Dare to Challenge Consumers Assumptions:
Unexpected Traditional vs. Novel Advertising.
Lily Koerselman 5798043
Abstract
This study investigates the influence of ad elements such as incongruity (moderate vs. extreme), ad style (ambient vs. traditional) and brand familiarity (familiar vs. unfamiliar brand) on brand memory and evaluations. Should advertisers stick to traditional marketing techniques (flyers) or use novel advertising tactics such as ambient advertising that evoke surprise. Does ad incongruity (extreme or moderate), the mismatch been expectations and perception, evoke negative responses? Are familiar brands more persuasive than unfamiliar brands? The results indicate that moderate incongruity levels establish positive brand evaluations and are
remembered more, than compared to extreme incongruity. Ambient ads are evaluated more positively than traditional ads, moreover the brands promoted within ambient ads are more likely to be remembered and evaluated positively. Whether a brand was familiar or not, did not have a significant effect on the relationship between both ad style and level of incongruity and brand memory or brand evaluations.
Introduction
In todays marketing arena persuasive messages have the ability to infiltrate consumers lives like never before, as a result consumers are confronted to clutters of static advertising messages. A wear out effect is taking place, traditional advertising has used the same media to convey their persuasive messages countless times (van den Putte, 2009). Consumers have become smarter and are ever more aware of the intentions of advertisements, as a result they have developed mechanisms that help them avoid them altogether (Bass et al. 2007, Hutter & Hoffmann, 2011). Subsequently traditional advertising is loosing its power to attract attention and more importantly its ability to persuade consumers’ decreases (Darke & Ritchie, 2007).
Researchers argue that traditional advertising has become too predictable and familiar, too congruent meaning that the ads match consumers ad expectations (Ay, Aytekin, & Nardali, 2010). This decreases consumer’s excitement and interest with respect to the brands and their persuasive messages (Alden, Mukherjee & Hoyer, 2000). Incongruent ads often surprise consumers, because their perceptions do not match their expectations (Whittlesea & Williams, 2001). Opinions vary about whether or not consumer’s process advertising messages
successfully when they are incongruent. Some researchers suggest that incongruity can interfere with consumer’s current brand image by challenging their existing schemas, resulting in negative evaluations (Lee & Schumann, 2004). Yet another study showed that incongruity can result in positive cognitive responses towards the brand (Torn & Dahlen, 2008).
In order to tackle this current attention problem, different types of new and creative advertising techniques have become popular amongst advertisers (Pieters, Warlop & Wedel, 2002). Guerrilla advertising being one of them (Gambetti, 2010), guerilla advertising involves
low cost un-conventional advertising tactics that catch consumers interest by using the element of surprise (Shakeel & Khan, 2011). Ambient advertising is one form of guerrilla marketing that is used ever more frequent by advertisers today (Turk et al., 2006). It can be defined as “the placement of advertising in unusual and unexpected places (location) often using unconventional methods (execution) and being first or only ad execution to do so (temporal)” (Luxton &
Drummond, 2000, p.375). People do not expect advertisements in these locations; therefore this form of advertising intrigues people, sparks their interest, surprises them and hopefully
ultimately grabs their attention (Hutter, 2014).
Ambient advertising has become a fast growing and popular marketing strategy amongst advertising practitioners. Because it involves low costs, is easy to implement, is seen as flexible compared to traditional advertising methods and is effective since it breaks the advertising clutter and targets its consumers head on (Behal & Sareen, 2014; Shakeel & Khan, 2011). However it lacks the interest of academic researchers. To date researchers have primarily been focused on guerrilla advertising, (Abdul-Razzaq, Ozanne & Fortin, 2009; Derbaix & Vanhamme, 2003; Siefert et al., 2009) therefore not distinguishing the different guerrilla techniques. So far only a few studies have focused on ambient marketing in particular (Bennett et al., 2000; Hutter & Hoffmann; 2013; Jurca & Plăiaș, 2013; Turk et al., 2006). More importantly research
comparing the differences between ambient advertising and traditional advertising with regards to how they affect consumers are scarce.
This study will investigate how incongruent traditional and ambient advertisements influence brand evaluations and brand memory. Additionally brand familiarity will be studied to see whether or not it acts as a moderating role. So far numerous studies imply that familiar brands influence cognitive and affective responses more positively than unfamiliar brands, moreover that they have a greater persuasive power (Dahlen, 2001; Low & Lamb, 2000).
This study will contribute to the advertising industry by adding to the existing knowledge on what elements of an ad make it most effective. Which in turn can help advertisers choose the appropriate characteristics (e.g. incongruity, advertising style) for their ads, which can lead to more positive consumer responses. Consumers are exposed to about 3000 ads per day (Sarin & Pal, 2014). This study wants to aid marketers by investigating if, how and when level of
incongruity and advertising style, brand familiarity influence consumer’s brand memory and evaluations positively. The following research question will be investigated within this study:
To what extent do ambient and traditional advertisements using either moderate or extreme incongruity affect a person’s brand evaluation and brand memory? Moreover to what extent does brand familiarity moderate this effect?
Theoretical Framework
What is ambient advertising?
Guerilla marketing contains a vast array of tactics, which differ amongst each other. Ambush marketing is a guerilla tactic that can be described as “sneaky out of home marketing, that promotes a brand at huge events without paying a sponsorship fee” (Behal & Sareen, 2014). Whereas ambient marketing involves non-traditional out of home marketing where advertisers target their consumers within their intimate preferred environments, promoting a brand using unusual items (e.g. shopping trolleys or handlebars in subways) (Hackley, 2001). Behal and Sareen (2014) describe ambient marketing as a tactic that “approaches the customer individually through the place of contact”.
Attention is scarce and ambient marketing’s priority is to gain consumers attention, which is does by using consumer’s social environment (Krautsack, 2008). Ambient ads blend and integrate themselves into their immediate surrounding environment in a fun and playful manner. For example a baggage carousel that depicts a roulette wheel, promoting a casino located close to an airport (Borghini et al., 2009) (Appendix A).
