a strategic - thomasjreynolds.com · model. message elements refer to the differentiating physical...

THOMAS J. REYNOLDSANDCHARLES GENGLER

THOMAS J. REYNOLDS oprofessor of marketing anddirecior of Ihe Morris HileCenter for Marketing Scienceal the University of Texas atDalias Dr Reynolds alsoserves as chairman of Strate-gic Assessment, Inc and asmanaging director of Rich-mont Partners, a private mer-chant bank

CHARLES GENGLER is anassistant professor of market-ing at Clarkson University. Hereceived his Ph D in man-agement science from theUniversity ot Texas at Dallas.

A STRATEGICFRAMEWORK FORASSESSING ADVERTISING:THE ANIMATICvs. FINISHED ISSUE

Advertising expendituresfor individual firms, par-ticularly consumer goods

firms, continue to increase, rep-resenting a significant portion ofrevenues. For example, in 1988Philip Morris became the firstsingle company to crack the 2billion dollar mark for annualadvertising expenditures (Endi-cott, 1989). The immensity ofthese annual commitments toadvertising expenditures reflectthe importance which industryplaces upon the role of advertis-ing in the marketing process.The management of this criticalmarketing function demandsthat the maximal efficiency, orstrategic quahty, be sought.

Current trends indicate thatone area in which firms are ag-gressively seeking to better man-age their television advertisingexpenditures is by evaluation ofads at earlier stages of the pro-duction process through the useof rough prototypes of the fin-ished advertisements, termedanimatics, photomatics, or steal-a-matics (Bunish, 1987). Sincethe average production cost of atelevision commercial usuallyranges from $250,000 to $500,000(compared to less than $10,000for the animatic production), thereduction of expenditures onineffective advertisements repre-sents a goal, early on in the cre-ative process, by which the goalof maximal efficiency can be for-mally investigated. Of primaryinterest, then, is how the com-plex concept of advertising effi-ciency, or strategic quality, canbe assessed early in the creative

process, at the animatic stage ofcopy development.

Background

Many methods of assessingthe effectiveness (or quality) ofadvertising have been advocatedand implemented. Yuspeh{PACT, 1982) presented theviews of a group of the leadingadvertising agencies on the topicof advertising copy testing. Ofthe nine principles which werethe consensus of these views,the preeminent, first principlecited is that "A good copy test-ing system provides measure-ments which are relevant to theobjectives of the advertising"(PACT, 1982). Along this vein,Seggev (1982) suggests that". . . the primary goal of adver-tising is to effect positioning."Thus, if positioning is the pri-mary goal of advertising, then amajor component of the evalua-tion of copy should therefore bethe assessment of the strategicpositioning message communi-cated, reflecting its strategicquality.

At present, a majority of copyis assessed after the final stageof production. Obviously, sev-eral aspects of the communica-tion process are all at questionsimultaneously at this point. Theadvertisement must gain an au-dience's attention and mustcommunicate the desired mes-sage to the consumers whichthey will remember. Measures ofwhether or not a particular as-pect of the message was deliv-ered or whether the ad was re-

Journal of ADVERTISING RESEARCH—OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 1991 61

S T R A T E G I C F K A M K W O R K

. . . advertisements shouldbe assessed to monitor the

degree to which theycommunicate the desired

positioning, . . .

membered typify traditionalcopy testing research methodolo-gies. However, these types ofresearch methods often ignorethe specific, strategically-basedpositioning content of the mes-sage. The fact that no a prioriframework of strategic position-ing is utilized for the assessmentforestalls any direct assessmentof the relative effectiveness ofthe execution or any systematiccontrasting of the quality of al-ternative executions. Clearly,advertisements should be as-sessed to monitor the degree towhich they communicate thedesired positioning, or in otherwords, to assess how well thesemessages deliver the intendedstrategy. Following this argu-ment, Reynolds and Rochon(1991) state;

Standard copy testing meth-ods adequately measure intru-siveness, be it known as re-call, recognition or simplememorability of key copypoints. Standard copy testingfails to measure, however, thedegree to which the desiredstrategy was communicated.

It is proposed that the mostconsistent, and most important,aspect of an advertisementacross all stages of production isthe particular strategy-relatedpositioning message it contains.Obviously, standard intrusive-ness measures, though impor-tant in their own right, are inap-plicable for animatics, as is anyrelated form of recall or recogni-tion research. The strategic eval-uation of animatics is primarily a

judgment of quality of the con-tent of the communication, re-flecting the extent to which adesired positioning was ob-tained. Dual research issuesemerge: (1) specify a theoretical-ly sound framework for the as-sessment of advertising strategy;and (2) assess the correspon-dence of the analysis of the stra-tegic message represented in an-imatics with respect to analysisof the message communicated inthe final production.

