Journal of Business Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

JBR-08091; No of Pages 8

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

A study of the antecedents of slogan liking

Mayukh Dass a,⁎,1, Chiranjeev Kohli b,2, Piyush Kumar c,3, Sunil Thomas b,4

a Rawls College of Business, Texas Tech University, MS 2101, Lubbock, TX, United Statesb Mihaylo College of Business and Economics, California State University, P.O. Box 6848, Fullerton, CA 92834-6848, United Statesc Terry College of Business, University of Georgia, 130 Brooks Hall, Athens, GA, United States

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: + 806 834 1924; fax: +E-mail addresses: mayukh.dass@ttu.edu (M. Dass), cko

pkumar@terry.uga.edu (P. Kumar), sunilthomas@fullerton1 All authors have contributed equally. The authors are2 Tel.: +1 657 278 3796.3 Tel.: +1 706 542 2123; fax: +1 706 542 7177.4 Tel.: +1 657 278 3646.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.05.0040148-2963/© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Dass,M., et al., A stuj.jbusres.2014.05.004

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 9 January 2014Received in revised form 6 May 2014Accepted 9 May 2014Available online xxxx

Keywords:SloganBrandAdvertisingLikeabilityAffectBilinear model

A slogan is an integral component of a brand's advertising platform that helps shape its identity and define its po-sitioning. While prior literature has focused on the recall of slogans, knowledge regarding why consumers likesome slogansmore than others is still limited. This paper uses data from a large field study to explore the key fac-tors that determine the likeability of slogans. It uses a bilinear mixed model to assess the relative importance ofslogan characteristics,media expenditure, and respondent characteristics as antecedents of slogan likeability. Thefindings suggest that the liking for a slogan may be unrelated to media expenditure, and driven largely by theclarity of themessage, the exposition of the benefits, rhymes, and creativity. Further, in sharp contrast to industrypractice and conventional belief, the study finds that jingles or brevity have no systematic effects on thelikeability of slogans.

© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Slogans are short, memorable phrases that are often used to sign offon advertisements. They characterize a large proportion of brand adver-tising and are designed to attract consumer attention, crystallize brandpositioning, increase advertising memorability, and improve brandaffinity (Keller, 1993). Effective slogans also contribute to the marketvalue of firms (Mathur & Mathur, 1995), and sustain them throughadvertising campaigns, product cycles, and business cycles (Kohli,Leuthesser, & Suri, 2007). Therefore, it is not surprising that firmsoften spend millions of dollars in slogan development and promotion(Edwards, 2011). Yet, while some, such as DeBeers' 1938 slogan, “ADiamond is Forever,” or Allstate Insurance Company's 1956 slogan,“You're in Good Hands with Allstate,” endure the test of time, others,such as Dodge's 1954 slogan, “Elegance in Action,” or Pepsi's, “AnyWeather is Pepsi Weather,” do not. Such wide variation in their effec-tiveness or longevity raises questions about what makes customerslike some slogans and not others.

806 834 2199.hli@fullerton.edu (C. Kohli),.edu (S. Thomas).listed in alphabetical order.

dy of the antecedents of sloga

The literature on slogans, though limited, has broadly focused on ex-amining the relationship between slogans and brand equity, delineatingslogan characteristics, and exploring the antecedents of slogan recall.For example, Dahlén and Rosengren (2005) find that consumers evalu-ate brands with strong slogans more favorably, which increases brandequity. Boush (1993) finds that slogans help prime attributes that areincluded in it, and improve the perceptions of brands that share theseattributes. Pryor and Brodie (1998) replicate these findings and providefurther evidence that slogans help support brand image. Petty,Cacioppo, and Schumann (1983) find that advertising recall can beenhanced by increasing consumers' cognitive involvement via moder-ately complicated slogans rather than necessarily “keeping it simple.”Lamons (1997) suggests that a slogan is often the mechanism forsigning off on advertisements and plays a central role in a brand'smarketing strategy.

Taken together, the literature suggests that slogans assist in adver-tising and brand recall, transfer positive affect to the brand, and helppromote attributes that can strengthen brand image. However, whileprior research has explored the factors that lead to a higher recall of slo-gans (Kohli, Thomas, & Suri, 2013), and the selective promotion of attri-butes (Boush, 1993), there is virtually no research on what makesslogans likeable. As a result, while it is known that the liking for a slogantransfers over to the brand, there is inadequate guidance for whatmakes a slogan likeable to begin with. This paper addresses this issue,and attempts to identify characteristics of slogans that increase theirlikeability.

The rest of the paper is presented as follows. The next Section reviewsthe literature on slogans, followed by a description of the data, and the

n liking, Journal of Business Research (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

2 M. Dass et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

model used to estimate the proposed effects. Thereafter, the key find-ings are presented from the estimation of the model, and the papercloses with their managerial implications and an outline for future re-search in the area.

2. The likeability of slogans

Brands are valuable corporate assets that are often worth billions ofdollars, and constitute a large component of the total value of manyfirms (Crimmins, 2000). Keller (1993) suggests that there are three in-tegral elements of a brand's identity—name, logo, and slogan. Thebrand name is the anchor and often one of the foundations of a brand'sidentity. Several studies suggest that the spelling of brand names affectstheir recall (Luna, 2013), their naming structure affects the evaluation ofextensions (Sood & Keller, 2012), and their alphanumeric characteris-tics affect customer preferences (Gunasti & Ross, 2010). However, be-cause the name typically comprises of one or a few words, it oftenfaces limitations in terms of being able to fully explain the meaning ofa brand. Further, because a brand name is enduring, it cannot be easilyadjusted to accommodate changes in the marketplace or in the brand'spositioning.

A logo is the second component of a brand's identity and, because ofits universal graphics language, can often transcend geographicalboundaries and language barriers. Extant research on logos has focusedon the relationships among logo design, information processing, andbrand preference (e.g., Janiszewski & Meyvis, 2001). Park, Eisingerich,Pol, and Park (2013) suggest that logos also influence brand commit-ment and firm performance. However, much like the brand's name, itslogo is also enduring, open to subjective interpretation, and not easilyadjustable.