Ambient advertising has certain advantages with respect to traditional advertising. Consumers are more enticed to willfully process the creative media ads and their contexts, whereas with traditional ads (e.g. in magazines) people process the ads in a more incidental manner (Lord, Burnkrant & Unnava, 2001). Moreover ambient ads do not use push media, they do not force persuasive messages onto consumers. Ambient advertising uses a more indirect approach and uses the environment to convey its message, people can choose whether or not they process the message, which has been found to decrease unwanted consumer responses (Yi, 1990).
Schema Theory
Barlett (1932) used the schema theory to describe a network of cognitive structures that aids people with storing and retrieving knowledge, by constructing categories within which the information can be sorted (schema) (Lasswell, 1948). It illustrates how people use their prior knowledge and past experiences, which are embedded within their memory, to evaluate new situations and information (Fiske & Taylor, 1991). Subsequently these schemas can be activated when encountering heuristic cues such as images and words (Jurca & Plăiaș, 2013). Schemas can be viewed as shortcuts that can help people make sense of the enormous supply of information they are confronted with on a daily basis within their environment. Nonetheless a down side of
using schemas when evaluating new information, is that when evaluating these novel situations pre-existing schema are activated which focus on explaining novel information according to previous assumptions and expectations (Beals, 1998). Thus current schema can form an obstacle when processing new information, to overcome this obstacle one has to use elaborate
information processing. Meaning one has to put effort into identifying and understanding the new information and establish a new schema as a result.
Schema congruity Theory
Mandler established the schema congruity theory in 1982 building on the foundations of the schema theory. But Mandler took it one step further by describing how people process information when it is inconsistent or consistent with respect to current schema. Evaluating information according to ones previous knowledge and expectations about certain categories, leads to the information either being confirmed (congruent) with regards to ones expectations about that activated schema category or the information being perceived as not matching existing expectations (incongruent) (Desai & Gencturk, 1995).
With regards to advertising, when people watch a TV commercial for example it promotes a certain schema, people subsequently evaluate the ad according to their previous advertising expectations/ experiences. Most of the traditional advertisements therefore activate an existing schema that is congruent with consumer’s advertising assumptions.
However when it comes to ambient advertising where ads are placed in unexpected places, this incongruity evokes surprise, because the advertising context is contradictory to people’s advertising expectations (Alden et al., 2000). People count on seeing ads in magazines
and on television. However being confronted with an advertising message within their familiar environment, where they have previously not encountered any advertising messages, would be unexpected. Thus challenging past schema and generating surprise simply because it is different.
Heckler and Childers (1992) introduced two elements that they thought to be the foundation of schema incongruity in advertising. These two elements are expectancy and relevancy; the level of each of the two contributes to whether or not an ad should be seen as incongruent or congruent. Relevancy can be defined as to what extent consumers view
incongruent elements within an ad as supplying them enough relevant information with which they can solve the incongruity. Expectancy refers to the degree to which a consumer finds an ad to be in line with his or her advertising (schema) assumptions. According to Heckler and
Childers (1992) there are three levels of congruity that can be used in ads. The first being a congruent advertisement, where there is a high level of relevancy and a high level of expectancy present. Secondly there is moderate incongruity, where the level of relevance remains high however the expectancy level is low. Lastly there is extreme incongruity, referring to an ad when it scores high in the unexpected dimension as for low with regards to relevance.
Moderate and Extreme Incongruity effects on memory
Mandler (1982) found that congruent information is processed in a less extensive manner than incongruent information. This can be explained due to the fact that people view congruent information as familiar, because it links to prior existing schema. Moreover the information is regarded as comprehendible and does not need to be reevaluated, resulting in information being processed quicker and less effortlessly. Because less effort is put into
the more familiar a medium is, which is the case with traditional advertising, the less likely people will remember the ad (Elliot & Speck, 1998).
Incongruent information on the other hand triggers elaborate information processing (Waddill & McDaniel, 1998). When people are conveyed to incongruent elements they will need to continually use different existing schemas in order to entangle the incongruity and resolve it. This continuous process of retrieving information will result in the information being processed to be more memorable, establishing higher levels of recall and recognition (Lee & Mason, 1999). As research has shown when people are surprised they stop their current actions and focus on stimuli evoking the surprise (Hutter & Hoffmann, 2014). Surprise has been found to motivate consumers to resolve the inconsistency (Schutzwohl & Borgstedt, 2005). In order to understand the incongruity consumers establish multiple new association pathways within their memory framework, making it easier for incongruent information to be remembered (Lee & Schumann, 2004).
This study will apply the theory of schema congruity to advertising tactics to find out whether traditional advertising and ambient advertising effect consumer’s brands memory (recall) more negatively/ positively with regards to moderate or extreme incongruity. Thus the following assumptions will be tested:
H1a: Both ambient and traditional ads using moderate incongruity will affect brand memory more positively than extreme incongruity.
H1b: Ambient advertisements using moderate incongruity will influence brand memory more positively, than traditional advertisements using moderate incongruity.
Traditional vs. Ambient advertisements with moderate or extreme incongruity on brand evaluations
Traditional advertising as mentioned above use familiar mediums to convey their
persuasive messages (e.g. radio, print, TV). For example, consumers anticipate being exposed to an advertisement promoting beauty products within a women’s magazine. Dahlen and Edenius’s (2007) findings indicate that people have established an advertising schema, which enables them to avoid the conventional advertising messages, which they have grown accustomed to being confronted to (Brown, 2004). The majority of the consumers view traditional advertisements as a common persuasive tool, which they are all confronted to on a daily basis. These existing
schema concerning advertising expectations, once activated trigger most of their future responses regarding traditional advertisements (Friestad & Wright, 1994). Moreover Stafford and Stafford (2002) study showed that existing advertising schemas could negatively affect people’s attitude towards advertisements.
Nonetheless incongruity can lead to negative feelings when people cannot figure out or explain the incongruity element (Mandler, 1982). Mandler thus concluded that a moderate level of incongruity would be the best option for cognitive processing and a positive effect. Therefore this study will focus on moderate incongruent and extreme incongruent ads, assuming that ads with moderate incongruity will result in consumers having a more positive brand response compared to extreme incongruent ads. This study will investigate the following assumption:
H2a: Moderate incongruent traditional or ambient ads will lead to more favorable brand evaluations, compared to extreme incongruent traditional or ambient ads.