DefiningAdvertising Strategy

Reynolds and Gutman (1984)describe advertising communica-tion as "the set of meanings andassociations that serve to differ-entiate a product or service fromits competition." With this inmind, advertising strategy issimply defined as "the specifica-tion of the manner by which thebrand will be meaningfully dif-ferentiated by the targetconsumer" (Reynolds andRochon, 1991). A specific strat-egy, then, is the particular set ofmeanings and associationslinked to the brand, or cognitivestructure, which is being com-municated.

Several structural viewpointsof communications, with respectto how meaning or cognitivestructure is derived, have beenproposed. Cartwright (1949) pro-posed a goal orientation in un-derstanding motivational struc-ture communicated in advertis-ing. Young and Feigin (1975)presented the Grey BenefitChain, which links physicaltraits of products to more per-sonal "emotional payoffs,"which represent, similarly, themotives of the consumer. Con-sistent with the motivational ap-proach. Levy (1981) presented astructural perspective of productmeaning based on social struc-ture in which products are

linked to individuals' percep-tions of the type of people theyfeel use those products. Anotherrelated model of meaning waspresented by Cohen (1979), wholinked product attributes to"valued outcomes." Similarly,Chattopadhyay and Alba (1988)studied levels of abstraction incognitions generated from adver-tising, ranging from "FactualDetails" through "Single-FactInterpretations," "Abstractions/'to "Global Evaluations." Seekinga more comprehensive researchparadigm, means-end theory(Gutman, 1982) proposes a struc-tural viewpoint of meaningbased upon consumer cognitivecategorization processes, whichare the essence of product differ-entiation.

Means-end theory is basedupon a persona! values orienta-tion (Rosenberg, 1956; Vinson,Scott, and Lamont, 1977; How-ard, 1977), where personal val-ues are the motivating "end-states of existence" which indi-viduals strive for in their lives(Rokeach, 1973). The core of anindividual's self-concept can beviewed as a bundle of values(Homer and Kahle, 1988), whichgovern perception, memory, andultimately behavior. Products areviewed as a schema of physicalattributes (see Peter and Olson,1987, for a comprehensive re-view of this concept). Means-end theory simply suggests thatthe way in which these physicalattributes of products are linkedto personal values of individualsis the manner by which productsgain personal relevance, essen-tially, the manner in whichmeaning is established. Thus, aphysical attribute of a product isimportant only to the extent towhich this attribute delivers abenefit or consequence to theconsumer through the percep-tion of product usage. The per-ceived consequence of product

62 Journal of ADVERTISING RESEARCH—OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 1991

S T R A T E G I C F R A M E W O R K

Table 1MECCAS Specification and Example

specification Example

Driving Force (DF)The value orientation of the strategy; the

end-level to be focused on in theadvertising.

Peace of MindPersonal Security

Leverage Point (LP)The manner by which the advertising will "tap

into, ' reach, or activate the value orend-level of focus; the specific key way inwhich the value is linked to the specificfeatures of the product.

CareCommitment to Positive ChangeTrust

Consumer Benefit (CB)The major positive consequences for the

consumer that are explicitly communicated,verbally or visually, in the advertising.

Message Element (ME)The specific attributes, consequences, or

features about the product that arecommunicated verbally or visually.

usage, then, is important only tothe extent that this consequenceis linked to another higher level,psychosocial consequence and,ultimately, to an individual'spersonal value orientation. Atechnique known as laddering{Reynolds and Gutman, 1988)has been demonstrated as amethodology for eliciting fromindividuals what their individualmeaning structures are for aproduct category defined by at-tributes, consequences, and per-sonal values. Essentially, ladder-ing provides the basis fromwhich an individual's cognitivestructure can be obtained, in-cluding both content and struc-tural components. The aggrega-tion of ladders across a sampleof consumers, then, yields a rep-resentative cognitive structurefor an entire product category.

