7BSP1015 - Strategic Branding and Marketing Communications (Semester B 2010/11)

Strong vs. Weak Theory of Advertising Debate

Deniz Kurugollu

10283502

MSc Marketing

10th March 2011

Word count: 2608

‘How advertising works’ has been discussed for long times. What it is meant by ‘how advertising works’ is the impact an advertisement has on receivers, in particular, how consumers react to the communication message which carries the advertiser’s desired response (Moriatry et al, 2009). It appears that the debate is mainly gathered into two groups; whether advertising is a strong or weak force. Fundamentally, strong force proponents suggest that advertising is strong enough to add to consumers’ knowledge and change their attitudes toward a brand, and consequently is able to convert people from non-buyers to become buyers by persuading them, eventually generate sales (Jobber, 2010). On the other hand, weak theory proponents advocate that advertising has only a limited effect on consumers; hence it is not strong enough to convert people, who hold different beliefs from those in advertisement, and overcome their resistance. Therefore, advertising is mainly used to reinforce existing brand perceptions rather than change attitudes (Moriatry et al, 2009). In this respect, the weak theory of advertising is also called as ‘reinforcement’ or publicity model, whereas the strong theory is referred to ‘persuasion’ model (Ehrenberg et al, 1998; Ambler, 2000). The aim of this paper is to critically evaluate both schools of advertising. In this competitive vein, firstly, AIDA model (Strong, 1925), Lavidge and Steiner model (1961), DAGMAR (Colley, 1961) and the Elaboration Likelihood Model ( Petty and Cacioppo, 1983) will be touched on as the models of the strong theory, whereas ATR-N (Ehrenberg, 1998) as the single manifestation of the weak theory. Then, the both schools of advertising as a philosophy will be discussed. Finally, a clear conclusion with recommendations will follow.

The most frequently referred persuasion model to explain how advertising works is AIDA, originally invented by E. St Elmo Lewis, a salesman (Ambler, 2000). Later on, this model is adopted by advertising practitioners in a similar way to explain the communication process in advertising (see appendix 1). The model implies that advertising communication is a linear model. However, recent studies show that human brain does not process information based on the linear route (Heath and Feldwick, 2008). This model also indicates two roles for all ads. First one is the ‘informational role’ - making people aware of the offering; and second one is the ‘persuasive role’ - making people convince about the offering (Yeshin, 2006). Again, it might be argued that the first role is not always the case, for example, when the brand is already known by the customer. Likewise, the second role may not be achieved where there are small, or no differences to sell between competing brands, for instance, most ‘fast moving consumer markets’ (Ehrenberg, 1998).

Another mostly cited hierarchy model from the strong school is put forward by Lavidge and Steiner (1961). Similarly, the model offers several stages that consumers need to go through from awareness of the product or service being advertised up to purchase stage (see appendix 2). All stages until the purchase should be followed step by step, otherwise the desired outcome will not be accomplished (Yeshin, 2006). However, these steps do not need to take equal time – that is; consumers may experience several steps at once, or the interaction between stages may occur in the long-term (Barry and Howard, 1990). In this respect, this model recognizes the longer term effect of advertising. Yet, the main aim is still regarded as ‘purchase’.

1

The next hierarchy model from the strong school is DAGMAR, which stands for Defining Advertising Goals for Measured Advertising Results (Colley, 1961). As understood from its name, this model suggests a method to measure advertising impacts unlike its predecessors focusing on sales alone (Barry and Howard, 1990). In addition, Colley (in Yeshin, 2006) indicates to several concepts such as specific timescale, benchmarking, precise target audience so that advertising effectiveness can be measured accurately. It can therefore be concluded that DAGMAR model contributes to the understanding of overall process of marketing communication planning and measurement, instead of the selling process alone. But, still the ultimate goal is seen as ‘purchase’ (see appendix 3).

Above mentioned models from the strong school so far is dependent on hierarchy of effects, namely cognition (attention, awareness), affect (interest, desire) and conation (action, i.e. purchase). In other words, the hierarchy is based on ‘think – feel – do’. It seems that there is an agreement on these three stages; however, the order of them is the subject of most debate. From the various combinations of these three elements, researchers indicate to six alternative sequences (Kiesler, 1971; Kelly, 1973; Zajonc, 1980). However, Barry and Howard (1990) conclude that only four of them are empirically achieved. The appendix 4 illustrates these four models, integrated with so-called FCB matrix which considers low and high involvement situations in advertising communication process (Vaughn 1986). Each sequence therefore may explain how consumers react upon advertising to some extent.