H2b: Ambient ads using either moderate or extreme incongruity will affect brand evaluations more positively, than traditional ads using either moderate or extreme incongruity.
Moreover this study will investigate whether brand memory and evaluations are
influenced by a person’s brand familiarity. Numerous researches have studied brand familiarity, indicating that compared to unfamiliar brands, familiar brands have various advantages. Familiar ads have been found to make ads more prominent and evoke greater positive evaluations
(Dahlen, 2001; Holden & Vanhuele, 1999). Additionally research has shown that familiar brands require less effort to process, seeing as consumers already possess existing schemas within their memory regarding familiar brands, which makes it easy to retrieve and remember (Low & Lamb, 2000). One could suggest that consumers will therefore remember the familiar brands shown within this study regardless of which advertising technique (traditional vs. ambient) is used to promote them.
When a consumer is familiar with a brand and an incongruent ad challenges their existing schema, this could cause the consumer to evaluate the brand negatively (Lange & Dahlen, 2003). However if a consumer is confronted with an unfamiliar brand that is promoted using either moderate or extreme incongruity, no existing schema will be challenged. This is because there is no existent schema present concerning the unfamiliar brand (Lange & Dahlen, 2003; Low & Lamb, 2000).
This study assumes that familiar brands will trigger negative evaluations when they are advertised using moderate or extreme incongruent ads. Where as unfamiliar brands will be evaluated more positively when using either a moderate or extreme incongruent advertisement. Unfamiliar brands will benefit from ads that use incongruity, because it stimulates consumers to solve the discrepancy between their expectations and their assumptions. As a result consumers
create new pathways across existing schemas to make sense of the new information. This will lead to the unfamiliar brand being imbedded into the consumer’s memory and subsequently it will result in more brand memory. Incongruity would therefore lead to better recall with regards to an unfamiliar brand than a familiar brand. Thus the following hypotheses will be investigated during this study:
H3a: Traditional and ambient ads using moderate or extreme incongruity that advertise a familiar brand will affect brand memory more positively, compared to when an familiar brand is used.
H3b: Traditional and ambient ads using moderate or extreme incongruity will result in more positive brand evaluations when an unfamiliar brand is advertised, compared to a familiar brand.
Figure 1: Conceptual Model
Method Advertising Style - Ambient - Traditional Incongruity Level - Moderate - Extreme Brand Familiarity - Unfamiliar - Familiar Brand Memory Brand Evaluation
Design and Sample
This experiment consists of a 2 x 2 x 2 design, advertising type (traditional or ambient) and ad incongruity (moderate or extreme) and brand familiarity (unfamiliar or familiar brand) as independent between subjects each containing two levels. Initially the sample size of this study consisted of 268 participants, however 13 respondents did not finish the online survey
completely thus were removed from the study leaving 255 respondents. The 255 participants (51% female, 49% male), aged 17 to 64 years (M= 30,83, SD= 12,02) were approached using Facebook. The online survey started off with a cover story that stated that the researcher was interested in the respondents’ general views on marketing. Each of the participants randomly got assigned to an online survey that included the same questions, however each respondent was only exposed to one of eight advertisement images, promoting either a familiar or unfamiliar brand by using either a moderate or extreme traditional or ambient advertisement.
Pre-test Brand Familiarity and Level of Incongruity
In order to determine what two brands would be used to represent brand familiarity (unfamiliar vs. familiar) and what ad images/ caption would represent moderate and extreme incongruity, the following pre-tests was conducted. Twenty participants (50% female, 50% male) ranging from 19 to 32 years old (M= 25.05, SD= 3.28) were asked to rate a number of brands according to the degree of familiarity they had regarding the brands. They were asked to indicate their brand familiarity on a seven point likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all familiar with) to 7 (very familiar with). Based on this pre-test two brands were chosen to be used within this study, HairJoy (M= 1.71) a fake brand which scored the lowest in brand familiarity was
chosen to depict an unfamiliar brand. Pantene Pro-V was chosen to represent a familiar brand within this study, as the respondents regarded it as the most familiar brand (M=6.43).
Furthermore the pre-test conducted among these same 20 respondents also pre-tested the level of incongruity, in order to establish what advertisement images along with a written scenario were viewed as moderate and extreme incongruent traditional and ambient
advertisements. The respondents were shown ad images together with a text illustrating a setting and were asked to judge these on two dimensions; relevance/ irrelevance of the ad and to what degree the location was expected/ unexpected.
Relevance and expectancy were measured using a seven point likert scale varying from 1 (being irrelevant or unexpected) to 7 (being very relevant or very expected). For the ambient advertisement conditions the advertisement image and text that were chosen to illustrate an ambient ad using moderate incongruence were the image/ text that scored highest in ad relevance (M= 6.23) as well as low in expectancy (M= 1.82). Moreover the advertisement image and text that scored low in relevance (M= 1.44) as for low in the expectance dimension (M= 1.53) were chosen to portray extreme incongruent ambient advertisements within this study. A manipulation check indicated that the chosen ambient moderate incongruent ad and the extreme incongruent ad were significantly different from one another (t (18) = -1.97; p = .044).
For the traditional advertisements the same procedure was done and one image (of a flyer) along with a text were chosen to portray a moderate incongruent traditional ad, it scored high in ad relevance (M= 6.65) and lower in expectancy (M= 2.13). Moreover another image (of a flyer) and text were chosen to illustrate an extreme incongruent traditional ad, scoring low in both ad relevance (M= 2.31) and expectancy (M= 1.75). The two chosen traditional ads
containing two different incongruity levels proved to be significantly different from one another (t (18) = -2.14; p = .032).
Procedure and Stimulus Material
The questionnaire started off with some basic questions concerning the participant’s demographic information. The study continued by showing the participants one of the eight different advertisement images along side a caption, these eight conditions consisted of the following; 1) Moderate incongruent traditional ad for unfamiliar brand (Appendix B) 2)
Moderate incongruent traditional ad for familiar brand 3) Extreme incongruent traditional ad for unfamiliar brand 4) Extreme incongruent traditional ad for familiar brand 5) Moderate
incongruent ambient ad for unfamiliar brand (Appendix C) 6) Moderate incongruent ambient ad for familiar brand 7) Extreme incongruent ambient ad for unfamiliar brand 8) Extreme
incongruent ambient ad for a familiar brand.