Following this theoretical per-spective, a model to define thecognitive components of mean-ing for advertising strategy hasbeen presented, termed theMECCAS model (Olson andReynolds, 1983; Reynolds andGutman, 1984; Reynolds andCraddock, 1988). This model

Can Count on to WorkMake My Life EasierSave Time

Uses New TechnologyGood Longstanding ReputationWide Selection of Products/Services

(see Table 1), predicated uponMeans-End theory, presents fourconceptual elements of an adver-tising message which should beconsidered in strategy develop-ment and specification. In themodel. Message Elements referto the differentiating physicalattributes of the product whichare communicated. ConsumerBenefits are the direct conse-quences consumers could gainthrough product usage. Lever-age Points are the ways in whichthe message taps into, or acti-vates, the individual's personalvalue system. This level is often-times considered to reflect brandpersonality traits of the productwhich serve to provide the linkfrom the physical descriptors ofthe product to the higher leveldefiners of "self." DrivingForces, then, are the high-levelvalue orientations, which define"self," communicated or acti-vated by the ad. The final com-ponent of MECCAS, the Execu-tional Framework (EF), is thespecification of the delivery vehi-cle for the four fundamentalstrategic components and, assuch, is not considered part of

strategy specification. It is im-portant to note that not all adsare required to communicate ateach of the strategic levels;rather, MECCAS represents aframework which is broadenough to deal with all types ofadvertising strategic specificationand assessment.

To illustrate how strategy canbe specified with MECCAS, asummary derived from an as-sessment of telecommunicationsads (Gengler and Reynolds, inpress) is presented in Table 1.Note that the key strategic ele-ments corresponding to theMECCAS definitions are speci-fied in the appropriate boxes.The blank box for EF representsthe unique contribution of theadvertising agency, namely, theoptimal executional story and/ordevice to communicate and linktogether in an impactful way thefour strategic elements. A strate-gic specification in this form,then, indicates what the keymeanings that are to be commu-nicated by the ads, which essen-tially defines how the telecom-munications product/company isgoing to be made personally rel-evant to the viewer. In a real-world environment, the specifi-cation would also include therelative strength desired at eachrespective level, thereby provid-ing the marketing strategist theability to communicate to theagency the particular area of fo-cus desired for the desired posi-tioning. Interestingly, the re-sponsibility of the advertiser canbe defined as one of developingand specifying a positioningstrategy, while the dual respon-sibility of the advertising agencyis to simultaneously provide themeanings desired as well asmaximizing the connections orassociations between thesemeanings.

The MECCAS model has beenused to assess strategic compo-nents of specific advertisements



(Reynolds and Craddock, 1988).Reynolds and Trivedi (1989)studied the relationship betweencomponents of the MECCASmodel communicated and theoverall affect generated by thead in the snack-food productcategory. In their research, sig-nificant correlations were foundbetween components of themodel and overall affect. Twokey omissions were made, how-ever, in design of the initialReynolds and Trivedi (1989)study. First, an aggregate affectmeasure was used which com-bined both ad affect and brandaffect, even though these havebeen demonstrated to be sepa-rate constructs (Mitchell and Ol-son, 1981; Gresham and Shimp,1985; MacKenzie, Lutz, andBelch, 1986). Second, and ofequal importance, the Reynoldsand Trivedi (1989) study concen-trated entirely on communica-tion of meanings at the levels ofMECCAS and ignored measuresof association between concep-tual meanings communicated inthe ad. It is this latter pointwhich offers unique potential in

the assessment of advertisingquality from a strategic perspec-tive, both for finished as well asanimatic ads (Reynolds andRochon, 1991).

Recently, Gengler and Reyn-olds (in press) addressed both ofthese issues in a new approachto assessing the meaning uponwhich product positioning andadvertising strategy is predi-cated. A separate construct wasdesigned for brand affect gener-ated by the ad and for affect forthe ad, and subject perceptionsof the associations communi-cated between the strategic com-ponents of the advertisementwere gathered. Their findingsindicate that both the MECCAScomponents and the associationsbetween components werefound to offer independent con-tributions to the prediction ofbrand affect for ads in the tele-communications category. Thecritical finding showed that theassociations communicated be-tween strategic elements,thought to be the basis of mean-ing, were indeed related to affectfor the brand. Furthermore, a

pattern was observed in the re-sults which indicates that for theads in which stronger contribu-tion from associations wasfound, the affect generated forthe brand by these ads was sys-tematically higher.