As a result, slogans tend to shouldermuch of the burden of articulat-ing a brand's long-term positioning or the medium-term changes to it.Therefore, it is not surprising that most brands today use slogans intheir communication with their multiple stakeholders, including cus-tomers, employees, and even investors (e.g., Mathur & Mathur, 1995).In this endeavor, brand managers tend to focus on making slogansmemorable, likeable, and meaningful (Cui, Hu, & Griffith, 2014). How-ever, because slogan recall in itself may not be enough to drive brand at-titudes (Kohli et al., 2013), it is also important to understand the driversof consumers' affective responses to slogans. The hierarchy of effectsmodel would suggest that a positive affective response to a slogan willlikely lead to higher preference, conviction, and purchase likelihoodfor the brand (Smith, Chen, & Yang, 2008). A similar link between mes-sage likeability and brand preference has also been documented in theadvertising and brand communication literature (e.g. Vakratsas &Ambler, 1999). However, a review of the academic literature and thetrade press, as well as discussions with practicing brand managers andadvertising professionals, suggests that the current understanding ofwhat really makes slogans likeable is rather superficial. Consequently,the current practice for developing slogans is largely based onunverified beliefs or heuristics, such as “slogans should be short, catchy,and have a jingle.” However, it is unclear whether such simplistic anduniversal prescriptions make slogans more likeable.

2.1. Factors affecting the likeability of slogans

A slogan is a message from a brand to a current or a potential cus-tomer and is containedwithin a larger piece of advertising. From a com-munications perspective, the response to a message sent from a sourceis a function of the content, the medium, and the receiver's personalcharacteristics (Stern, 1994). Therefore, broadly speaking, the likeabilityof a slogan is expected to be a function of its own characteristics andthose of its recipients. Further, because the frequency with which mes-sages are repeated tends to have an impact on the generated affect(Keiser, 1975), the media expenditure supporting a brand's advertisingis expected to positively affect the likeability of slogans.

Please cite this article as: Dass,M., et al., A study of the antecedents of slogaj.jbusres.2014.05.004

2.1.1. Slogan characteristics

2.1.1.1. Message clarity. The purpose of a slogan is to deliver a clear andfocused message to consumers to help articulate the benefits providedby the brand and generate positive affinity for it. Prior research(Eighmey & McCord, 1998) suggests that several factors, combinedunder the umbrella of clarity of purpose, lead to a better interpretationof the information received. Communications research also finds a pos-itive relationship between message clarity and liking for the messagesponsor (e.g., Sidelinger & McCroskey, 1997). Therefore, the clarity ofthe message is expected to have a positive effect on the liking for a slo-gan as well.

2.1.1.2. Inclusion of benefit. Slogans can be effective vehicles for brand po-sitioning. Many iconic slogans such as Chevy Blazer's “Like a Rock” andMorton Salt's “When it rains, it pours” have helped shape the percep-tions of the respective brands in the minds of the consumers. In thisregard, benefit-based positioning has some advantages over other posi-tioning methods. It tends to draw a more favorable response from con-sumers than feature-based positioning (Fuchs & Diamantopoulos,2010), and also generates a stronger positive affect (e.g., Mahajan andWind, 2002). Therefore, slogans which include a benefit is expected tobe more liked than those that do not.

2.1.1.3. Creativity. One of the key criteria that determines advertisingcreativity is divergence or the extent to which an advertisement isnovel or different (Smith et al., 2008). Creative advertisements generatefavorable emotional responses and tend to be likeable (Ang & Low,2000; Goldenberg, Mazursky, & Solomon, 1999). Slogans are also linkedwith creativity (Sternberg & Lubart, 1999) because the originality ofmessages is known to play a significant role in increasing recognition(Pick, Sweeney, & Clay, 1991), motivating information processing(Smith, Mackenzie, Yang, Buchholz, & Darley, 2007), and improvingpreference (Pieters, Warlop, & Wedel, 2002). Therefore, this study hy-pothesizes that creativity will have a positive effect on slogan liking.

2.1.1.4. Brand and product appropriateness. The role of fit or appropriate-ness has been studied extensively in themarketing literature. For exam-ple, brand extensions are viewed more favorably if the brand is a goodfit with the extension category (Keller, 1990). Within the brand com-munications literature, incongruence between the message and thebrand is known to increase consumers' cognitive load, force them togenerate counter-arguments against the message, and view the brandless positively (Slater & Rouner, 2002). Therefore, a slogan that isviewed as appropriate for its brand is expected to be better liked thanone that is not. For similar reasons, a slogan that is viewed as appropri-ate for its product category will also be better liked than one that is not.

2.1.1.5. Rhymes and music. Slogans are characterized not only by themessage they carry but also by the modality of the delivery. Some ofthemostwidely-used execution devices that influencemodality includerhymes (Szpunar, Schellenberg, & Pliner, 2004) and music or jingles(Stewart, 1998; Yalch, 1991). The widespread use of rhymes in slogansis not surprising because artful and decorative language tends to in-crease elaboration and liking (Toncar & Munch, 2001). More broadly,stylistic elements such as rhyme, antithesis, metaphor, and pun havebeen shown to generate positive attitudes toward an advertisement(McQuarrie & Mick, 1999).

The music used in advertising serves as a mnemonic, which makesaudiences more receptive to the brand message by creating a more fa-vorable state of mind (Hecker, 1984). Music also enhances a global feel-ing of liking (MacInnis & Park, 1991), especially if it fits well with themessage. Interestingly, in addition to increasing consumers' affective re-sponse, music also increases the effectiveness of advertising through acognitive route, by enhancing the information processing of the brandmessage (MacInnis & Park, 1991). As a result, music indirectly helps

n liking, Journal of Business Research (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

3M. Dass et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

with advertising recall aswell, especiallywhennoother supportive cuesare available (Yalch, 1991).

However, the evidence in support of music's positive effect onadvertising memorability and likeability is somewhat mixed (Stout,Leckenby, & Hecker, 1990). While several researchers find that musicenhances the memorability of advertising (e.g., Stewart & Furse,1985), others do not find support for this effect (e.g., Galizio &Hendrick, 1972). The absence of a universal effect of music in advertis-ing can be at least partially explained by noting that messages in a mu-sical format are more likely to be processed phonetically rather thansemantically. Therefore, it may be difficult for individuals to retrievethe textual content of messages communicated with music when themusic itself is absent (Galizio & Hendrick, 1972). However, on balance,both jingles and rhymes are expected to have a positive effect on sloganlikeability.