In order to encourage and stimulate a real life situation in which the participants experienced the advertisements, each of the eight advertising images additionally contained a written scenario that illustrated a certain setting that stimulated the respondents to imagine a real life context. For example the following caption accompanied by a traditional ad of a familiar brand (Pantene Pro-V) illustrated moderate incongruity:
“Imagine looking in the mirror and thinking to yourself that it’s about time you go visit the hairdresser again. An hour later you are on your way towards the hairdresser and whilst you walk around the corner of the street where your hairdresser is located something catches your eye. You walk a little closer and see a flyer attached to a lamppost (as shown below). The flyer
resembles pieces of hair that you can rip off, on the pieces of hair a caption reads; "Take care of your hair" followed by the brand "Pantene Pro- V" logo.”
The following caption was shown together with an ambient ad for the unfamiliar brand (Hairjoy) to represent extreme incongruity:
“Imagine you decided to go to the city to meet some friends for lunch. Whilst you are walking through the streets something suddenly catches your eye. When you take a closer look you see a plant that is used to represent hair on top of a cardboard face (as shown below). The caption under the plant reads "Take care of your hair" followed by the "Hair Joy" logo.”
Moreover the participants had the ability to view the advertisement for as long as they desired to do so, just as they would if they were exposed to it outside in a real life setting. Next the respondents were asked to fill out questions regarding brand memory and brand evaluation, they however where not allowed to go back and view the advertisement image and description again.
Measurement variables
The online questionnaire that was filled out by the participants in this study started of with questions about the respondent’s demographics (age, education, gender). Moreover after showing the image of one of the eight advertisement conditions, brand familiarity was measured by asking whether or not the respondents had seen or heard of the brand shown before (Nguyen, Munch & Gardner, 2014). Furthermore they were asked to indicate whether or not they had seen the advertisement they were exposed to before.
Brand Memory
Whether or not the participants remembered the brand shown in the online questionnaire was tested using three items that measured brand memory using free recall. The participants were asked to recall and at the same time write down all that they could remember from the advertisement they were exposed to previously in the online survey. This includes; 1) brand name 2) general description of the ad 3) the message the ad was trying to portray. Answers were then coded into 1 (correct answer) and 0 (incorrect answer), highest score respondents could attain was a score of 3 (high brand recall) (Misra & Beatty, 1990; Srull, 1984;).
Brand Evaluation
Brand Evaluation was measured according to a seven point likert scale on the following four items: good/bad, negative/ positive, dislike/like and satisfactory/unsatisfactory (Dahlen, 2009; Simonin & Ruth, 1998). Questions in the online survey were phrased as follows; “How would you rate the brand displayed in the advertisement…dislike/like, bad/good” (Hutter & Hoffmann, 2014). To make sure all four items (Appendix D) used to measure brand evaluation loaded on one factor, a principal components factor analysis was conducted (Appendix E). Results indicate that all four items loaded on one factor (EV= 3.32, R2 = .83). Using the four items an index was made by averaging the responses to the items (Cronbach’s α=. 93, M= 19.41, SD= 5.11).
In the first manipulation check ad incongruity (extreme or moderate) was assessed according to brand evaluation and brand memory. The results indicate that for brand evaluation moderate or extreme incongruity did score a significantly differently with regards to brand evaluations (t (253) = - 2.630; p = .009). Furthermore the two levels of incongruence (moderate or extreme) scored significantly different with regards to brand memory (t (253) = - 2.30; p = .025).
Next a manipulation check was conducted to assess ad type (ambient or traditional) according to brand evaluation and brand memory. The independent t-test showed a significant difference between ambient and traditional ads concerning brand evaluations (t (253) = -6.30; p= .000). However with regards to brand memory the analysis showed that ambient and traditional ads did not differ from one another significantly (t (253) = -1.93; p = .054).
The last manipulation check assessed brand familiarity (unfamiliar vs. familiar brand) concerning brand evaluation and brand memory. Results show that 38.22 % of the respondents did not know the familiar brand (Pantene Pro-V) and 98.40% did not recognize the unfamiliar brand (HairJoy). Illustrating that the pre-tests concerning brand familiarity are validated within this study. The manipulation check reveals that whether a brand was familiar or unfamiliar did not result in any significant differences with regards to brand evaluation (t (253) = -.654; p= .513). However brand familiarity did differ significantly with regards to brand memory (t (253) = -2.77; p= .006), indicating that whether a brand was familiar or unfamiliar scored differently with regards to brand memory.
These three manipulation checks were conducted to see whether the three independent variables (advertising type, level of incongruity and brand familiarity) were manipulated successfully. The results obtained from the manipulation checks indicate that the dependent variables brand evaluations and brand memory differed amongst the all three independent variable’s in between groups (e.g. scores for brand memory were different amongst the two brand familiarity groups (unfamiliar and familiar brand). Hence the manipulation amongst the three independent variables has succeeded.
Table 1. t-tests among independent and dependent variables to check manipulation
Independent Variables Advertising Style Incongruity Level Brand Familiarity
Brand Memory t = -1.933 P = .054 t = -2.259 P = .025* t = -2.765 P = .006* Brand Evaluations t = -5.64 P = .000* t = -2.631 P = .010* t = -.654 P = .513 * p <.05, Significant difference within the two levels (df= 253)
Before testing the hypothesis an analysis was conducted amongst the dependent variables (brand memory and brand evaluations) and the control variables such as age, gender and
education. Investigating whether alternative unexpected relationships between the dependent variables and the control variables were present. The bivariate correlation analysis showed that there were no correlations present between the dependent variables and the control variables.
To continue, the hypotheses were tested using several ANOVA’s amongst the independent variables and the dependent variables.
It is interesting to report that the ANOVA analysis indicated that advertising style had a significant main effect on brand memory (F (1,247) = 4.04, p = .045, η2= .016). The brands displayed within the ambient ads (M=2.32, SD= .751, N=125) had higher means regarding brand memory compared to traditional ads (M= 2.01, SD= .721, N=130).
Level of incongruity was found to have a significant main effect on brand memory (F (1,247) = 5.03, p = .026, η2= .020). Advertisements containing moderate incongruity received
significantly higher means on brand memory (M= 2.43, SD= 0.72, N= 126) than ads containing extreme incongruity (M= 2.02, SD= 0.74, N= 129), confirming hypothesis 1a.