This basic finding with respectto the importance of the levels ofabstraction in communication, asrepresented by the MECCASmodel, and the connections orlinkages between the strategicelements at the respective levelspresents a unique opportunity todevelop a new data presentationformat that summarizes both therelative strength of a given set ofstrategic elements as well as themyriad of potential connectionsbetween adjacent levels. The op-portunity presented here is todevelop a data presentationframework that, in essence, pro-vides a complete summary ofthe cognitive elements and asso-ciations activated by a given exe-cution. From the Gengler andReynolds data, a diagrammaticmodel representation of thestrength of the communicationof both the strategic elements

Figure 1

A Diagrammatic Representation of Key Strategic Eiements and Their Relevant Association Strengtlis forFinished Assessment: Ad A ,

Product/Service AffectFinished

51

MEUses New TechnologyGood LongstandingReputationWide Selection ofPR/Svcs

CB

6260

41

Peace ot mind

Personal Security

DFCare

LP

Can Count on to Work-Make Life Easier-

Save Time

Commitment to PositiveChange

Trust

437335

49

2841

7343 4

-39 3-35 3

35121

49311

4334

3932

3532



corresponding to levels of theMECCAS and the strength of theassociations between each pairof elements is developed. Figure1 illustrates this new approachto summarize the sum of mean-ings communicated by an execu-tion.

In Figure 1, the key state-ments reflecting the strategic ele-ments of each level of MECCASare presented along with the rel-ative strength of the communica-tion of that concept for each ad(on a 0 to 100 scale). Note thatthe stepwise presentation formatnecessary requires that the com-munication strength of each ele-ment for the Consumer Benefit(CB) and the Leverage Point (LP)levels be presented twice forease of interpretation. For exam-ple, the strategic CB concept of"dependability," summarized by"Can Count on to Work," scoresa 43, which is reported both inreference to the lower level Mes-sage Elements and the higherlevel Leverage Points. The state-ments summarized in Figure 1represent the strongest strategicelements communicated in thespecific ads assessed.

The three matrices of scoresbetween the adjacent levels ofMECCAS represent the degreeof association (on a 0 to 9 scale)between each pair of key strate-gic elements. To illustrate, forthe ad represented in Figure 1,the Message Element "UsesNew Technology" can be seen tohave a mean communication rat-ing of 62, and the ConsumerBenefit "Save Time" has a meancommunication rating of 35. Theassociation communicated be-tween these meanings has a rat-ing strength of 3. Thus, al-though somewhat complex, thisdata presentation format can beseen to provide a complete andconvenient summary across allthe strategic elements and asso-ciations which comprise themeanings or relevant associa-

To date, virtually allresearch concerning

advertising strategy has beenperformed uponfinished copy.

tions communicated by a giv-en ad.

To date, virtually all researchconcerning advertising strategyhas been performed upon fin-ished copy. Significant savingscan be made, however, by per-forming this type of critical anal-ysis earlier in the advertisingproduction process. Animaticsrepresent an opportunity forsuch an instance of earlier analy-sis and have received a steadypattern of increased attentionand usage over the last decade(Halliday, 1982; Laufer, 1986;Bunish, 1987). The primary re-search question, then, is: Towhat degree do the meaningsgenerated by an animatic corre-spond to those generated by thefinished ad? More specifically,the new summary format de-scribed above offers a frameworkfor directly contrasting the ani-matic analysis of meaning,which serves as the basis forstrategy specification, with thefinished counterpart. A second,more fundamental, question is:To what degree can this type ofstrategic analysis be used tomake decisions, with respect towhich executional frameworkshold the most promise for com-municating more effectively agiven strategy?

Methodology

To address the basic researchissues, animatics were obtainedfor two of the finished telecom-munications ads analyzed byGengier and Reynolds (in press),hereafter referred to as Ad A

and Ad B. The finished ads werevery consistent with the animat-ics in terms of the similarity ofscenes presented and accompa-nying voiceover. A sample of 49subjects recruited under thesame sample specifications asthe sample from the finishedads—from a geographic regionwhere the finished ads had notbeen aired—was utilized,thereby ensuring no previousexposure to the finished ads.

Subjects were administered aquestionnaire in exactly thesame fashion as was performedin the original assessment of thefinished ads, a personal com-puter-based procedure, termedstrata^" (which is an acronym forstrategic assessment). This sys-tem integrates a personal com-puter and a video cassette re-corder such that the ads beingassessed and the questions di-rected to the subjects can beshown alternately on the samecolor monitor. Responses aregiven verbally by subjects to atrained interviewer, who thenenters them into the computer.The average amount of time re-quired to complete the task, as-sessing both ads, was 53 min-utes.

Strata is designed to assess thestrategic communication effectsof advertising through imple-mentation of the MECCASmodel discussed earlier. Prior tothe initiation of a research study,the key elements for the entireproduct/service category, usuallyjointly obtained from the ladder-ing process and a strategic re-view of competitive advertising,are translated into statementscorresponding to the levels ofabstraction prescribed in theMECCAS format. An outline ofthe presentation format of thedifferent types of questions isdetailed in Appendix A. Ran-domization of questions withinthe question categories is per-formed.