These hierarchy models (based on cognition, affect, conation) are long times used as a conceptual tool which provides with information on where advertising strategies should focus (Yeshin, 2006). They are regarded as a heuristic tool in the minds of practitioners for helping them to organize, planning, training, etc (Barry and Howard, 1990). However, Vakratsas and Ambler (1999) point out that the persuasive hierarchy models are flawed because the models assume that the brain works through a series of stages; also, they ignore the consumer’s experience of previous product usage. They regard consumers as passive in the communication process, but as White (2000: 46) states “it is not what the advertiser puts into the ad that ultimately matters; it is what consumer takes out of the ad.” Furthermore, neuroscience reveals that the sequential nature of these models, no matter whether cognition precedes affect or other way around, is not the case because these brain functions are simultaneous and interactive (Ambler, 2000).

The last model from the strong school that is touched on in this paper is the Elaboration Likelihood Model (see appendix 5). As its predecessors, ELM is a model of information processing and persuasion (Lien, 2001). However, it should be noted that unlike the above mentioned models which are very simplistic in their portrayal of human behaviour and response, and regard consumer as passive whose decision to buy are influenced by only advertising; ELM takes into consideration of several factors such as consumers’ prior opinion, personal relevance, expertise, need for cognition, message repetition, and so on (Lien, 2001; Weilbacher, 2001, Vakratsas and Ambler, 1999).

2

Finally, before starting the discussion on the philosophies of both schools, the mechanism of the ATR-N model, single manifestation of the weak theory, is explained now. The appendix 6 represents the model. The model explains that advertising can initially arouse some awareness and interests (for a new brand) by announcing information which hopefully leads customers towards trial purchases, and then (for brands that have already been bought) provides reinforcement. During this process, some consumers may be nudged into buying the brand more often or to choose it over the competitive brands in their evoked sets. In this sense, it appears that, unlike the aggressive nature of the strong theory, the weak theory is more defensive in its spirit, yet still effective force (Ehrenberg, 1998).

In light of the above stated persuasion models, it can be concluded that the ultimate aim of advertising communication is to close the sales (i.e. purchase). The strong view, therefore, advocates that advertising is such a powerful force that makes consumers buy a product, which they have never previously purchased, by affecting their knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs. It aims at persuasion and growth. In this respect, advertising is able to build brands, generates extra sales in the short-term, and creates long-run purchasing behaviour, hence constant growth (White, 2000; Fill, 2009).

On the other hand, the weak view proposes that the main aim of advertising is to provide brand salience (being in one’s consideration set) by keeping consumers aware of the brand. This is achieved through repetition in order to strengthen the memory (Ehrenberg et al, 1998). In this sense, advertising is believed to work in the longer term. Moreover, Ehrenberg claims that attitude change is not a compulsory predecessor to purchase (Heath and Feldwick, 2008). Such that, Millward Brown (in Ambler, 2000: 2) reveals that unlike what is believed in the persuasion models, consumer attitudes do not precede brand behaviour, but vice versa. This finding, therefore, supports the weak theory. In this context, Ambler (1998: 501) notes that “when you get marketing and advertising research showing that logical persuasion (cognition) is important; probably the reason is that they did not measure anything else”.

Since the AIDA model comes originally from the personal selling perspective, it is not surprising to understand the ‘short-term sales growth’ penchant of the strong theory proponents. Jones (1997: 6) states:

“...in the short term, advertising is demonstrably capable of generating a powerful effect on consumer purchasing...effective advertising sells. Advertising is indeed salesmanship.”

This shows the notion of strong theory clearly. Because of the personal selling analogy, it can be inferred that advertising is regarded as a tool to close sales. In the same vein, it is seen as short-term, i.e. ‘see ad, buy now’. Hereupon, Ehrenberg et al (1998: 11) ask that “what would the world look like if many or most people were to respond directly to most ads they see?” As a matter of fact, most advertised brands cannot all grow.