A post hoc test was conducted and revealed that brand memory was significantly higher among the respondents that viewed ambient advertisements that contained moderate incongruity levels (M= 2.32, SD= .733, N= 65), compared to the respondents that viewed traditional
advertisements that used extreme incongruity levels (M= 1.91, SD= 0.710, N= 65). Unfortunately the post hoc test (Appendix F) showed no other significant differences between ad style,
incongruity level and brand memory scores. Therefore hypothesis 1b was not confirmed. Ambient ads using moderate incongruity (M=2.32, SD= .733, N=61) did not differ significantly with regards to brand memory from traditional ads using moderate incongruity (M=2.20, SD= .705, N=65).
Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations: Ad Style, Level of Incongruity on Brand Memory.
Conditions M SD N
Traditional Ad with Extreme Incongruity 1.91 .710 65 Traditional ad with Moderate Incongruity 2.20 .705 65
Ambient ad with Extreme Incongruity 2.21 .801 64 Ambient ad with Moderate Incongruity 2.32 .733 61
Effect of Advertising style (ambient vs. traditional) and Level of Incongruity (extreme vs. moderate) on Brand Evaluations
Advertisement style (ambient or traditional) was found to have a significant main effect on brand evaluations (F (1, 247) = 32.81, p = .000). Respondents exposed to the ambient ads scored a significantly more positive mean score on brand evaluation (M= 5.11, SD= 1.22, N= 125), when compared to the respondents that were exposed to the traditional ads (M= 4.10, SD= 1.31, N= 130).
Graph 1. Ambient vs. Traditional Ads influence on Brand Evaluation.
The level of incongruity that was used was also found to have a significant main effect on brand evaluations (F (1, 247) = 8.03, p = .005). More specifically ambient and traditional ads using moderate incongruity obtained higher brand evaluation mean scores (M= 4.75, SD= 1.28,
SD= 1.40, N = 129). Thus verifying hypothesis 2a, traditional or ambient ads using moderate incongruity led to more favorable brand evaluations, compared to traditional and ambient ads that used extreme incongruity (Appendix G).
A post hoc Bonferroni test (table 2) reveals that ambient ads using extreme levels of incongruity (M= 2.60, SD= .714, N=64) and moderate levels of incongruity (M=2.61, SD= .714, N=61) scored significantly higher brand evaluations means than the traditional ads that used an extreme level of incongruity (M=1.80, SD= .843, N=65). However the post hoc analysis showed that no significant differences were found with regards to traditional ads using moderate levels of incongruity (M=2.20, SD= .705, N=65) and ambient ads using either moderate (M=2.32, SD= .733, N=61) or extreme incongruity (M=2.21, SD= .801, N= 64). Thus only partially verifying hypothesis 2b. Ambient ads using moderate and extreme incongruity affected brand evaluations more positively compared to traditional ads using extreme incongruity.
Table 3. Post Hoc test among Ad Style and Level of Incongruity on Brand Evaluations Ad Style and Level of Incongruence Associated Probability Mean Difference Traditional Extreme Incongruity &
Traditional Moderate Incongruity P= .002* -.502* Traditional Extreme Incongruity &
Ambient Extreme Incongruity
Traditional Extreme Incongruity & Ambient Moderate Incongruity
P= .000* -.801*
Ambient Moderate Incongruity & Traditional Moderate Incongruity
P= .074 -.311
Ambient Moderate Incongruity &
Ambient Extreme Incongruity P= 1.00 .111
Ambient Extreme Incongruity & Traditional Moderate Incongruity
P= .266 .270
*p< .05. Significant differences between conditions and brand evaluation scores.
Table 4. Means and Standard deviations: Ad Style and Level of Incongruity on Brand Evaluations.
Conditions M SD N
Traditional Ad & Extreme Incongruity 1.80 .843 65 Traditional Ad & Moderate Incongruity 2.31 .800 65 Ambient Ad & Extreme Incongruity 2.60 .714 64 Ambient Ad & Moderate Incongruity 2.61 .641 61
Effect of Brand Familiarity as a Moderating Variable
An ANOVA analysis investigated brand familiarity’s moderating role with regards to the effect between advertisement style on brand memory, but it showed no significant moderation effect (F (1, 247) = .914, p = .340, η2= .004).
Table 5. Mean and Standard Deviations: Interaction Brand Familiarity Advertising Style on Brand Memory.
Brand Familiarity Advertising Style M SD N
Unfamiliar Brand Traditional 1.953 .758 65
Familiar Brand
Ambient 2.387 .746 62
Traditional 2.123 .719 65
More over there was no significant moderation effect found concerning brand
familiarity’s effect on the relationship between ad incongruity and brand memory (F (1, 247) = .710, p = .400, η2= .003). A brand being unfamiliar or familiar did not influence the effects that advertising style or level of incongruity had on brand memory. Therefore declining hypothesis 3a.
Table 6. Mean and Standard Deviations: Interaction Brand Familiarity and Level of Incongruity on Brand Memory.
Brand Familiarity Level of Incongruity M SD N
Unfamiliar Brand Extreme Incongruity 1.939 .782 66 Moderate Incongruity 2.064 .765 62 Familiar Brand Extreme Incongruity 2.111 .698 63 Moderate Incongruity 2.390 .632 64
In addition an ANOVA was conducted to look at whether or not brand familiarity had a moderation role between the type of advertisement (ambient or traditional) or the level of
incongruence (moderate or extreme) and their effect on brand evaluations. However the analysis showed that no significant interaction effect was found (no moderation effect present) between brand familiarity and advertisement type on brand evaluations (F (1, 247) = .324, p = .600, η2= .001).
Table 7. Mean and Standard Deviations: Interaction Brand Familiarity and Advertising Style on Brand Evaluation.
Brand Familiarity Advertising Style M SD N
Unfamiliar Brand Ambient 2.571 .711 63 Traditional 1.984 .819 65 Familiar Brand Ambient 2.580 .588 62 Traditional 2.107 .850 65
Furthermore brand familiarity did not moderate the effect between level of incongruity and brand evaluation (F (1, 247) = .144, p = .704, η2= .001). Whether a brand was familiar (Pantene Pro-V) or unfamiliar (HairJoy) did not influence the effect advertising style or level of incongruity’s influence had on brand evaluation. Hence declining hypothesis 3b.