2.1.1.6. Brand name inclusion. Slogans are purposeful messages that canprime specific attributes and associate it with a brand (Boush, 1993).However, more recent research (Laran, Dalton, & Andrade, 2011) sug-gests that slogansmay sometimes have a reverse priming effect becauseconsumers may interpret them as too persuasive and respond adverse-ly. By implication, slogans that include the brand name are more likelyto be interpreted as overly persuasive relative to those that do not.Therefore, this study expects that the inclusion of the brand name inthe slogan will reduce its likeability.

2.1.1.7. Length. The cognitive cost model (Todd & Benbasat, 1992) sug-gests that consumers have limited cognitive abilities, which affectstheir performance in decision-making tasks as well as their affective re-sponses to stimuli. As a result, if the cognitive load necessary to processinformation increases, the liking toward the source of the informationtends to decline (Payne, 1982). Within this context, the length of theslogan is expected to contribute to its overall complexity and will ad-versely influence its likeability. Therefore, shorter slogans will be likedmore than longer ones.

2.1.2. Exposure in mediaExtant marketing literature suggests that multiple exposures to

stimuli tend to have a positive effect on consumer liking (Cox & Cox,2002; Janiszewski, 1993). For example, Cox and Cox (1988) find thatconsumers' evaluation of complex advertisements in particular in-creases with repeated exposure. Stang and O'Connell (1974) showthat learning through numerous exposures leads to satisfaction and in-creases liking. More generally, research on the exposure effect suggeststhat repeated exposure tends to increase the liking for a stimulusthrough increased perceptual and conceptual fluency (Janiszewski &Meyvis, 2001). Therefore, this study hypothesizes that an increase inthe exposure to slogans will increase their likeability.

The degree of exposure will be a function of the duration overwhicha slogan lasts and the frequency of exposure within that time frame.This suggests that the age of a slogan can serve as a proxy for the firstcomponent.With regard to the second, the literature points to a positivelinear relationship between advertising expenditure and exposure(Snyder, Milici, Slater, Sun, & Strizhakova, 2006). An earlier study(Keiser, 1975), using a large multistage sample, also finds a high corre-lation between brand and slogan awareness and the extent of advertis-ing in mass media. Combining these with the “mere exposure” effect(Batra & Ray, 1986), it is hypothesized that a slogan's age and theadvertising expenditure will have a positive effect on slogan liking.

2.1.3. Respondent characteristicsRecent research suggests that men and women process information

differently (Hill & Motes, 1995), with women requiring more informa-tion while making decisions (e.g., Laroche, Saad, Cleveland, & Browne,2000). Several studies also find gender differences in shopping behavior(Fischer & Arnold, 1994) and consumer judgment (Dubé & Morgan,

Please cite this article as: Dass,M., et al., A study of the antecedents of slogaj.jbusres.2014.05.004

1996). These factors, in turn, tend to lead to lower levels of satisfactionamong women than among men. By way of analogy, men are expectedto like slogans more than women would.

Extant literature has also documented both positive and negative ef-fects of age on the amount of information processing (Hill & Motes,1995). The social psychology literature suggests that older adults takelonger to process information than younger ones (e.g., Mata, Schooler,& Rieskamp, 2007). Similarly, the cognitive processing literature sug-gests thatmental abilities (Gazzaley &D'Esposito, 2007) and attentionalcapabilities (Zacks & Hasher, 1997) decline with age. Therefore, olderindividuals are more likely to experience cognitive overload while pro-cessing the messages contained in slogans and are therefore likely tohave a weaker affective response toward them.

Finally, Shavitt, Lowrey, and Haefner (1998) find that people withlow income tend to have more favorable attitudes toward advertisingin general, as well as toward advertising content. Although, slogansare structurally different from advertisements, they are still similar inthat both are marketing messages intended to support brands. There-fore, this study hypothesizes that income will have a negative effecton slogan liking as well.

3. Methodology

3.1. Data

Past research on slogans, barring some exceptions (e.g., Mathur &Mathur, 1995), has generally involved testing a limited number of slo-gans in laboratory settings with student samples. In order to increasethe external validity of this research, this study (1) uses actual brandslogans rather than fictitious ones, (2) tests an extensive list of slogansrather than a limited number, and (3) investigates the likeability ofthese slogans with real-world respondents rather than student subjectsin a laboratory. Because a study along these lines on slogans has notbeen done in the past, a unique research design is adopted and data iscollected in two phases. The purpose of the first phase was to reducethe large universe of slogans to those thatwere at least somewhat famil-iar to themarket. This stage was important because liking is conditionalon familiarity and therefore, completely unknown slogans were exclud-ed from this study, which respondents will be unable to evaluatemeaningfully. At the end of the first phase, a database of 150 familiarnational slogans was generated from a survey of 220 respondents. Sub-sequently, in the second phase, the antecedents of the likeability of theselected slogans from Phase 1 are investigated using a sample of 595respondents.

An interceptmethod using a survey instrumentwas implemented tocollect the data for both phases. The literature shows that intercept in-terviews are appropriate for this purpose, and have significant advan-tages, including better response quality, over other methods such astelephone interviews (Bush & Hair, 1985). This data collectionmethod-ology has previously been used to investigate diverse issues in consum-er research including retailer–consumer relationships and decision-making (e.g., Inman, Winer, & Ferraro, 2009).

3.1.1. Phase 1In Phase 1, an extensive list of actual brand slogans was created that

would be tested for likeability in Phase 2. Specifically, a superset offamiliar national slogans was generated through intercept interviewswith customers. Each interviewer underwent a training session toreduce errors in data collection and to ensure uniformity in the admin-istration of the surveys. The interviews were conducted with respon-dents at shopping malls, stores, and multiplexes in and around a largeand diverse metropolitan area within the United States. A total of 220respondents participated in this survey. The average age of the respon-dents was 42 years and 52% of them were men. Each respondent wasasked to list slogans that he or she could recall. The interviewer pro-vided clarifications in case a respondent was confused about what a

n liking, Journal of Business Research (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

4 M. Dass et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

slogan meant or required any other assistance. However, the inter-viewer did not use any slogan as an example during the clarificationprocess.

At the end of Phase 1, the slogans were sorted based on the frequen-cy of recall. This list is then shortened by removing slogans thatmet thefollowing criteria:

1. The slogan was not recalled by at least two respondents;2. The slogan was not identifiable even after an extensive online and

offline search;3. The slogan was from a local business, such as a car dealership.

The first restriction resulted in a shortlist of 241 slogans. Furtherelimination, based on the remaining two criteria resulted in a set of150 slogans. The final list included brand slogans from a wide varietyof industries including cars, cosmetics, breakfast cereals, laundry deter-gents, financial services, and fast food.