3

From this discussion, considering today’s marketing communication approach where each elements of communication mix (in fact, marketing mix) are suggested to be integrated, one may find the above statement hard to believe, at least to prove its validity (Kotler, 2005). Sales might be driven by various factors such as positive word of mouth, interaction with salesman, current mood of the customer and so on as well as advertising. Thus, just because it has been advertising, and sales increase, it is not safe to assume that only the advertising is responsible since isolating advertising from all other factors is difficult (White, 2000, Colley, 1961). Besides, regarding the other side of the coin where sales dramatically decrease after an advertising campaign, it would not be fair to charge only the advertising with the bad result. Therefore, it is evident that sales are the result of a combination of marketing factors, not only advertising (Weilbacher, 2001). In this respect, advertising alone does not seem to work as the persuasion models indicate – to close the sale by persuading consumers and changing their attitudes, moreover, in the short term (Ehrenberg, 1998; Ambler, 2000). However, some exceptions may be argued.

The persuasion models move all consumers from ‘awareness’ to ‘purchase’ stage in the short term. However, advertising generally is doomed to ‘delay effect’ (Yeshin, 2006). White (2000) states that people rarely take any instant action on seeing an ad, except for direct response ads. In this context, one may argue that direct response advertising tends to behave more like a promotional approach. Thus, Ehrenberg et al. (1998: 15) indicate that “informing consumers about this week’s price cut or the existence of a new brand is not ‘persuasive advertising” (see appendix 7 for examples). Furthermore, interactive TV ads where viewers press the button on the remote control and purchase a given offering can be proposed within the strong theory. However, at the time, it is expected viewers to know the brand beforehand [as the weak theory suggest “advertising works with experienced consumers for an already known brand” (Ehrenberg, 1998: 2)], or the product must be considered as low-involvement – i.e. low risk, low cost [again, this may already apply on ‘trial’ stage in the weak theory]. As a result, even in direct response ads, what the persuasion models assert is dubious. It might be suggested that if the ‘action’ stage in the strong theory models is defined such as click on a web-site, call a toll-free number; or integrated with sales promotions such as return an inquiry card, coupons and so on, instead of ‘purchase’, then advertising might apply on strong theory (see appendix 8 for examples).

The strong theory models regard consumers as rational, active purchasers in a way that they are actively seeking information to purchase a product. However, Moriatry et al (2009) state that consumers are not very interested in advertising. Also, the amount of information communicated is limited. Therefore, advertising is more effective at retaining customers rather than converting new ones. Likewise, Fill (2009) maintain that the time available in TV ad is not enough to bring about conversion, coupled with people’s ability to stop their cognitive involvement; there may be no effective communication.

4

There seems to be a consensus on the notion that strong theory may apply more on high involvement purchases – where there is high cost and risk such as car, education or new product purchases (Ewing and Jones, 2000; Ambler, 2000; Jobber, 2010). it might be difficult to understand this view; namely expecting consumers to buy a car based on merely advertising without talking to his friends, going test-drive, consulting with the salesperson; similarly, expecting the purchase of a new brand to be driven by only advertising without any effect of the brand assets such as packaging, price, design, and without any help of other communication mix elements, especially sale promotions.

The purpose of this essay was to evaluate the strong and weak theory of advertising debate and relevant models attached to each school. To conclude, it appears that the strong and weak theory discussion stem from the positioning of advertising. In this sense, the strong theory view could be regarded as ‘over-positioning’, i.e. advertising is able to close to sales, convert people from non-buyers to buyers, change their attitudes; in fact, does all of them in the short term; whereas the weak theory as ‘under-positioning’, i.e. advertising only refreshes brand awareness, maintain salience, and hopefully nudges some consumers. In this respect, both of them are far from qualifying advertising role accurately. This might be because both views, one way or another, are dependent on sales-orientation (i.e. ‘trial’ = first purchase by the weak theory; ‘action’ = purchase by the strong theories). Nevertheless, considering the nature of the discussion, one may find the weak theory more reasonable in the real life, especially in fmcg markets, habitual purchases where there are few differences between products. The strong theory, in a way that the models suggest, seems able to work in direct response ads, albeit arguable.

To refer to the image on the cover page, both the pawn (advertising based on weak theory) and the king (advertising based on strong theory) have their unique powers and abilities. In this sense, they are both effective and have the same importance in the game. The case is to appreciate that they (i.e. advertising) are just one of the players on the chessboard which refers to ‘marketing communication’ where all players are integrated.