Table 8. Mean and Standard Deviations: Interaction Brand Familiarity and Level of Incongruity on Brand Evaluation.
Brand Familiarity Level of Incongruity M SD N
Unfamiliar Brand Extreme Incongruity 2.166 .887 66 Moderate Incongruity 2.387 .732 62 Familiar Brand Extreme Incongruity 2.190 .800 63 Moderate Incongruity 2.484 .712 64 Discussion
This study investigated the effects of advertising style (ambient and traditional) and level of incongruity (extreme or moderate) on brand evaluations and brand memory. Additionally this study investigated whether or not brand familiarity acted as a moderating variable.
The results indicate that respondents who viewed the ambient or traditional
advertisements containing moderate incongruity evaluated the brands displayed more positively, compared to when they were displayed in either one of the advertising styles using extreme incongruity. This confirms Mandler’s (1982) congruity theory (Appendix G), stating that when extreme levels of incongruence are used, people will tend to get confused and frustrated
(Stafford & Stafford, 2002). As a result the respondents that were exposed to the extreme incongruent ads might have neglected the task of solving the incongruity or established a negative evaluation towards it (Jain & Maheswaran, 2000). As Dahlen’s (2005) findings and Mandler (1982) suggested a moderate level of incongruity is more optimal than an extreme level of incongruity (Appendix H), which the results of this study confirmed.
Respondents that were exposed to ambient advertisements that used extreme or moderate incongruity evaluated the brands HairJoy and Pantene Pro-V more positively, compared to the respondents that viewed the traditional ads containing extreme incongruity. This could be
explained by the fact that ambient advertisements are known to evoke surprise (Shakeel & Khan, 2011), which leads to positively arousing consumers cognitively (Schutzwohl & Borgstedt, 2005).
Contrary to this studies assumption HairJoy and Pantene Pro-V were not evaluated significantly different amongst both traditional and ambient advertisements that used moderate incongruity. Due to the moderate levels of incongruity the respondents might have been more
likely to resolve the incongruity. In turn the positive response generated from solving the puzzle could have transferred to their brand evaluations (Phillips & McQuarrie, 2002), regardless of what advertising style was used. Overall consumers rated both Hairjoy and Pantene Pro-V more positively when they were embedded in ambient ads rather than traditional ads. This supports Benett et al.’s (2000) suggestion, that the use of unusual stimuli in unexpected locations will generate a stronger consumer response.
In terms of brand memory the results obtained indicate that the respondents recalled the brands within ambient ads more often than traditional ads. Moreover the brands in both types of advertisements using moderate incongruity were recalled more often than when using extreme incongruity. This might be due moderate incongruity stimulating extensive processing (Lee & Schumann, 2004), therefore embedding the brand into ones memory. Respondents might have scored lower on brand memory when viewing extreme incongruent ambient and traditional ads, because they got to confused and paid less attention to the ad or ignored it altogether (Stafford & Stafford, 2002). No significant difference was found in brand memory amongst the two
advertising styles when they used moderate incongruity. The fact that no difference was found with regards to brand memory may be due to how it was measured within this study.
Brand familiarity was also examined to see whether it acted as a moderating variable between the two independent (incongruity, ad style) variables and the two dependent (brand evaluation, brand memory) ones. However no moderation effect was detected between ad style and level of incongruity and brand evaluation, therefore contradicting Dahlen’s (2001) findings that familiar ads are evaluated more positively. Brand familiarity additionally did not moderate the effects between incongruity level or ad style and memory. Therefore also disagreeing with Low and Lamb’s (2000) findings that familiar brands are more likely to be remembered. The
results imply that whether or not a brand is familiar it will not affect how advertising style and incongruity level effect both brand memory and evaluations.
Advertising Implications
In todays marketing landscape an ad needs to be able to grab consumer’s attention, it needs to stand out from the rest of the clutter. Advertisers have the near impossible task of getting consumers to pay attention (Lundstorm & Sjobom, 2011). So how can this study help the advertising industry improve the success of their persuasive messages?
Brands displayed within ambient advertisements were evaluated more positively than when being embedded in traditional advertisements. This explains why guerilla advertising has become popular amongst advertisers (Gambetti, 2010). It confirms that people appreciate this novel marketing tactic, its surprise element, because it uses unconventional objects in
consumer’s immediate surroundings to attract them. As Ay, Aytekin and Nardali (2010) state “companies in todays economic climate are forced to reconsider their promotional and advertising budgets whilst trying to maintain and exceed their brand reach, impact and
profitability” (Cinnamon, p.24). Ambient advertising is a valid solution, seeing as it targets large groups of consumers in a non-intrusive unexpected manner within consumer’s environment. Another advantage is that ambient ads are a much cheaper alternative compared to the traditional advertising tactics.
Advertisers have said in the past that for an ad to result in a positive brand evaluation, ads have to be relevant and match consumer’s advertising and brand expectations (Percy & Elliott, 2005). Researchers implying that consumers use their brand and ad schemas to process the ad,
stating that incongruity would result in negative responses compared to congruity (Lee & Schumann, 2004). This study contradicts this assumption by demonstrating that incongruity levels can arouse positive responses, which is in accordance with Dahlen and Lange’s (2004) findings. Ambient and traditional ads are both evaluated positively when using moderate incongruity levels. Extreme incongruity does not evoke positive evaluations when combined with traditional ads, however the results argue that when one does use extreme incongruity one should do so within an ambient. Overall ambient ads and moderate levels of incongruity established the more positive desirable outcomes regarding both brand memory and brand evaluations.
If a brand wants to achieve attention, be seen in a positive light and be remembered, it should use an ad that is different. Both ambient ads and incongruity provoke consumers to think outside the box, to be challenged by something unexpected. This study showed that the
consumer in turn judges a brand more positively and remembers it better.
