Journal of Business Research 62 (2009) 768–774
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Business Research
Effects of comparative advertising format on consumer responses: The moderating effects of brand image and attribute relevance Mehmet I. Yagci a, Abhijit Biswas b,⁎, Sujay Dutta b
Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, University of Mersin, Mersin 33342, Turkey School of Business Administration, Wayne State University, 5201 Cass Avenue, Detroit, MI 48202, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
a b s t r a c t
In this research we distinguish between ads that compare two different brands (Across-Brand Comparison or ABC ads) and those that compare different versions of the same brand (Within-Brand Comparison or WBC ads). Results from an experiment indicate that when comparative ads use attributes that are relevant to product performance, ad type and brand image interact such that an ABC ad leads to less favorable consumer perceptions than a WBC ad when image of the sponsor brand is low but not when it is high. However, when the ads use attributes that are irrelevant to product performance an ABC ad leads to less favorable consumer outcomes than a WBC ad, regardless of the image of the sponsor brand. We further propose and show that ad believability mediates these effects. Theoretical and practical implications of the ﬁndings are discussed and directions for future research are provided. © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Article history: Received 14 August 2006 Accepted 31 March 2008 Keywords: Comparative ad Brand image Attribute relevance Persuasion knowledge model Characterization–correction model.
1. Introduction Comparative advertising is an increasingly popular promotion tactic. Its popularity stems from the FTC's informal encouragement of explicit comparisons in the 1970s (Grewal et al., 1997; Tannenbaum, 1974; Wilkie and Farris, 1975) and advertisers' belief in its effectiveness in inﬂuencing consumer decision-making. Indeed, it has been suggested that consumers ﬁnd comparative advertisements both informative and interesting (Barry, 1993). In a meta-analysis, Grewal et al. (1997) reported that the effectiveness of comparative ads is “equivocal”. A primary reason for these mixed results is that “the complexity of comparative advertising and advertising response makes it difﬁcult to assess the effectiveness of comparative advertising outside of some usage context” (Rogers and Williams,1989). In this respect, the primary goal of our research is to examine the effect of comparative ads in the context of the ad format (i.e., brand to which the ad sponsor compares itself), attribute relevance and image of the advertising brand. We also examine the potential effect of “ad believability” as a mediator of comparative advertising on consumers' cognitions, attitudes, and behavioral intentions. We contribute to the comparative advertising literature by examining the relative effectiveness of two forms of comparative tactics, “Within-Brand Comparison” (WBC) and “Across-Brand Comparison” (ABC). Further, this study provides a better understanding of the effects of such tactics by including two factors that have not been examined
before, namely, attribute relevance and brand image. Use of “brand image” instead of “market share” and “attribute relevance” instead of “message content” as variables that moderate the effectiveness of comparative ads provides a different perspective which may prove to be more appropriate in different advertising conditions, such as a lowimage and low-share brand compared to a high-image and low-share brand or a new product compared to a high-image and high-share brand. The manuscript proceeds as follows. First, we discuss our conceptual model and develop hypotheses. Second, we discuss the procedure and results of an experiment conducted to test the hypotheses. Finally, we discuss the implications of our ﬁndings, state the limitations in our...
References: Aaker DA. Measuring brand equity across products and markets. California Management Review 1996;38(3):102–20. Aaker DA, Keller K. Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing 1990;54(January):27–41. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol 1986;51(6):1173–82. Barry TE. Comparative advertising: what have we learned in two decades? J Advert Res 1993;33(2):19–29. Carpenter GS, Glazer R, Nakamoto K. Meaningful brands from meaningless differentiation: the dependence on irrelevant attributes. J Mark Res 1994;31:339–50 (August). Edell JA, Staelin R. The information processing of pictures in print advertisements. J Consum Res 1983;10:45–61 (June). Friestad M, Wright P. The persuasion knowledge model: how people cope with persuasion attempts. J Consum Res 1994;21:1-31 (June). Gilbert D. Thinking lightly about others: automatic components of the social inference Process. In: Uleman James S, Bargh John A, editors. Unintended Thought. New York: Guilford; 1989. p. 189–211. Grewal D, Kavonoor S, Fern EF, Costley C, Barnes J. Comparative versus noncomparative advertising: a meta-analysis. J Mark 1997;61:1-15 (October). Holsti OR. Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1969. Droge C. Shaping the route to attitude change: central versus peripheral processing through comparative versus noncomparative advertising. J Mark Res 1989;26:193–204 (May). Kalra A, Goodstein RC. The impact of advertising positioning strategies on consumer price sensitivity. J Mark Res 1998;35:210–24 (May). King TR. RJR 's ads for discount smokes to target rival full-cost brands. Wall Street J 1990 September 6. Muehling DD, Stoltman JJ, Grossbart S. The impact of comparative advertising on levels of message involvement. J Advert 1990;19(4):41–50. Netemeyer RG, Krishnan B, Pullig C, Wang G, Yagci M, Dean D, et al. Developing and validating measures of facets of customer-based brand equity. J Bus Res 2004;57 (2): 209–24. Pechmann C, Stewart DW. The effects of comparative advertising on attention, memory and purchase intentions. J Consum Res 1990;17:180–91 (September). Pechmann C, Stewart DW. How direct comparative ads and market share affect brand choice. J Advert Res 1991;31(6):47–55. Rogers JC, Williams TG. Comparative advertising effectiveness: practitioners ' perceptions versus academic research ﬁndings. J Advert Res 1989;29(5):22–37. Shiv B, Edell JA, Payne JW. Factors affecting the impact of negatively versus positively framed ad messages. J Consum Res 1997;24:285–94 (December). Tannenbaum S. Policy Statements and Guidelines for Comparative Advertising. American Advertising Agencies; 1974. April. Völckner F, Sattler H. Drivers of brand extension success. J Mark 2006;70:18–34 (April). Wilkie WL, Farris PW. Comparison advertising: problems and potential. J Mark 1975;39(4): 7-15.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document