It can be suggested that the role of advertising should be looked for beyond its ability to generate sales. In particular, it is dependent on a range of communication objectives such as create awareness, stimulate trial, position products, create image, correct misconceptions, remind and reinforce, provide support for sales force, and so on (Jobber, 2010). It can therefore be noted that advertising works better regarding different objectives and responses. In this context, the ‘Frameworks’ model by Hall and Maclay (in White, 2000: 47), the ‘Strategic Experiential Modules’ (Schmitt, 1999), the ‘Facet Model’ (Moriatry et al, 2009) could be recommended to evaluate advertising effectiveness. A full discussion of these models is not within the bounds of this essay. However, further research to focus on them in regards to ‘how ads work’ may be a worthwhile area of study.

5

References

Ambler, T. (1998) ‘Myths about the mind: time to end some popular beliefs about how advertising works’. International Journal of Advertising. 17 (4), pp. 501–509.

Ambler, T. (2000) ‘Persuasion, pride, prejudice: how ads work’. International Journal of Advertising. 19 (3) [Downloaded from WARC].

Barry, E.T. and Howard, J.D. (1990) ‘A review and critique of the hierarchy of effects in advertising’. International Journal of Advertising. 9 (2), pp. 121-135.

Colley, R. (1961) Defining Advertising Goals for Measured Advertising Result. Association of National Advertisers: New York.

Ehrenberg, A.S.C., Bernard, N., Scriven, J. (1998) ‘Justifying our advertising budgets: an overview’. WARC. Conference Papers. March.

Fill, C. (2009) Marketing Communications: interactivity, communities and content. 5th ed. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.

Gold, H. (2010) ‘Interactive TV ads: real life examples’. Available at: http://www.clickz.com/clickz/column/1697492/interactive-tv-ads-real-life-examples [Accessed 5th March 2011]

Heath, R. and Feldwick, P. (2008) ‘Fifty years using the wrong model of advertising’. International Journal of Market Research. 50 (1) [Downloaded from WARC].

Jobber, D. (2010) Principles and Practice of Marketing. 6th ed. Berkshire: McGraw Hill

Jones, J.P. (1990) ‘Advertising: Strong Force or Weak Force? Two Views an Ocean Apart’. International Journal of Advertising. 9 (July-September), pp 233-46.

Jones, J.P. (1997) ‘Is advertising still salesmanship?’ Journal of Advertising Research. 37 (3) [Downloaded from WARC].

Jones, J.P. and Ewing, M.T. (2000) ‘Agency beliefs in the power of advertising’. International Journal of Advertising. 19 (3) [Downloaded from WARC].

Kelley, C. A. (1973) ‘The process of causal attribution’. American Psychologist. 28, pp. 107-128.

Kiesler, C. A. (1971) The Psychology of Commitment: Experiments Linking Behavior to Belief. New York: Academic Press.

Kotler, P. (2005) Principles of Marketing. 4th ed. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.

Lavidge, R. J., & Steiner, G. A. (1961) ‘A model for predictive measurements of advertising effectiveness’. Journal of Marketing. 25, pp. 59-62.

Lien, N.H. (2001) ‘Elaboration likelihood model in consumer research: a review’. Proc. Natl. Sci. Counc. ROC (C). 11 (4), pp.301- 310.

Moriatry, S., Mitchell, N., Wells, W. (2009) Advertising: principles and practice. 8th ed. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1983) ‘Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement’. Journal of Consumer Research. 10, pp. 134-148.

Schmitt, H. B. (1999) Experiential marketing: how to get customers to sense, fell, think, act, and relate to your company and brands. New York: The Free Press

6

Strong, Jr., E. K. (1925) ‘Theories of selling’. The Journal of Applied Psychology. 9 pp. 75-86.

Vakratsas, D. and Ambler, T. (1999) ‘How Advertising Works: What Do We Really Know?’Journal of Marketing. 63 (1), pp. 26-43.

Vaughn, R. (1986) ‘How advertising works: a planning model revisited’. Journal of Advertising Research. 26, pp 57-66.

Weilbacher, W.M. (2001) ‘Does advertising cause a hierarchy of effects?’ Journal of Advertising Research. 41 (6), pp 19-26.

White, R. (2000) Advertising. 4th ed. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill.

Yeshin, T. (2006) Advertising. London: Thomson Learning.