Limitations
One of the most prominent weaknesses in this study concerns the stimulus material that was used. The eight conditions showed eight advertising images along with a scenario that was used to help stimulate a real life setting among the respondents. However it can be said that conducting a field experiment would have been a more optimal option, especially since this study investigates and compares ambient advertisements to traditional advertisements. To capture the surprise effect of an ambient advertisement placed within people’s familiar
environment, this study used a caption. Which has its disadvantages, a major one being that the respondents in this study therefore did not undergo natural exposure variations, which are
usually present between the traditional (flyer) ad image and the ambient ad image. A field experiment would prove to increase the external validity of the study’s findings.
Furthermore brand memory was measured in this study using three open questions soon after the stimulus material was shown. It would be interesting to test brand memory among the respondents in a more long-term manner. Investigating whether brand memory differs amongst respondents a few weeks after being exposed to the stimulus material, rather than a few seconds afterwards. It might also explain why brand familiarity did not have a moderation effect in this study.
Future Research
Concerning future studies it would be interesting if researchers would measure the amount of attention people pay to the different advertising styles (ambient vs. traditional). By conducting an experiment, using eye-tracking mechanisms for example, one could look at how many times and how long the respondents viewed the two different advertising styles or perhaps avoided it. This could possibly provide an additional explanation with respect to their brand evaluations and brand memory.
Other variables that might be of value to researchers when comparing ambient and traditional ads are level of attachment respondents have with a brand, comparing different brand categories, brand personalities, need for cognition or degree of arousal seeking. Seeing as ambient advertisements have not yet been elaborately been researched there is still a lot of ground to be covered and knowledge to be acquired.
References
Abdul- Razzaq, S., Ozanne, L., & Fortin, D. (2009). Cutting Throught the Clutter? A Field Experiment Measuring Behavioral Responses to an Ambient Form of Advertising. Retrieved 20 April 2014,
http://storage.globalcitizen.net/data/topic/knowledge/uploads/20130318112331257962_ANZMAC2009-372.pdf
Alden, D. L., Mukherjee, A., & Hoyer, W. D. (2000). The Effects of Incongruity, Surprise and Positive Moderators on Perceived Humor in Television Advertising. Journal of Advertising, 29(2), 1-15.
Ay, C., Aytekin, P., & S. Nardali, S. (2010). Guerrilla marketing communication tools and ethical problems in guerilla advertising.” American Journal of Economics and Business Administration, 2(3), 280–286.
Bass, F. M., Bruce, N., Majumdar, S., & Murthi, B. P. S. (2007). Wearout effects of different advertising themes: A dynamic Bayesian model of the advertising- sales relationship. Journal of Market Science, 26(1), 179-195.
Beals, D. E. (1998). Reappropriating schema: Conceptions of development from Bartlett and Bakhtin. Mind, Culture & Activity, 5(1), 3-24.
Behal, V., & Sareen, S. (2014). Guerilla Marketing: A Low Cost Marketing Strategy. International Journal of Management Research & Business Strategies, 1(3), 319- 345.
Bennett, R., Kottasz, R., & Koudelova, R. (2000). Responses of marketing change leads to ambient advertising. Proceedings of the American marketing association summer educator’s conference 11(1), 32-27.
Borghini, S., Visconti, L. M., Anderson, L., & Sherry, J. F. (2010). Symbiotic postures of commercial advertising and street art. Journal of Advertising, 39(3), 113–126.
Brown, S. (2004). O customer, where art thou? Business Horizons, 47(4), 61-70.
Cinnamon, K. (2014). The Efficacy of Guerilla Advertising Campaigns on Public Health Issues. The Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research in Communications, 5(1), 24- 33.
Dahlen, M. (2001). Banner ads through a new lens. Journal of Advertising Research, 41(4), 23-30.
Dahlen, M. (2005). The Medium as a Contextual Cue: Effects of Creative Media Choice. Journal of Advertising, 34(3), 89-98.
Dahlen, M. (2009). A Rhetorical Question: What is the Impact of Non- traditional Media for Low and High Reputation Brands? Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 13(2), 13-23.
Dahlen, M., & Edenius, M. (2007). When is Advertising Advertising? Comparing Responses to Non- Traditional and Traditional Advertising Media. Journal of Current Issues & Research in
Advertising, 29(1), 33-42.
Dahlen, M., Rosengren, S., Torn, F., & Ohman, N. (2008). Could Placing Ads Wrong be Right? Journal of Advertising, 37(3), 57-67.
Darke, P. R., & Ritchie, R. J. B. (2007). The defensive consumer: Advertising deception, defensive processing and distrust. Journal of Market Research, 44(2), 114- 127.
Derbaix C., & Vanhamme, J. (2003). Inducing word-of-mouth by eliciting surprise? A pilot investigation. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24(1), 99–116.
Desai, K.K. & E. Gencturk (1995). Schema incongruity: A multidimensional
perspective involving advertising schema, self-schema, and product schema. Advances in Consumer Research, 22(1), 390-411.
Elliott, M. T., & Speck, P. S. (1998). Consumer Perceptions of Advertising Clutter and Its Impact across Various Media. Journal of Advertising Research, 38(1), 29-41.
Fiske, S.T., and S.E. Taylor. 1991. Social cognition. 1st ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope With Persuasion Attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1-31.
Gambetti, R. C. (2010). Ambient communication: How to engage consumers in urban touchpoints.California Management Review, 52(3), 34–51.
Hackley, C. (2001). Marketing and social construction: Exploring the rhetoric’s of managed consumption. Retrieved June 2014,
http://books.google.nl/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ESMVVp27Vx0C&oi=fnd&pg=PT6&dq=marketing+and+s ocial+construction&ots=KhZcjhTTnk&sig=CKVyl8kAGjGHnYlPgyadMuMpQ68#v=onepage&q=mark eting%20and%20social%20construction&f=false
Halkias, G., & Kokkinaki, F. (2013). Increasing advertising effectiveness through incongruity- based tactics: The moderating role of consumer involvement. Journal of Marketing Communications, 19(1), 182-197.
Heckler, S. E., & Childers, T. L. (1992). The role of expectancy and relevancy in memory for verbal and visual information: What is incongruency? Journal of Consumer Research, 18(4), 475–92.
Holden, S. J. S., & Vanhuele, M. (1999). Know the name, forget the exposure: brand familiarity versus memory of exposure context. Psychology & Marketing, 16(6), 479-496.