3.1.2. Phase 2The objective of Phase 2 was to examine the impact of the hypothe-

sized factors on the liking of slogans. To accomplish this, data is collect-ed on liking and its likely drivers for the 150 slogans generated in Phase1. Given the large number of slogans to be tested, as well as the numberof antecedent variables of slogan liking, a research design is adoptedthat made the task manageable and reduced respondent fatigue. Thestudy randomly assigned the 150 slogans to 30 versions of the surveyinstrument. Each version contained five different sloganswhich, barringa few exceptions, belonged to five different product categories. Thesurvey items measured slogan liking, as well as independent vari-ables, including clarity of message, simplicity of the slogan, and soon. Three marketing experts served as independent judges and eval-uated the items used to measure the variables. Wheremultiple itemswere used, the reliability of the scales was assessed, and then an av-erage score of the items was taken to create an overall score for thescale.

Much like in Phase 1, intercept interviews were used in Phase 2.Interviewers, who were given detailed instructions on administeringthe surveys, contacted respondents in similar locations within thesame metropolitan area as in Phase 1. A total of 595 respondents com-pleted the survey (average age: 37 years, 53% men). In other words,each version of the survey, containing a set of five slogans, was complet-ed by approximately 20 respondents. Brand names associated with therespective slogans were not provided to the respondents, as the sloganswere evaluated independently, and notmake brand names an artifact ofthe study. Separately, the secondary data were collected on some pre-dictor variables, including the brand's advertising budget for the latestyear and the age of slogan.

3.2. Measures

The liking for a slogan is measured using a two-item, 7-point scalethat included “Overall howmuch do you like this slogan?” and “Overall,how favorable is your impression of this slogan?” (Cronbach's alpha:0.90). Message clarity is measured using a three-item, 7-point scalethat included “The message in this slogan is very clear,” “This sloganhas a simple structure,” and “This slogan is difficult to follow” (reversecoded), (Cronbach's alpha: 0.72). For creativity of the slogan, a 7-pointitem is used, “This slogan is very creative.” The inclusion of benefit inthe slogan was also measured using a single, 7-point item, “This sloganstates the benefit(s) of the product/service.”

The appropriateness of the slogan for the brand is measured using atwo-item, 7-point scale that included “This slogan is appropriate for thebrand” and “This slogan is consistent with the brand” (correlation:0.78). For the relevance of the slogan to the product category, a 7-point item is used, “This slogan is relevant to the product category.”The length of the slogan was measured using the actual number ofwords used in it. The presence of a rhyme was coded as a 0–1 dummy

Please cite this article as: Dass,M., et al., A study of the antecedents of slogaj.jbusres.2014.05.004

variable. The inclusion of the brand name within the slogan and thepresence of a jingle were similarly coded as 0–1 dummy variables. Thepresence of jingles was further verified through an extensive onlinesearch on the company websites, YouTube, and search engines. Brandfamiliarity was computed as the percentage of respondents exposedto a slogan who correctly identified its brand.

The age of the sloganwas established using data compiled from sev-eral sources including company annual reports and websites, industryreports, LexisNexis, and internet search engines, and the earliest dateassociated with the slogan was assigned to it. The brand's annualadvertising budget for the latest year was used as a proxy measure formedia expenditure supporting the slogan. These data were compiledfrom multiple sources, including the Superbrands report compiled byBrandweek, LexisNexis, businessmagazines, press releases, and compa-ny websites. Care was taken to make sure that the data reflected thespecific brand under consideration. For example, for FedEx, the budgetfor its Kinko's division was not included in Fedex brand's advertisingbudget.

3.3. Bilinear mixed model of slogan liking

There are two big challenges with analyzing the data on slogans, in-cluding heterogeneity and unobserved variable bias. Because each slo-gan is inherently unique, they are collectively heterogeneous in termsof their several characteristics, such as length, many of which may notbe easy to identify or define. The inability to do so may result in an un-observed variable bias in the parameter estimates for the effects of thehypothesized observed factors. The potential for such a bias is greaterin this study because it involves real customers and numerous slogansrather than in a laboratory setting where a relatively homogeneous setof participants evaluate just a few slogans. Therefore, this study uses afairly new type of a bilinear mixed model (Hoff, 2005) to estimate thestrength of the hypothesized relationships between slogan liking andits antecedents. This class of models is analytically flexible and usefulfor controlling the dependence among the independent variables inthe data (Marasinghe & Johnson, 1982), and for accounting for unob-served variables.

The modeling approach assumes that each slogan is located in la-tent space based on how much it is liked by customers. Those thathave similar levels of liking are located close to each other andthose that differ in the level of liking are located far apart. The ap-proach further assumes that the specific location of each slogan is de-termined by a function of the antecedents of liking, including slogancharacteristics, media expenditure, individual customer differences,and unobserved effects.

Based on these assumptions, a set of slogans S ∈ {s1, s2,…sn} isconsidered and a general model for their liking is formulated asfollows:

Likingð Þs ¼ β1 CMð Þs þ β2 BENð Þs þ β3 CRð Þs þ β4 BAð Þs þ β5 PAð Þsþβ6 JINð Þs þ β7 RHYð Þs þ β8 BNIð Þs þ β9 SLenð Þs þ β10 BFAMð Þsþβ11 SAgeð Þs þ β12 SAd$ð Þs þ β13 Genð Þs þ β14 Ageð Þsþβ15 Incomeð Þs þ εs

ð1Þ

where CM= Message Clarity, BEN= Benefit Included, CR= Creativity,BA = Brand Appropriateness, PA = Product Appropriateness, JIN =Jingle, RHY = Rhyme, BNI = Brand Name Included, SLen = SloganLength, BFAM = Brand Familiarity, SAge = Age of the slogan, SAd$ =Annual Advertising Budget of the Brand, Gen = Gender, Age = Age,Income = Income, and ε = Error term.

The random effects of individual slogans, as, are included in the errorterm in Eq. (1). To capture the effects of heterogeneity and unobservedvariables, a latent vector zs is further added in the model. After

n liking, Journal of Business Research (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

Table 1Data description.