Journal ot ADVERTISING RESEARCH—OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 1991 65


Figure 2

A Diagrammatic Representation of Key Strategic Eiements and Their Reievant Association Strengths forAnimatic vs. Finished Assessment: Ad A

Product/Service AffectAnimatic Finished

47 51

Peace of mind

Personal Security

Care

LP


65 73

Can Count on to Work •45 43

Make Life Easier—40 39

Save Time—30 35

48 49 4 3

M E Good LongstandingReputation

Wide Selection of-PR/Svcs

4 2

Connections: Animatic A(1) Finished A(2)

'XX Y Y ) Mean scores are significantiy different (p < .05).

The scale utilized in strata forassessing the strength of a spe-cific strategic element has threeresponse options: (0) "does notapply," (60) "clearly applies,"and (100) "perfectly applies."Pretesting was performed andthe resulting scale point weightswere assigned. Of note is priorresearch conducted by Reynoldsand Trivedi (1989) whichshowed little difference betweena two-point and a five-pointscale in a similar study. Thescale utilized for the strength ofassociation between key ele-ments, defined as those whichare endorsed as either "clearly"or "perfectly" applicable to de-scribing the specific ad, also hasthree points: (1) "little," (2)"somewhat," and (3) "totally"connected. These questions are

presented in the form of agraphical scale using color-codedVenn diagrams with differingdegree of overlap between eachrelevant pair of strategic eie-ments (approximately 5 percent,35 percent, and 75 percent, re-spectively). The resulting associ-ations score is derived from amultiplicative form of the threescores (element /, element j , andtheir direct association measureij), which is rescaled using aprobabilistic function to a 0 to 9scale. More specifically, thescores for a given pair of state-ments (/,;) representing adjacentlevels of MECCAS are multipliedby the score reflecting thestrength of connection (1, 2, or3). This multiplicand is thenscaled on a 0 to 9 scale witheach increment corresponding to

probabilistically equal steps.The primary quantitative out-

put of the strata methodology,the strength of communicationof the key strategic elements,and their pairwise strength ofassociations between adjacentlevels can then be summarizedin the new stepwise data formatdeveloped above.

Results

Following the previous Gen-gler and Reynolds research, thisstudy was concerned only withpotential differences in the mea-sures of brand affect. The sametwo statements, namely, "Thisad makes me feel even betterabout using the product/service"and "This ad makes me really


S I R A T E C I C F R A M E W O R K

Figure 3

A Diagrammatic Representation of Key Strategic Elements and Their Reievant Association Strengths forAnimatic vs. Finished Assessment: Ad B

Product/Service AffectAnimatic Finished

36 28

Care

LP

Can Count on to Work' -30 27

CB Make Life Easier—23 17

Save Time—16 19

30 27 23'17 16 19

Uses New Technology-(79^3) 3 3 (3~^^ 2 1

M E Good Longstanding—63 56 3 2 ( £ ~ o ) ^ 0

Reputation

[55 34) 1 Q (2 0") T 0Wide Selection of •PR/Svcs

2 2

2 0

1 0

Peace of mind

Personal Security

DF


Trust •30 29

55 61

2 2

1 0

1 0

30'29

2 1

1 0

; 0

20 22

2 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

Connections: Animatic B(1) Finished B(2)

Mean scores are significantly different (p < .05).

want to get the product/service,"were used. The scores of thesetwo statements across both adsyielded a Cronbach alpha reli-ability in the previous studywith finished ads of .70 as com-pared to .73 in this study withanimatics, indicating no signifi-cant difference. (Of note is thatwhat are termed as brand-affectquestions in this research para-digm closely resemble whatmany refer to as persuasionscores, possibly broadening theinterpretation of these findingsto persuasion-like scores.)

For each of the two ads (Aand B), stepwise summary rep-resentations were constructed(see Figures 2 and 3). These rep-resentations differ in contentfrom Figure 1 in that they arecomparative, containing scoresin the same format for both the

animatic and finished execu-tions. This combined format per-mits straightforward contrastingof the two independent researchfindings. Differences in obtainedscores between animatic and fin-ished for the same ad are indi-cated by circles or ellipsesaround those significantly differ-ent (t-test, p < .05).

