an analysis of information content in television advertising · pdf filean analysis of...
TRANSCRIPT
Alan Resnik and Bruce L. Stem
An Analysis of Information Contentin Television Advertising
What do Chocks, Pizza Hut, Trident Sugarless Gum, and theU.S. Poison Center have in common?
THERE appears to be widespread controversybetween advertising practitioners and critics as
to the usefulness of information communicatedthrough advertising—especially television advertis-ing.' Tbe vast integration of TV into our daily lives,and its potential for shaping viewers' behavior,makes television commercial content a critical areafor public-policy decisions.^ In the words of RobertPitorsky, the FTC's former head of Consumer Pro-tection:
Those forms of advertising which are es-sentially non-informative in charactermay raise questions as to their funda-mental fairness, their conformity withtraditional economic justifications foradvertising upon which a free and rea-sonably informed choice may be made,and the extent to which such advertisingis designed to exploit such fears or anx-ieties as social acceptance or personalwellbeing without fulfilling the desiresraised.^
About The AuthorsALAN RESNIK and BRUCE L STERN are both Assis-tant Professors of Marketing at Portland State Univer-sity, Portland, Oregon.
John Clement, Canadian Minister of Con-sumer and Commercial Relations, has described as"amazing" the number of broadcast commercialsthat contain no facts or worthwhile information."*Presumably, every commercial transmits some in-formation by transmitting visual and audio stimulithat provide meaningful cues to at least some por-tion of the audience. The issue under scrutiny,however, is whether these informational cues arerelevant enough to assist a typical buyer in makingan intelligent choice among alternatives.
The determination of the informational valueof TV advertising has importance to advertisers,networks, government, and consumers. The ulti-mate judgement, whatever it may be, should facili-tate decisions that are both in the interest of theeconomy and of the consumer.
Operational DefinitionIt is somewhat surprising that no known attempthas been made to empirically investigate this im-portant question. One major reason is the difficultyof constructing a definition that is both objectiveand representative when so many value judgmentsare involved. But isn't it possible to have an opera-tional definition?
As suggested, in order for a commercial to beconsidered informative, it must permit a typicalviewer to make a more intelligent buying decisionafter seeing the commercial than before seeing it. Inother words, it must provide ewes that enable view-
50
Information Content in TV Ads / 51
ers to better achieve their own personal sets of pur-chase objectives (whatever they may be).
The study related here uses such an opera-tional definition, applying evaluative criteria thatcan be transmitted through audio and visual stim-uli. By constructing a comprehensive list of thesecues, we enabled independent judges to consis-tently arrive at the same conclusion concerning theinformation content of a given commercial.
We fully realize that in a very real sense infor-mation is "in the eye of the beholder." To thisextent, the idea of creating an infallible instrumentfor measuring information content is unrealistic.However, we feel that our approach does providepublic-policy decision makers and others with areliable discriminator.
MethodologyIn order to test the information content of the com-mercials, it was first necessary to operationallydefine what is considered to be useful information.Fourteen evaluative criteria reflecting product char-acteristics were ultimately chosen to gauge whethercommercials were deemed informative or non-informative. These criteria represent a morphologyof factors identified as information cues whichcould potentially be used in intelligent decision-making. In evaluating each commercial againstthese criteria, the evaluators were asked, "Does thisadvertisement communicate any of the followingcues about the product, service, or institution?"(See Exhibit 1.)
Exhibit 1Evaluative Criteria
1.cvi3.4.
5.6.7.8.
Price or ValueQualityPerformanceComponents orContentsAvailabilitySpecial OffersTastePackaging or Sfiape
9.
10.11.12.
13.
14.
Guarantees orWarranteesSafetyNutritionIndependentResearchCompany-SponsoredResearchNew Ideas
A commercial needed only to communicate one ofthe 14 criteria (informational cues) to be considered"informative."
It should be noted that this classification wasdesigned in a way that minimized the possibilityof identifying an advertisement as uninformativewhen, in fact, it may have been informative. Forexample, the veracity of the information given in acommercial was unquestioned. The "information"
presented in each commercial was evaluated at facevalue without subjectively evaluating each adver-tisement for truthfulness, credibility, deceptive-ness, or the soundness of the evidence presented.
A total of 378 commercials broadcast by thethree major networks were included in this study'ssample. A mulh-stage random sampling procedurewas used to select the commercials, viewing days,times, and the like.
Ultimately, an equal number of commercialswere viewed during the weekend and the week-days; on the ABC, CBS, and NBC networks; andduring morning, afternoon, and evening time pe-riods. If identical advertisements appeared morethan once, then only the original advertisement wasused.