Mean Std. Dev Min. Max. N

Slogan CharacteristicsSlogan Liking 4.691 1.844 1.00 7.00Message Clarity 5.296 1.436 1.00 7.00Benefit 4.177 2.053 1.00 7.00Creativity 4.315 1.900 1.00 7.00Brand Appropriate 5.526 1.414 1.00 7.00Product Appropriate 4.801 1.845 1.00 7.00Log (slogan length) 1.510 0.491 0 2.63Jingle 46 (30.67%)Rhyme 26 (17.33%)Brand Name Included 64 (42.67%)

Exposure in MediaLog (Age of Slogan) 2.837 1.080 0 4.584Log (Advertising Budget) $11.25 1.21 $9.33 $14.93

Demographics Frequency

Gender:Male 1549 (53.07%)Female 1370 (46.93%)

Age:Below 21 yrs 325 (11.13%)21 to 30 yrs 1164 (39.88%)31 to 40 yrs 530 (18.16%)41 to 50 yrs 405 (13.87%)51 to 60 yrs 300 (10.28%)61+ yrs 195 (6.68%)

Income:b$30,000 829 (29.05%)$30,000 to $59,999 890 (31.18%)$60,000 to $89,999 475 (16.64%)$90,000 to 119,999 240 (8.41%)$120,000 to $150,000 165 (5.78%)$150,000+ 255 (8.93%)

Table 2Results of bilinear model for the liking for slogans.

Coefficient (Std. Error)

Fixed EffectsIntercept −0.013 (0.025)

Slogan characteristicsMessage Clarity 0.607 (0.008)⁎

Benefit 0.065 (0.005)⁎

Creativity 0.430 (0.006)⁎

Brand Appropriate 0.0001 (0.0001)Product Appropriate 0.012 (0.006)⁎

Jingle −0.005 (0.006)Rhyme 0.071 (0.009)⁎

Brand Name Included −0.046 (0.007)⁎

Slogan Length 0.002 (0.007)Brand Familiarity 0.001 (0.001)

Exposure in MediaLog (Age of Slogan) 0.001 (0.001)Log (Advertising Budget) 0.0001 (0.0001)

Audience CharacteristicsGender (Male = 1; Female = 2) 0.075 (0.020)⁎

Age −0.149 (0.010)⁎

Income 0.089 (0.009)⁎

Random EffectsJingle −0.002 (0.039)Rhyme −0.011 (0.049)Brand Name Included −0.010 (0.036)

⁎ Significant at 95% CI, dependent variable = Liking for the slogan.

5M. Dass et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

accounting for these two effects, the error structure is expanded and re-parameterized Eq. (1) as:

Likingð Þs ¼ β1 CMð Þs þ β2 BENð Þs þ β3 CRð Þs þ β4 BAð Þs þ β5 PAð Þsþβ6 JINð Þs þ β7 RHYð Þs þ β8 BNIð Þs þ β9 SLenð Þs þ β10 BFAMð Þsþβ11 SAgeð Þs þ β12 SAd$ð Þs þ β13 Genð Þs þ β14 Ageð Þsþβ15 Incomeð Þs þ as þ zs þ γs

ð2Þ

where as= Randomeffects of slogans, zs= Latent vector,γs= Residualerror of the model.

The above model (Eq. (2)) is estimated using a Bayesian process.Since the modeling approach is based on a Bayesian process, a Markovchain Monte Carlo algorithm is the best option for its estimation (Hoff,2005). Specifically, because direct sampling is difficult for the latentcomponent of the equation, Gibbs sampling is used and, in the process,a Markov chain is constructed with the required parameters {β1, β2,…,β14, Σab, Z, σz

2, Σγ} and sampled from the targeted posterior distributionp(β1, β2,…, β14, Σab, Z, σz

2, Σγ|Y). The chain for 200,000 iterations is runfor each estimation using the data from Phase 2. The outputs from thefirst 20,000 iterations were considered burn-ins and were not consid-ered in the analysis. The posterior means and quantile-based 95% confi-dence intervals are then examined for the estimates.

3.4. Benchmark model

For purposes of comparison, a benchmark model belonging to thesame family of mixed, linear models that does not control for variableinter-dependence and unobserved factors is estimated. The dependentvariable is the liking for a slogan, and the independent variable covariatestructure follows Eq. (2) as follows:

Likingð Þs ¼ β0 þ β1 CMð Þs þ β2 BENð Þs þ β3 CRð Þs þ β4 BAð Þs þ β5 PAð Þsþβ6 JINð Þs þ β7 RHYð Þs þ β8 BNIð Þs þ β9 SLenð Þs þ β10 BFAMð Þsþβ11 SAgeð Þs þ β12 SAd$ð Þs þ β13 Genð Þs þ β14 Ageð Þsþβ15 Incomeð Þs þ ε:

ð3Þ

The maximum likelihood approach is used to estimate Eq. (3).

4. Results

A description of the data is presented in Table 1. The results from theestimation of the proposed model are presented in Table 2. Resultsshow that several slogan characteristics that are traditionally associatedwith slogan design did not have a significant effect on their likeability.Specifically, neither the inclusion of jingles, nor reducing their lengthhad a systematic effect on the likeability of slogans. More surprisingly,the appropriateness of the slogan for the brand did not influencewheth-er the slogan itself was liked or not. On the other hand, much like wehad predicted, the inclusion of the brand name in the slogan adverselyaffected its overall likeability (β = −0.046).

The results suggest that the likeability of slogans may have somecognitive underpinnings. For example, message clarity (β = 0.607),the inclusion of a benefit (β = 0.065), and the appropriateness of theslogan for the product category (β= 0.012), had a positive effect on lik-ing. In other words, slogans that were easy to comprehend and relatedto products tended to be liked more. However, creativity also played arole and had a strong effect on the likeability of slogans (β = 0.43)much as rhymes did (β = 0. 071). On the other hand, the intensity ofa slogan's exposure in media or its age did not affect its likeability.Three demographic variables, including, gender, age, and income, af-fected the likeability of slogans. Women tended to like slogans morethanmen did (β= 0.075). Younger respondents also tended to like slo-gansmore than older ones (β=−0.149). Finally, incomehad a positiveeffect (β = 0.089) on likeability.

Please cite this article as: Dass,M., et al., A study of the antecedents of slogaj.jbusres.2014.05.004

Some of these findings provide a caveat to what is traditionally be-lieved or has been shown in the extant literature on advertising. For ex-ample, while the appropriateness of the slogan for the product categorydid matter, its appropriateness for the brand and use of jingles had no

n liking, Journal of Business Research (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

Table 3Results from benchmark model for the liking for slogans.