Levei of Meaning. For bothads assessed, the overall patternof scores between animatics andfinished were quite similar, ex-cept for consistently strongerscores at the Message Elementlevel. This difference, noted forfive of the six lower levei ele-ments across both ads, waslikely due to the difference inexecutional format. That is, thereason animatics are scoringhigher at the Message Elementlevel is apparently due to in-

creased attention being paid tothe more concrete product-re-lated aspects, stemming fromthe lack of distraction from be-coming involved in the story lineof the finished execution. Saidanother way, the viewer involve-ment with the story flow in thefinished execution causes theviewer to attend to more of thedynamic flow of information andimages as opposed to the morestatic "picture" approach exe-cuted in animatics. As such, theassessment of animatics willprobably result in more percep-tual emphasis on the concreteaspects of product informationof the communication.

At the higher levels, two sig-nificant differences of the sixteenpossible for both ads can be ob-served. For Ad A, "Commitmentto Positive Change" at the LP



For both ads assessed, theoverall pattern of scoresbetween animatics and

finished were quitesimilar, . . .

level scores significantly higherfor the animatic (58) than for thefinished (35). The stronger MEcommunication may well ac-count for this net result. Simi-larly, the LP element of "Care"for Ad B is again more stronglycommunicated by the animatic,64 and 45, respectively. In total,the scores for the strategic ele-ments on the higher levels doappear to correspond closely be-tween the animatic and finishedexecutions.

Analysis of the differences inthe strength of associations isgenerally consistent with theabove findings: differencesemerge at the lower levels. Theexplanation is obvious. Giventhat the absolute magnitude ofthe ME is significantly morestrongly communicated, the like-lihood of making a connection tohigher level elements is also sig-nificantly increased. For Ad A,two significant differences ap-pear, which, interesting for oneof them ("Save Time" to"Care"), is not a result of a sig-nificant difference for either ofthe strategic elements. This dif-ference cannot be readily ex-plained. However, the other dif-ference for Ad A, "Can Counton to Work" to "Commitment toPositive Change," appears con-sistent with the prior explana-tion, namely, the strength of thelower level communication pro-duces potentially higher connec-tion scores to the higher levels.With this specific example, how-ever, the observed strength ofcommunication for the statement"Can Count on to Work" is not

significantly different betweenanimatic and finished, suggest-ing that the network of cognitivemeanings may not be perfectlylinear and stepwise in nature asproposed by the specificationformat of MECCAS. Differentnetworks of connections maywell produce different types,connections, or routes of mean-ing in producing persuasivecommunications. For Ad B, nosignificant differences in associa-tions at the higher levels be-tween animatic and finishedwere found.

Brand Affect. No statisticallysignificant differences {p < .05)were found between the animat-ics and the finished ads. Thescale used to assess brand affectwas the same three-point ordinalscale as was utilized in the mea-surement of the strength of stra-tegic elements. The brand-affectsummary scores for Ad A werevirtually identical, 47 and 51,respectively. For Ad B, the ani-matic scored 36 as opposed to aslightly lower score of 28 for thefinished execution, again indicat-ing little difference in the overallaffect measures.

Decision-Making Vaiue. Toaddress the second research is-sue, namely, contrasting of alter-native execution vehicles for thesame strategy at the animaticstage with the purpose of decid-ing which offers the most poten-tial to deliver the desired strat-egy. Figure 4 was constructed.

Contrasting of the summaryaffect score, though not statisti-cally significant, does give theanimatic for Ad A a slight ad-vantage (47 versus 36). More im-portantly, the scores for Ad Ado significantly outscore Ad Bon one element at each of thefour strategic levels: "Wide Se-lection of Product/Services"(ME), "Make My Life Easier"(CB), "Trust" (LP), and "Per-sonal Security" (DF). Depend-ing, of course, on the desired

positioning strategy, the stron-ger communication of these keystrategic elements in combina-tion with the stronger set of as-sociations between levels, doesappear to suggest that the ani-matic for Ad A offers signifi-cantiy more strategic quality po-tential.

The research question of as-sessing strategy or positioning inthis way strongly suggests thatan a priori specification of strat-egy be made. The primary appli-cation of strategy assessment isto determine to what degree agiven animatic delivers againstthe desired strategy. Desiredstrategy, in this case, means pre-determining the key strategy ele-ments and their relativestrengths. Secondarily, however,the ability to assess the strengthof the connections "ofmeanings" between and across

. . . strategy assessment isfeasible at the animatic stage

of copy development.

key strategic elements presents adiagnostic that can serve the cre-ative process, either in terms ofindicating a potential weaknessprior to final production, or, toserve as reassurance that a par-ticular executional device does infact deliver the desired linkageor connection.