Observations of the national advertisementswere taken between the following time periods(during a portion of April 1975): weekdays from9:00 to 12:00 a.m., 12:00 to 4:00 p.m., and 7:00 to11:00 p.m.; and weekends from 8:00 to 12:00 a.m.,12:00 to 4:00 p.m., and 7:00 to 11:00 p.m. SampUngduring these time periods allowed for a good rep-resentation of commercials aired on each networkover the course of a normal programming day.
All 378 commercials were color video-tapedand later played back for the purpose of reviewingeach advertisement's content. That way, the re-searchers were not rushed, and accurate evaluationscould be made as to the informational classificationof each commercial based on the 14 evaluative crite-ria. Video-taping the advertisements further per-mitted the researchers to replay difficult-to-evaluatecommercials many times until the evaluation oftheir content had been agreed upon—altbough lackof agreement occurred in surprisingly few in-stances. For each commercial that was analyzed, theresearchers determined whether it was informativeor non-informative; and if informative, they notedwhich informative criteria were communicated.
Results and AnalysisPossibly the most startling aspects of this study'sfindings can be pinpointed by presenting the pro-portion of commercials that were evaluated as "in-formative" (see Exhibit 2).
For the total sample, less than one-half of theadvertisements were deemed informative. Of thistotal, the non-informative advertisements predom-inantly appear to be those broadcast during theweekday afternoons and the weekend morn-ings—with both recording a proportion of informa-tive advertisements below 35%. More positively,weekday morning and evening commercials aired
52 / Journal of Marketing, January 1977
Exhibit 2Proportion of Television Advertisements Evaluated as Informative
Sample/ConditionNumber
Evaluated
378189636363
189636363
126126126
1442493522936
Informative Advertisements(as a percentage)
49.2%50.3%57.1%33.3%60.3%48%34.9%49.2%60.3%46%41.3%60.3%
45.8%75%39.8%46.2%69%58.3%
Total Sample of AdvertisementsTotal Weekday Advertisements
Weekday Morning AdvertisementsWeekday Afternoon AdvertisementsWeekday Evening Advertisements
Total Weekend AdvertisementsWeekend Morning AdvertisementsWeekend Afternoon AdvertisementsWeekend Evening Advertisements
Total Morning AdvertisementsTotal Afternoon AdvertisementsTotal Evening Advertisements
Food AdvertisementsInstitutional AdvertisementsPersonal Care Product AdvertisementsLaundry and Household Product AdvertisementsHobby, Toy and Transportation Advertisements"Other" Product Advertisement
during the weekday and weekend proved to beinformative approximately 60% of the time.
In addition to time placement, the nature ofthe product seemed to account for differences in thequahty and quantity of information communicated.All of the products communicated in the advertise-ments were grouped into relatively homogeneousclassifications. Advertisements for food, personalcare, and laundry and household products tendedto be informative in less than 50% of the record-ed instances. On the other hand, institutional,toy, hobby, transportation, and "other" advertise-ments had a higher proportion of informative ad-vertisements than non-informative.
These findings should be tempered by the factthat the previously mentioned "informative" prod-uct categories contained only 89 (23.5%) of thesample's 378 commercials, while the remaining 289(76.5%) of the sample's advertisements were asso-ciated with those product classifications that werelargely non-informative.
The one-cue criterion used to judge the infor-mativeness of a commercial is quite liberal. Becauseof this, the proportion of non-informative adver-tisements might be understated.
• If the criterion for informativeness werechanged, and a commercial needed to com-municate at least two different types of infor-mational cues, 61 of the sample's advertise-ments, or 16%, would have been deemed in-formative.
• If the criterion would have been the com-munication of three different informationalcues, only four commercials, or l°b of the totalsample, would have been classified as infor-mative.
ConclusionsEven the most favorable results of this study pointto the fact that television commercials have room forimprovement in providing useful informationalcues to the consuming public. On an overall basis,the study's findings paint a gloomy picture in thatless than half of the sample's advertisements metthe liberal criteria of possessing useful informa-tional cues.
An important implication stemming from thestudy's results is that non-informative advertisingmight be an implicit admission that the product sodescribed fails to fulfill any unique or relevantneeds of the customer—be they taste, value, etc.From an opportunistic standpoint, has the copy-writer not overlooked potential advertising effec-tiveness by ignoring customer needs which ulti-mately led a company to produce its product? Ad-vertising in the consumer interest should beginwith the communication of features and competi-tive advantages Vv̂ hich the consumer can use mak-ing an intelligent decision in the marketplace.