Coefficient (Std. Error)

Intercept −0.467 (1.132)

Slogan CharacteristicsMessage Clarity 0.521 (0.113)⁎

Benefit 0.099 (0.082)Creativity 0.436 (0.100)⁎

Brand Appropriate −0.057 (0.064)Product Appropriate −0.032 (0.110)Jingle −0.001 (0.115)Rhyme 0.064 (0.139)Brand Name Included −0.213 (0.127)Slogan Length −0.062 (0.119)Brand Familiarity 0.007 (0.002)⁎

Exposure in MediaLog (Age of Slogan) −0.005 (0.045)Log (Advertising Budget) −0.008 (0.049)

Audience CharacteristicsGender (Male = 1; Female = 2) 0.269 (0.350)Age −0.173 (0.147)Income 0.226 (0.154)

⁎ Significant at 95% CI, dependent variable = Liking for the slogan.

6 M. Dass et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

impact on likeability. With regard to demographics, contrary to whathas been observed for the attitude toward advertising (Shavitt et al.,1998), respondents with higher incomes tended to like slogans more.Along the same lines, the results find that women, rather than men,tended to like slogans more. This suggests that the response to a sloganin particular may be different from that toward the overall advertise-ment in general. The negative effect of including the brand name inthe slogan seems like an anomaly, but is consistentwith the propositionbased on recent research that explicitly persuasive advertising is notreadily accepted by customers (Laran et al., 2011). A summary of the ini-tial predictions alongside the final results is presented in Table 4.

Next, these results were compared with the ones obtained from thebenchmark model, which is also a mixed model but without the latentcomponent to account for the effects of the unobserved drivers of theliking for slogans (Table 3). The log-likelihood values were comparedto determine their level of fit, and found that the proposed bilinearmodel (log-likelihood value = −1369.6) had a substantially better fitthan the benchmark linear model (log-likelihood value = −28.04).The results of the comparison suggest that it is important to accountfor the unobserved factors that affect the liking of slogans, when esti-mating the effects of the observed variables. The results from the

Table 4Summary of expectations and results.

Variable name Prediction

Slogan CharacteristicsMessage Clarity Greater message clarity wilBenefit Slogans emphasizing the beCreativity More creative slogans willBrand Appropriate Slogans that are brand appProduct Appropriate Slogans that are product apJingle Slogans with jingles will haRhyme Slogans with rhymes will hBrand Name Included Slogans where brand nameSlogan Length Shorter slogans will have h

Exposure in MediaLog (Age of Slogan) Older slogans will have higLog (Advertising Budget) Slogans with higher advert

DemographicsGender (Male = 1; Female = 2) Male respondents tend to hAge Younger respondents tendIncome Low income respondents te

Please cite this article as: Dass,M., et al., A study of the antecedents of slogaj.jbusres.2014.05.004

estimation of the benchmark model (Eq. (3)) show that only three ofthe fourteen variables, clear message (β = 0.521), creativity (β =0.436) and brand familiarity (β = 0.007) had a significant positiveeffect on slogan liking (Table 3). This is in stark contrast to the largernumber of variables that had an impact in the proposedmodel of sloganlikeability.

5. Discussion

Brands are some of the most critical assets held by firms and manyare valued in billions of dollars. However, the creation of a brand's iden-tity that ultimately leads to its financial value requires an appropriateconfiguration of its message and extended support over a period oftime. The brand's slogan, often used to sign off on its advertising, isone of the enduring carriers of this message and a critical componentof the identity creation process. However, while most brands todayhave a slogan, the literature on what determines their likeability issparse. In the absence of evidence identifying the antecedents of thelikeability of slogans, the current practice to craft them relies largelyon simplified rules of thumb.

This paper complements previous research that focuses largely onthe memorability of slogans (e.g., Dahlén & Rosengren, 2005; Kohliet al., 2013), and attempt to identify the drivers of their likeability. Theresults, which are based on an evaluation of a large set of actual slogansby real consumers, provide strong caveats to the traditional rules ofthumb currently being used bymarketers for slogan development. Spe-cifically, the results find that the presence of jingles in a slogan has nosystematic effect on their likeability. Similarly, an increase in the adver-tising budget to enhance the number of impressions of the slogan tendsto have no impact on liking as well. Along the same lines, a slogan's ageor its length has little effect on its likeability.

Instead, the results suggest that consumers understand that slogansare messages that are purposefully sent by marketers on behalf of theirbrands and their likeability is influenced by this overall context. There-fore, slogans that clearly carry the brand's message, and articulate thebenefit that it provides are well-liked. However, consumers' affectiveresponse toward slogans is not merely determined by such cognitiveevaluations of the message. Slogans that are perceived to be creativeand those that rhyme are liked more than others.

Of course, likeability is one of several goals that marketersmaywantto achieve when they design their slogans. Others may be higher levelsof recall or being consistent with the brand's intended positioning. Theresults suggest that the factors that help a slogan succeed on one ofthese dimensions may not be the same as those for succeeding onothers. For example, while the age of the slogan, its length, and the

Findings

l result in higher slogan liking Supportednefits of products will have higher liking Supportedhave higher liking Supportedropriate will have higher liking No effectpropriate will have higher slogan liking Supportedve higher liking No effectave higher liking Supporteds are not included will have higher liking Supportedigher liking No effect

her liking No effectising spends will have higher liking No effect

ave higher slogan liking. Not supportedto have higher slogan liking. Supportednd to have higher slogan liking. Not supported

n liking, Journal of Business Research (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

7M. Dass et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

media support behind have been shown to be positively related withslogan recall (Kohli et al., 2013), they seem to have no systematic im-pact on liking. On the other hand, clarity, the articulation of benefits,and the exclusion of the brand name tend to increase slogan likeability.Interestingly, jingles, one of the most commonly-used execution de-vices for slogans seems to have little impact on either recall or liking.And, not surprisingly, the most recalled slogans in the data were notnecessarily the most liked (Table 5). Three out of the top ten for eachcategory did make it into both groups—M&M's “melts in your mouth;not in your hand,” The Milk Processor Education Program's “Gotmilk?,” and Subway's “Eat Fresh.” While several comparisons can bemade because of a multitude of factors involved, it is interesting tonote that in the two “top ten” lists, the average length was 3.9 wordsfor recall and 4.9 for liking. Length, was a significant factor in recall(shorter is better), but not in liking. Similarly, McDonald's “I'm lovin'it” was one of the most highly recalled slogan, presumably because ofits advertising expenditure, age, and brevity. On the other hand,Disney's “Happiest place on earth” was one of the most well-liked slo-gans arguably because of the statement of benefit, clarity of message,and appropriateness for the product category.

