time.

There are at least two sides to the wearout debate. One side argues that the selling power of advertising declines, or wears out, over time and exposures; while others suggest that “world class” advertising does not.

One of the older and simpler definitions of Brand Equity was the one coined by David Ogilvy, when he said many years ago:

This could be thought of as the first principle of brand equity— that a brand is different from a product and that the difference is something with which it is invested by the consumer. Most definitions of brand equity concentrate on this difference.

Although it is the incremental, added-value qualities that make brand equity important to us, the term is often used synonymously with the total value of the brand. It is useful therefore to think of the total equity—or value—of a brand consisting of two different sorts of “equities.” The first are those we might call the “fundamental” equities—the classical marketing variables of product, price, and packaging— together with distribution and measured brand image. The second type are the “added value” equities, which are usually much more elusive to define because of their intangible nature.

The growing interest in the brand equity of consumables is resulting in new advertising objectives for strong brands (Aaker and Bid, 1992).

Instead of focusing solely on greater market penetration, many versatile, high-penetration brands (ranging from breakfast cereals to bleach) are now using advertising to encourage loyal consumers to use the brand more frequently, and they are suggesting new ways to use it or new situations in which it can be consumed (Wansink and Ray, 1992). Such efforts will be referred to here as “frequency marketing.” Frequency marketing is not only important for high-share brands in low-growth categories but is also important for any association or board which represents commodities (such as the Beef Industry Council, California Raisin Advisory Board, Florida Citrus Commission, National Dairy Council, etc.).

The ARF Copy Research Validity Project, which was completed in 1990, had its roots in a speech made by Ted Dunn at the ARF Annual Conference in 1977. Addressing the issue of the validity of copy testing he hypothesized that the answer existed in the archives of copy-testing experience but that, because it took so long to accumulate large enough data bases to permit generalizations and because each copy researcher saw only a small piece of the total, we might never learn the “truth.” He called for the formation of a committee to survey advertisers about the amount of validation work that had been done and their willingness to submit their copy-testing files to the ARF— given strong guarantees of confidentiality.

Accordingly, such a committee was formed and, in accordance with time-honored principles, Ted Dunn was named chairman.

A brand is a name, symbol, design, or mark .that enhances the value of a product beyond its functional purpose” (Farquhar, 1989). Because brand names enhance the value of products and are difficult for competitors to copy, brand names play a critical role in marketplace competition. “For many businesses the brand name and what it represents are its most important asset—the basis of competitive advantage and of future earnings streams. Yet, the brand name is seldom managed in a coordinated, coherent manner with a view that it must be maintained and strengthened” (Aaker, 1991).

The focus here is on value added from the consumer's perspective. Farquhar (1989) has pointed out that the brand name also adds value for the manufacturer and for the retailer. But the ability of a brand name to add value for the consumer is, of course, logically prior. A brand name adds value for the manufacturer and the retailer only because it adds value for the consumer.