If such non-informative advertising contin-ues, a relevant question for advertisers is whetheradvertising will be effective in persuading an in-creasingly better educated, more aware, and more
Information Content in TV Ads / 53
Exhibit 3Types of Informational Cues
Food
Institutional
Personal Care Products
Laundry & Household Products
Hobbies. Toys, & Transportatior
Other
TotalChi-square equals 35.57, p < .1
Appearing in
No. Cues
82
6
54
27
1 8
13
19015
Advertisements of
1 Cue
44
11
25
19
15
13
127
Different Product
2 Cues
18
7
14
6
6
10
6 1 "
Classifications
Total
144
24
93
52
29
36
378
3 Cues
1
2
1
0
0
0
4"
a. The following is a list of the 61 commercials which communicated two or more informational cues: Shake & Bake,Kimbies, Betty Crocker Sour Cream Potatoes, Gerber Peanut Spread, Tone, Bufferin, Alberto V05, Aim, MercuryOutboard Motors, Spray n Wash, Hostess Crum Cakes, Tegnn, Morton Lite Salt, Vets Dog Food, Charmin, CorningCounter Saver, Prudential Insurance, Montgomery Ward, Excedrin, Keds, Shell No-Pest Strip (ad #1), US, PoisonCenter, Sears 10-Speed Bike (ad #1), Bazooka Bubble Gum, Chocks, J.C Penney, Shell No-Pest Strip (ad #2), Honda,Formula 409, Easy-Off Oven Cleaner, Pillsbury Chocolate Chip Cookies, Black & Decker Mod 4, Crisco, Sears 10-SpeedBike (ad #2), Kal Kan Dog Food, PhisoDerm, Good Will Industries. Wards Shock Absorbers, Maybelline, Sears Jeans,Avon. Aren Grass Bagger, Brachs, Colgate Toothpaste, Comet, Grape Nuts (ad #1), Fantastik, Carnation InstantBreakfast, Grape Nuts (ad #2), Eureka Vacuum, Pampers, AMC Pacer, Ford Granada, Kellogg Breakfast Cereals, Jello,DiGel, Raisin Bran, Pizza Hut, Triden Sugarless Gum.b. The four commercials communicating three or more informational cues were: Trident Sugarless Gum, Pizza Hut,Chocks, U.S. Poison Center.
sophisticated consumer. A non-informative adver-tising policy may self-destruct by virtue of the factthat the consumer, especially in present inflationarytimes, is seeking relevant product information andwill purchase products that can show real benefitsover existing alternatives.
There is possibly a moral dilemma posed bythe use of non-informative appeals during broad-cast periods in which the largest proportion of theaudience are children, who may be too young toresist or even be conscious of attempts at persua-sion by advertisers."^ This, in conjunction withother related findings, raises the question as towhether more or different types of government in-tervention and/or industry self-policing are neces-sary to protect vulnerable audience components.
The study has purposely avoided the possibil-ity that image and psychologically related appealsare informative to the typical consumer. Someproduct purchases might be at least partially madeon such a basis, but that too is an empirical ques-tion that has not yet been satisfactorily answered.Further research into this area may provide fruitfulinsights into which of these appeals, if any, theconsumer finds useful in making buying decisions.
It is hoped that this study and others like it
will empirically and objectively test the all-impor-tant issue of the information value of advertising.When the findings are analyzed and synthesized byadvertisers and government bodies, the end resultmay be the maintenance or adjustment of advertis-ing policies that are in the best interest of the econ-omy and the buying public.
ENDNOTES1. See Jules Backman, "Is Advertising Wasteful?", Jour-nal of Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 1 (January 1968), pg. 7.2. See Herbert E. Krugman, "The Impact of TelevisionAdvertising: Learning Without Involvement," The PublicOptuion Quarterly, Vol. 29, Fall 1965, pp. 349-56.3. See Philip Kotler, "A Generic Concept of Marketing,"Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36 No 2, April 1972, pp.46-54; and Philip Kotler and Sidney J. Levy, "Broadeningthe Concept of Marketing," Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33No. 1 (January 1969), pp. 10-15.4. "Canada Consumer Chief Hits Ad Role in Economy,"Advertismg Age, Vol. 45, September 30, 1974, pg. 8.5. See Anees A. Sheikh, V. Kanti Prasad, and TanniruRao, "Children's TV Commercials: A Review of Re-search," journal of Communicatious, Vol. 24, Autumn1974, pp. 126-36.