Zajonc, R. B. (1980) ‘Feeling and thinking: preferences need no inferences’. American Psychologist. 35, pp.151-175.

7

Appendix 1: AIDA Model

This formula is proposed as an effective way to follow for personal selling. It suggests that a salesperson should first get customer’s attention, provoke interest, create desire for the product, and then get action by closing the sale (Heath and Feldwick, 2008). Therefore, AIDA model suggests that the first task of any campaign is to cut through the mess and get the attention of the consumer. The next stage is the prompt of an interest for the proposition. Then, the advertising needs to create a desire for the offering, and also to convict the potential consumer to buy the offering. Eventually, the consumer acts upon the advertising, namely, buys the product (Howard and Barry, 1990).

Adapted from; Jobber, 2010

Appendix 2: Lavidge & Steiner Model

Following awareness, consumers need to be informed about the product’s features and benefits, then they need to develop a liking towards it, then they need to prefer the given product over the similar ones, finally before the actual purchase occurs, consumers need to be persuaded by the offering and form a purchase intention.

Adapted from: Yeshin, 2006

Appendix 3: DAGMAR Model

Adapted from: Yeshin, 2006

8

Attention Interest Desire (Convinction)

Action (purchase)

Awareness Knowledge Liking Preference Convinction Purchase

Awareness Comprehension Convinction Action (purchase)

Appendix 4: The FCB Matrix

FCB model recognizes two dimensions in advertising communication mechanism. First one is the involvement level of purchase situations while the second dimension is about whether thinking precedes feeling, or vice versa. Low involvement situations refer to those that consumers do not spent much time to make purchase decision, where the cost is low, which involve less risk such as frequently purchased food items, cheap products, and so on. On the other hand, high involvement situations relate to those where there is high cost and risk such as car, education or new product purchases (Jobber, 2010). The second dimension refers to whether the product is selected primarily in terms of its functional benefits or emotional factors (White, 2000).

Adapted from: Yeshin, 2006; Barry and Howard, 1990

9

Appendix 6: The ATR-N Model

Source: Yeshin, 2006

Appendix 7: Persuasive ad examples

The following ads might lead consumers to immediate purchase, to switch brand, and therefore they can generate short term sales growth as the strong theory suggests. However, it is open to question whether the outcome is the result of advertising or the nature of the

10

Awareness Trial Reinforcement Nudging

Appendix 5: The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM)

As seen in the figure, this model recognizes the consumer’s ability and motivation to process information. After considering these antecedents, the model states that consumers follow one of the routes based on their elaboration likelihood. If the elaboration likelihood high – that is, when the consumer is highly involved in the message content - then he follows the central route to persuasion. On the other hand, if the elaboration likelihood is low – that is, when the consumer are not interested in the message content – then he follows peripheral cues (e.g. music, pictures, attractiveness, likability of ad) for attitude change (Lien, 2001). The difference could be seen between ‘hard-sell’ advertising (central route) and ‘soft- sell’ advertising (peripheral route).

Source: Fill (2009: 239)

information given in the ads. Consequently, the ad makes consumer aware of the offering and the brand itself as the weak theory suggests.

Source: tellyAds(2011) ‘Tesco - Get Set, Go Free!’. Available at: http://www.tellyads.com/show_movie.php?filename=TA11405 [Accessed 5th March 2011]

Source: tellyAds (2011) ‘Tesco - Half Price Christmas Specials’. Available at: http://www.tellyads.com/show_movie.php?filename=TA10062 [Accessed 5th March 2011]

Source: tellyAds (2011) ‘Tesco - Price Check Asda’. Available at: http://www.tellyads.com/show_movie.php?filename=TA4159 [Accessed 5th March 2011]

Appendix 8: Interactive TV ad / promotion examples

11

1) “When the ad appears, a green thumb appears in the right corner of the screen that reads, ‘Apply now for a valuable coupon from Charmin.’ When viewers click the thumb using their remote control, they are taken to a coupon request screen. The coupons are sent by mail.” (Gold, 2010)

2) “By clicking on ‘Order Your Pizza’ viewers can log-in with a simple account number, build their pizza order right from the television and get the pizza delivered by their local Domino's Pizza." (Gold, 2010)

3) “With the help of link available on video, consumers obtain additional information about the specific items (e.g. jacket in this video) and to make a purchase” (Gold, 2010)

12