Experience with the stratamethodology with animaticsacross a broad range of execu-tional types yields two basicfindings. One, rarely do ads thatdo not have at least one strongconnection between at least twoMECCAS levels generate signifi-cant affect for the brand (forboth animatic and finished exe-cution). And two, the only realdifferences that exist betweenanimatic and finished occur onlywhere the execution cannot (or



Figure 4

A Diagrammatic Representation of Key Strategic Elements and Their Reievant Association Strengths fora Comparison of Animatics: Ad A vs. Ad B

Product/Service AffectAnimatJc A Animatic B

47 36

Peace of mind

Personal Security

DF

Care


•65 64

•58 55

Can Count on to Work

CB Make Life Easier

Save Time —30 16

45 30(40 23^30 16

Uses New Technology-8r 79 ( 7 3 ^ 5 3 4 2

^ 2 2 2 1

4 1

M E Good Longstanding — 80 63Reputation

Wide Selection of'PR/Svcs

5 2 3 1

4 0

Connections: Animatic A(1) Animatic B(2)

XX YY) Mean scores are significantiy different (p . .05).

has not) be(en) captured in theanimatic. For example, an execu-tion that relies totally on bor-rowed interest from a uniqueaspect of a celebrity endorser isdifficult to represent in animaticform and, as such, typicallyscores more strongly in the fin-ished form.

Summary

This study developed a sum-mary assessment format,grounded in the cognitive as-pects of means-end theory andthe MECCAS model of advertis-ing strategy specification, appli-cable to both animatic and fin-ished advertising. This assess-ment format combines scoresindicative of both the strength ofthe communication elements

across the levels of meaning andthe strength of association orconnection between adjacent lev-els of meaning in the same datapresentation. This format per-mits a comprehensive summari-zation of the network of mean-ings communicated by a givenpiece of copy, either in animaticor finished form.

The results of this study havedemonstrated that strategy as-sessment is feasible at the ani-matic stage of copy develop-ment. Both the strength of com-munication of the strategicelements and the associationsbetween those meanings whichsubjects interpret from animaticscorrespond, in general, closelyto those for the finished execu-tions. This implies that a posi-tioning strategy can be assessed

early on in the advertising pro-cess, thereby providing manage-ment with a tool to assist in thedevelopment of effective, strate-gically-sound executions.

The very nature of animatics,however, does create a positivebias in terms of the assessmentof concrete, product-attribute-related strategic elements. Thestatic nature of an animatic, ascompared to its more dynamicfinished counterpart, permits theviewer to attend more fully tothe basic product characteristics,thereby inflating the communica-tion scores on those elements,and on their respective strengthof associations to the higherlevel meanings. •

ReferencesBunish, Christine. "A Lot More

Journal ot ADVERTISING RESEARCH—OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 1991 69


Sophisticated: Commitment toAnimatics Growing." Back Stage,September 11, 1987.

Cartwright, Dorwin. "SomePrinciples of Mass Persuasion."Human Relations 2, 3 (1949). 253-67.

Chattopadhyay, Amitava, andJoseph Alba. "The SituationaiImportance of Recall and Infer-ence in Consumer DecisionMaking." journal of Consumer Re-search 15, 1 (1988): 1-12.

Cohen, Joel B. "The Structure ofProduct Attributes: Defining At-tribute Dimensions for Planningand Evaluation." In Analytic Ap-proaches to Product and MarketingPlanning, Alan D. Shocker, ed.Cambridge, MA: Marketing Sci-ence Institute, 1979.

Endicott, R. Craig. "Philip Mor-ris ad spending muscles past $2billion." Advertising Age, Septem-ber 27, 1989.

Cengler, Charles E., and Thom-as J. Reynolds. "A StructuralModel of Advertising Effects."In Advertising Exposure, Memory,and Choice, Andrew A. Mitchell,ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erl-baum, in press.

Gresham, Larry G., and TerenceA. Shimp. "Attitude Toward theAdvertisement and Brand Atti-tudes: A Classical ConditioningPerspective." Journal of Advertis-ing 14, 1 (1985): 10-17.

Gutman, Jonathan. "A MeansEnd Chain Model Based on Con-sumer Categorization Process."journai of Marketing 46, 2 (1982):60-72.

Halliday, David Graham. "Test-ing Thrives; So Do AnimationHouses in NY." Back Stage, Sep-tember 10, 1982.

Homer, Pamela M., and Lynn R.Kahle. "A Structural EquationTest of the Value-Attitude-Be-havior Hierarchy." journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology 54, 4(1988): 638--16.

Howard, J. A. Consumer Behavior:Application of Theory. New York:McGraw-Hill Book Company,1977.

Laufer, Aliza. "Clients Press toTest: Many Factors Lead toRise." Back Stage, March 28,1986.

