The Hierarchy Model of Advertising Effects: a Debate
THE HIERARCHY MODEL OF ADVERTISING EFFECTS: A DEBATE
Nguyen Hoang Sinh, MA
Faculty of Business Administration, Ho Chi Minh Open University
ABSTRACT
The most often cited hierarchy model was developed by Lavidge and Steiner, and this has been regarded as the process by which advertising works for decades. But some recent reviews of the empirical literature found little evidence to support the existence of an advertising hierarchy, and this continues to be the subject of debate. Most recently, Weilbacher and Barry have debated the hierarchy model of advertising effects in their articles published in Journal of Advertising Research. In this paper, the contribution of these articles to marketing theory, as well as practice are compared and assessed. The paper then concludes with implications for integrated marketing communications.
Keywords: response hierarchy, advertising effect, marketing communications.
INTRODUCTION
Advertising has existed for many decades but the intellectual theory of advertising such as how it works and why it works are still debatable issues in academia and industry [1]. One suggested explanation is the hierarchy of effects, a body of literature that posits that audiences go through a variety of stages (cognitive, affective, and conative) in responding to advertising and other persuasive marketing messages [1] [2] [3]. The most often cited hierarchy model was posited by Lavidge and Steiner [3], who believed that advertising was an investment in a long term process that moved consumers over time through a series of stages beginning with product unawareness and ending with an actual purchase.
However, Vakratsas and Ambler have recently reviewed more than 250 journal articles and books in an effort to better understand how advertising works and affects the consumer. They state that ‘a review of the empirical literature found little evidence to support the existence of an advertising hierarchy’ [4, p. 26]. Their evidence
Nguyen Hoang Sinh, MA
Faculty of Business Administration, Ho Chi Minh Open University
ABSTRACT
The most often cited hierarchy model was developed by Lavidge and Steiner, and this has been regarded as the process by which advertising works for decades. But some recent reviews of the empirical literature found little evidence to support the existence of an advertising hierarchy, and this continues to be the subject of debate. Most recently, Weilbacher and Barry have debated the hierarchy model of advertising effects in their articles published in Journal of Advertising Research. In this paper, the contribution of these articles to marketing theory, as well as practice are compared and assessed. The paper then concludes with implications for integrated marketing communications.
Keywords: response hierarchy, advertising effect, marketing communications.
INTRODUCTION
Advertising has existed for many decades but the intellectual theory of advertising such as how it works and why it works are still debatable issues in academia and industry [1]. One suggested explanation is the hierarchy of effects, a body of literature that posits that audiences go through a variety of stages (cognitive, affective, and conative) in responding to advertising and other persuasive marketing messages [1] [2] [3]. The most often cited hierarchy model was posited by Lavidge and Steiner [3], who believed that advertising was an investment in a long term process that moved consumers over time through a series of stages beginning with product unawareness and ending with an actual purchase.
However, Vakratsas and Ambler have recently reviewed more than 250 journal articles and books in an effort to better understand how advertising works and affects the consumer. They state that ‘a review of the empirical literature found little evidence to support the existence of an advertising hierarchy’ [4, p. 26]. Their evidence
References: [1]. Barry, T.E. and Howard, D.J. (1990), “A Review and Critique of the Hierarchy of Effects in Advertising”, International Journal of Advertising 9(2), 121. [2]. Gallup, G. (1974), “How Advertising Works”, Journal of Advertising Research 14(3), 7. [3]. Lavidge, R.J. and Steiner, G.A. (1961), “A Model for Predictive Measurements of Advertising Effectiveness”, Journal of Marketing 25(6), 59-62. [4]. Vakratsas, D. and Ambler, T. (1999), “How Advertising Works: What Do We Really Know?”, Journal of Marketing 63(1), 26-43. [5]. Hall, B.F. (2002), “A New Model for Measuring Advertising Effectiveness”, Journal of Advertising Research 42(2), 23-31. [6]. Yoo, C.Y., Kim, K. and Stout, P.A. (2004), “Assessing the Effects of Animation in Online Banner Advertising: Hierarchy of Effects Model”, Journal of Interactive Advertising 4(2), 7. [7]. Belch, G.E. and Belch, M.A. (2009), Advertising and Promotion: An Integrated Marketing Communications Perspective (8th edn), The McGraw-Hill/Irwin, Boston. [8]. Weilbacher, W.M. (2001), “Point of View: Does Advertising Cause a "Hierarchy of Effects"?”, Journal of Advertising Research 41(6), 19-26. [9]. Barry, T.E. (2002), “In defense of the hierarchy of effects: A rejoinder to Weilbacher”, Journal of Advertising Research 42(3), 44-47.