These findings, in conjunction with previous studies, suggest thatslogans should be carefully crafted keeping the strategic objective forthe brand in mind. There are instances where the same slogan designdrives recall, liking, and consistency with the brand's image are likelyto be relatively few. However, in some situations where consumers' de-cisions are largely impulsive, such as in frequently purchased goods, re-call may often be more important. On the other hand, in situationswhere decisions are more deliberate, such as in the durables market, afavorable affective response may be relatively more important.

Similarly, firms with limited budgets but interested in higher recall,may be better served by maintaining their slogans over time. On theother hand, firms with extensive advertising budgets and interested inliking, may be able to change their slogans with somewhat greater fre-quency to suit their brands' evolving needs. This may partly explainwhy some major, flagship brands change their slogans frequently.Pepsi's “Refresh everything,” and Coca-Cola's “Open happiness,” wereintroduced only in 2009. Morton Salt, on the other hand, with itsmuch smaller advertising budget has maintained “When it rains, itpours,” along with the umbrella girl, since 1911, presumably becauseit cannot risk losing its high recall value.

5.1. Directions for future research

This paper attempts to add to the literature,which has focused large-ly on slogan recall, by assessing the antecedents of the liking of slogans.In this endeavor, amulti-stage,multi-source,multi-sloganmethodologyis used that stands in contrast to the laboratory-based approach follow-ed in the extant research on the topic. However, as noted, the efficacy ofslogans is a multi-faceted concept, and it is important that an under-standing of the antecedents is developed for each of these facets to pro-vide more precise guidance to marketers for crafting slogans suited to

Table 5Top 10 slogans.

Most liked Most recalled

Melts in your mouth, not in your hand Just do it!The few, the proud, the marines I'm lovin' itWhat happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas Have it your wayThe happiest place on the earth Melts in your mouth, not in your handEasy breezy beautiful cover girl Got milk?Eat fresh Eat freshRed Bull gives you wings Mmm mmm good!Think outside the bun You're in good hands with AllstateGot milk? Think outside the bunGet in the Zone The ultimate driving machine

Please cite this article as: Dass,M., et al., A study of the antecedents of slogaj.jbusres.2014.05.004

specific contexts and serving specific strategic goals. As the next stepin this direction, it might be useful to examine the factors that deter-mine whether a slogan is seen as being consistent with its brand. Fur-ther, it would be useful to develop a better understanding of thetradeoffs in slogan design and identifying those characteristics that im-prove slogan performance on one dimension, such as recall, whilecompromising that on another, say liking. Finally, it might be useful totrace the structure of linkages from slogan liking to brand liking withthe liking for the overall advertising as a mediator.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the editor, the associate editor, andtwo anonymous reviewers for providing truly constructive reviews. Allthe authors have contributed equally. The authors are listed in alphabet-ical order.

References

Ang, S. H., & Low, S. Y. M. (2000). Exploring the dimensions of ad creativity. Psychology &Marketing, 17(10), 835–854.

Batra, R., & Ray, M. L. (1986, September). Affective responses mediating acceptance of ad-vertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 234–249.

Boush, D. M. (1993). How advertising slogans can prime evaluations of brand extensions.Psychology & Marketing, 10(1), 67–78.

Bush, A. J., & Hair, J., Jr. (1985, May). An assessment of the mall intercept as a data collec-tion method. Journal of Marketing Research, 158–167.

Cox, D., & Cox, A. D. (1988). What does familiarity breed? Complexity as a moderator ofrepetition effects in advertisement evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 15,111–116.

Cox, D., & Cox, A. D. (2002). Beyond first impressions: The effects of repeated exposure onconsumer liking of visually complex and simple product designs. Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, 30(2), 119–130.

Crimmins, J. C. (2000). Better measurement and management of brand value. Journal ofAdvanced Research, 40(6), 136–144.

Cui, A. P., Hu, M. Y., & Griffith, D. A. (2014). What makes a brand manager effective?Journal of Business Research, 67(2), 144–150.

Dahlén, M., & Rosengren, S. (2005). Brands affect slogans affect brands? competitive in-terference, brand equity and the brand–slogan link. Journal of Brand Management,12(3), 151–164.

Dubé, L., & Morgan, M. S. (1996, September). Trend effects and gender differences in ret-rospective judgments of consumption emotions. Journal of Consumer Research, 23,156–162.

Edwards, H. (2011, May). A slogan is forever. Marketing, 21.Eighmey, J., & McCord, L. (1998). Adding value in the information age: Use and gratifica-

tions of sites on the world wide web. Journal of Business Research, 41, 187–194.Fischer, E., & Arnold, S. J. (1994). Sex, gender identity, gender role attitudes, and consumer

behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 12(2), 163–182.Fuchs, C., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2010). Evaluating the effectiveness of brand-positioning

strategies from a consumer perspective. European Journal of Marketing, 44(11/12),1763–1786.

Galizio, M., & Hendrick, C. (1972). Effect of musical accompaniment on attitude: The gui-tar as a prop for persuasion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2(4), 350–359.

Gazzaley, A., & D'Esposito (2007). Top-down modulation and normal aging. Annals of theNew York Academy of Sciences, 1097, 67–83.

Goldenberg, J., Mazursky, D., & Solomon, S. (1999). The fundamental templates of qualityads. Marketing Science, 18(3), 333–351.

Gunasti, K., & Ross, W. T. (2010). How and when alphanumeric brand names affect con-sumer preferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(6), 1177–1192.

Hecker, S. (1984). Music for advertising effect. Psychology & Marketing, 1(3/4), 3–8.Hill, J., & Motes, W. H. (1995). Professional versus generic retail services: New insights.

Journal of Services Marketing, 9(2), 22–35.Hoff, P. D. (2005). Bilinear mixed-effects models for dyadic data. Journal of the American

Statistical Association, 100(469), 289–295.Inman, J. J., Winer, R. S., & Ferraro, R. (2009). The interplay among category characteristics,

customer characteristics, and customer activities on in-store decision making. TheJournal of Marketing, 73(5), 19–29.