Levy, Sidney J. "InterpretingConsumer Mythology: A Struc-tural Approach to ConsumerBehavior." Joimial of Marketing45, 3 (1981): 49-61.

MacKenzie, Scott B.; Richard J.Lutz; and George E. Belch. "TheRole of Attitude Toward the Adas a Mediator of Advertising Ef-fectiveness: A Test of CompetingExplanations." Journal of Market-ing Research 23, 2 (1986): 130^3.

Mitchell, Andrew A., and JerryC. Olson. "Are Product At-tribute Beliefs the Only Mediatorof Advertising Effects on BrandAttitude?" journai of MarketingResearch 17, 3 (1981): 318-32.

Olson, Jerry C , and Thomas J.Reynolds. "Understanding Con-sumers Cognitive Structures: Im-plications for AdvertisingStrategy." In Advertising and Con-sumer Psychology, L. Percy andA. G. Woodside, eds. Lexington,MA: Lexington Books, 1983.

Peter, J. Paul, and Jerry Olson.Consumer Behavior: MarketingStrategy Perspectives. Homewood,IL: Irwin, 1987.

Reynolds, Thomas J., and AlyceCraddock. "The Application ofthe MECCAS Model to the De-velopment and Assessment of

Advertising Strategy: A CaseStudy." journal of Advertising Re-search 28, 2 (1988): 43-54.

, and Jonathan Gutman."Advertising Is ImageManagement." Journal of Adver-tising Research 24, 1 (1984): 27-37.

, and -. "LadderingTheory, Method, Analysis, andInterpretation." Journal of Adver-tising Research 28, 1 (1988): 11-31.

, and John Rochon."Means-End Based AdvertisingResearch: Copy Testing is NotStrategy Assessment." journal ofBusiness Research 22 (1991).

, and Minokshi Trivedi."An Investigation of the Rela-tionship between the MECCASModel and Advertising Affect."In Cognitive and Affective Re-sponses to Advertising, PatriciaCafferata and Alice Tybout, eds.Lexington, MA: LexingtonBooks, 1989.

Rokeach, Milton. The Nature ofHuman Values. New York, NY:Free Press, 1973.

Rosenberg, Milton. "CognitiveStructure and AttitudinalEffect." journal of Abnortnal andSocial Psychology 53, 3 (1956):367-72.'

Seggev, Eli. "Testing Persuasionby Strategic Positioning." Jourtialof Advertising Research 22, 1(1982): 37-42.

Vinson, Donald E.; Jerome E.Scott; and L. M. Lamont. "TheRole of Personal Values in Mar-keting and Consumer Behavior."Journal of Marketing 41, 2 (1977):44-50.

Young, Shirley, and Barbara Fei-gin. "Using the Benefit Chainfor Improved Strategy


S T R A T E G I C F R A M t W O R K

Appendix ASummary of Components (20) of Strata Interviewing Methodology

Part Strata intervievt^ing methodology

1.

5.

6.

8.

9.

10.

13.

19.

20.

View Ad A.

2.

3.

4.

Qualitative

View Ad B.

Qualitative

Questions

Questions

(e.g..

(e.g..

main

"main

point.

point,'

' etc.)

• etc.)

View Both Ads A and B.

Affect Statements (both Brand and Ad)."

7. Message Eiement Statements.*

Consumer Benefit Statements.'

View Both Ads A and B.

Executional Framework Statements."

11. Leverage Point Statements*

12- Driving Force Statements*

View Ad A.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

Ad

Ad

Ad

A

A

A

View

Ad B

Connections for ME to CB."

Connections for CB to LP."

Connections for

AdB.

Connections for

LP

ME

to DR."

to CB.**

Ad B Connections for CB to LP.**

Ad B Connections for LP to DF."

'Administration of two-step rating process. Step 1 involves answering a question to vi/hichad(s) the statement applies, if any. Step 2 involves, for each ad that the statement was appli-cable, judging to what degree." Administration of all adjacent levei pairs which were judged as applicable to the three-pointVenn diagram scale reflective of degree of connectedness.

Formulation." Journal of Market-ing 39, 3 (1975): 72-4.

Yuspeh, Sonia. " 'PACT. Posi-tioning Advertising Copy Test-ing, A Consensus Credo Repre-senting the Views of LeadingAmerican Advertising Agen-cies." journal of Advertising 11, 4(1982): 1-29.

ARF

Journal oi ADVERTISING RESEARCH—OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 1991 71

a strategic - thomasjreynolds.com · model. message elements refer to the differentiating physical...

Documents