Janiszewski, C. (1993). Preattentive mere exposure effects. Journal of Consumer Research,20(3), 376–393.

Janiszewski, C., &Meyvis, T. (2001). Effects of brand logo complexity, repetition, and spac-ing on processing fluency and judgment. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 18–32.

Keiser, S. K. (1975). Awareness of brands and slogans. Journal of Advanced Research, 15(4),37–43.

Keller, K. L. (1990, Winter). Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. The Journal ofMarketing, 54, 27–41.

Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, andmanaging customer-based brand eq-uity. The Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22.

Kohli, C., Leuthesser, L., & Suri, R. (2007). Got slogan? Guidelines for creating effective slo-gans. Business Horizons, 50(5), 415–422.

Kohli, C., Thomas, S., & Suri, R. (2013). Are you in good hands? Slogan recall: What reallymatters. Journal of Advanced Research, 53(1), 31–42.

n liking, Journal of Business Research (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

8 M. Dass et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Lamons, B. (1997). Slogan for almost every ad, but only a Few worth reading. MarketingNews, 31(9), 4.

Laran, J., Dalton, A., & Andrade, E. (2011, April). The curious case of behavioral backlash:Why brands produce priming effects and slogans produce reverse priming effects.Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 999–1014.

Laroche, M., Saad, G., Cleveland, M., & Browne, E. (2000). Gender differences in informa-tion search strategies for a Christmas gift. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17(6/7),500–524.

Luna, D. (2013). Does brand spelling influence memory? The case of auditorily presentedbrand names. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(1), 36–48.

MacInnis, D. J., & Park, C. W. (1991). The differential role of characteristics of music onhigh and low involvement consumers' processing of ads. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 18, 161–173.

Mahajan, V., & Wind, Y. (2002). Got Emotional Product Positioning? MarketingManagement, 11(3), 36–41.

Marasinghe, M. G., & Johnson, D. E. (1982). A test of incomplete additivity in the mul-tiplicative interaction model. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 77,869–877.

Mata, R., Schooler, L. J., & Rieskamp, J. (2007). The aging decision maker: Cognitive agingand the adaptive selection of decision strategies. Psychology and Aging, 22(4),796–810.

Mathur, L. K., & Mathur, I. (1995). The effect of advertising slogan changes on the marketvalue. Journal of Advanced Research, 35(1), 59–65.

McQuarrie, E. F., & Mick, D. G. (1999). Visual rhetoric in advertising: Text-interpretive, ex-perimental, and reader-response analyses. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(1),37–55.

Park, C., Eisingerich, A., Pol, G., & Park, J. (2013). The role of brand logos in firm perfor-mance. Journal of Business Research, 66(2), 180–187.

Payne, J. W. (1982). Contingent decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 382–402.Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central & peripheral routes to adver-

tising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 10(2), 135–146.

Pick, D. F., Sweeney, J., & Clay, J. A. (1991). Creative advertising and the Von Restorff effect.Psychological Reports, 69(3), 923–926.

Pieters, R., Warlop, L., & Wedel, M. (2002). Breaking through the clutter: Benefits ofadvertisement originality and familiarity for brand attention and memory.Management Science, 48(6), 765–781.

Pryor, K., & Brodie, R. J. (1998). How advertising slogans can prime evaluations of brandextensions: Further empirical results. Journal of Product and Brand Management,7(6), 497–508.

Shavitt, S., Lowrey, P. M., & Haefner, J. E. (1998). Public attitudes toward advertising:Morefavorable than you might think. Journal of Advanced Research, 38, 7–22.

Please cite this article as: Dass,M., et al., A study of the antecedents of slogaj.jbusres.2014.05.004

Sidelinger, R. A., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997). Communication correlates of teacher clarity inthe college classroom. Communication Research, 14(1), 1–10.

Slater, M. D., & Rouner, D. (2002). Entertainment-education and elaboration likelihood:Understanding the processing of narrative persuasion. Communication Theory,12(2), 173–191.

Smith, R. E., Chen, J., & Yang, X. (2008). The impact of advertising creativity on the hierar-chy of effects. Journal of Advertising, 37(4), 47–61.

Smith, R. E., Mackenzie, S. B., Yang, X., Buchholz, L., & Darley, W. K. (2007). Modeling thedeterminants and effects of creativity in advertising.Marketing Science, 26(6), 819-833.

Snyder, L., Milici, F., Slater, M., Sun, H., & Strizhakova, Y. (2006). Effects of advertising ex-posure on drinking among youth. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 160,18–24.

Sood, S., & Keller, K. L. (2012). The effects of brand name structure on brand extensionevaluations and parent brand dilution. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(3), 373–382.

Stang, D., & O'Connell, E. (1974). The computer as experimenter in social psychology re-search. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 6, 223–231.

Stern, B. B. (1994). A revised communication model for advertising: Multiple dimensionsof the source, the message, and the recipient. Journal of Advertising, 23(2), 5–15.

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Stewart, D. W. (1998). Effects of Using a Nonverbal (Musical) Cue on Recall and Playbackof Television Advertising: Implications for Advertising Tracking. Journal of BusinessResearch, 42(1), 39–51.

Stewart, D. W., & Furse, D. H. (1985). The effects of television advertising execution on re-call, comprehension, and persuasion. Psychology & Marketing, 2(4), 135–160.

Stout, P. A., Leckenby, J. D., & Hecker, S. (1990). Viewer reactions to music in televisioncommercials. Journalism Quarterly, 67, 887–898.

Szpunar, K. K., Schellenberg, G. E., & Pliner, P. (2004). Liking and memory for musicalstimuli as a function of exposure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,Memory, and Cognition, 30(2), 370–381.

Todd, P., & Benbasat, I. (1992). The use of information in decision making: An experimen-tal investigation of the impact of computer-based decision aids. MIS Quarterly, 16(3),373–393.

Toncar, M., & Munch, J. (2001). Consumer responses to tropes in print advertising. Journalof Advertising, 30(1), 55–65.

Vakratsas, D., & Ambler, T. (1999). How advertising works: What do we really know? TheJournal of Marketing, 63(1), 26–43.

Yalch, R. F. (1991). Memory in a jingle jungle: Music as a mnemonic device in communi-cating advertising slogans. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2), 268–275.

Zacks, R., & Hasher, L. (1997). Cognitive gerontology and attentional inhibition: A reply toBurke and McDowd. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences andSocial Sciences, 52, 274–283.

n liking, Journal of Business Research (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/