Hutter, K. (2014). Unusual Location and Unexpected Execution in Advertising: Content Analysis and Test of Effectiveness in Ambient Advertisements. Retrieved May 2014, from
http://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/97306
Hutter, K., & Hoffmann, S. (2011). Guerrilla Marketing. The Nature of The Concept and Propositions for Further Research. Asian Journal of Marketing, 5(2), 39–54.
Hutter, K., & Hoffmann, S. (2014). Surprise, surprise. Ambient Media as Promotion Tool for Retailers. Journal of Retailing, 90(1), 93-110.
Jain, S. P., & Maheswaran, D. (2000). Motivated reasoning: A depth-of-processing perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(4), 358-371.
Jurca, M. A., & Plăiaș, L. (2013). Schema Congruity- A basis for evaluating ambient advertising effectiveness. The Annals of the University of Oradea. Economic Science. 22(1), 1765- 1775.
Krautsack, D. (2008). Ambient media- how the world is changing. Admap Magazine, 488, 24-26.
Lange, F., & Dahlen, M. (2003). Let’s be strange: brand familiarity and ad-brand incongruency. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 12(7), 449-461.
Lange, F., & Dahlen, M. (2004). To challenge or not to challenge: Ad-brand incongruency and brand familiarity. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 12(3), 20-35.
Lasswell, H. (1948). The structure and function of communication in society. In Bryson, L. (Ed.), The communication of ideas. New York: Harper.
Lee, E. J., & Schumann, D. (2004). Explaining the special case of incongruity in advertising: Combining classic theoretical approaches. Marketing Theory, 4(2), 59–90.
Lee, Y. H., & Mason, C. (1999). Responses to Information Incongruency in Advertising: The Role of Expectancy, Relevancy, and Humor. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(1), 156-169.
Low, G. S., & Lamb, C. W. (2000). The measurements and dimensionality of brand associations. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 9(6), 350-368.
Lord, K. R., Burnkrant, R. E., & Unnava, H. R. (2001). The Effects of Program induced Mood states on Memory for Commercial Information. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 23(1), 1-15.
Lundstorm, J., & Sjobom, M. (2011). Think inside the Guerilla box? A quantitative study of how consumers perceive guerrilla marketing in contrast to traditional marketing.
Luxton, S., & Drummond, L. (2000). What is This Thing Called Ambient Advertising? In Proceedings of ANZMAC 2000 Visionary Marketing for the 21st Century: Facing the Challenge, 734–8.
Mandler, G. (1982). The structure of value: Accounting for taste in Affect and
Cognition. Affect and Cognition: The 17th Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition, Clark, M.S. and S.T. Fiske (Eds.). Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 3-36.
Misra, S., & Beatty. S. E. (1990). Celebrity Spokesperson and Brand Congruence. An Assesment of Recall and Affect. Journal of Business Research, 21(1), 159-173.
Percy, L., & Elliott, R. (2005). Strategic Advertising Management. Retrieved May 2014,
http://books.google.nl/books?hl=en&lr=&id=APuFBqYAXr0C&oi=fnd&pg=PP2&dq=Percy,+L.,+%26+ Elliott,+R.+(2005).+Strategic+Advertising+Management&ots=zhyZ77MdD5&sig=Ji9L32XLaN6qY59uJ 3u9pUIJNQs#v=onepage&q&f=false
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19(1), 123-205.
Phillips, B. J., & McQuarrie, E. F. (2002). The development, change, and transformation of rhetorical style in magazine advertisements 1954-1999. Journal of Advertising, 31(4), 1-13.
Pieters, R., Warlop, L., & M. Wedel, M. (2002). Breaking through the clutter: Benefits of advertisement originality and familiarity for brand attention and memory. Management Science, 48(6), 765–781.
Nguyen, H. P., Munch, J. M., & Gardner, M. P. (2014). Does Repeated Ad Exposure Impair or Facilitate Recall of Ads with Similar Affective Valence? An Exploratory Study. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 22(1), 25-39.
Sarin, C., & Pal, B. (2014). Word of Mouth Marketing: Consumer Participation. The International Journal of Business & Management, 7(1), 74-79.
Schutzwohl, A., & Borgstedt, K. (2005). The processing of affectively valenced stimuli: The role of surprise. Cognition and Emotion, 19(4), 583-600.
Shakeel, M., & Khan, M. M. (2011). Impact of Guerilla Marketing on Consumer Perception. Global Journal of Management and Business Research, 11(7), 46- 54.
Siefert, C. J., Kothuri, R., Jacobs, D. B., Levine, B., Plummer, J., & Marci, C. D. (2009). Winning the super buzz bowl. Journal of Advertising Research, 49(1), 293-303.
Simonin, B, L., & Ruth, J, A. (1998). Is a Company Known by the Company it Keeps? Assessing the Spillover Effects of Brand Alliances on Consumer Brand Attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(1), 30-42.
Srull, T. K. (1984). Methodological Techniques for the Study of Person Memory and Social Cognition, in Handbook of Social Cognition (2). Robert S. Wyer, Jr., and Thomas
K. Srull, eds., Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. (1984), l-72.
Stafford, T. F., & Stafford, M. R. (2002). The Advantages of Atypical Advertisements for Stereotypical Product Categories. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 24(1), 25-37.
Thompson, D.V., & R.W. Hamilton, R. W. (2006). The effects of information processing mode on consumers’ responses to comparative advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(4), 530–40.
Torn, F., & Dahlen, M. (2008). Effects of brand incongruent advertising in competitive settings. European Advances in Consumer Research, 8(1), 234–239.
Turk, T., Ewing, M. T., & Newton, F.J. (2006). Using ambient media to promote HIV/AIDS protective behavior change. International Journal of Advertising, 25(1), 333-359.
van den Putte, B. (2009). What matters most in advertising campaigns? The relative Effect of media expenditure and message content strategy. International Journal of Advertising, 28(4), 669–690.
Waddill, P. J., & McDaniel, M. A. (1998). Distinctiveness effects in recall: Differential processing or privileged retrieval. Memory & Cognition, 26(1), 108-120.
Whittlesea, B. W. A., & Williams, L. D. (2001). The discrepancy-attribution hypothesis I. The heuristic basis of feelings of familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 27(1), 3–13.
Yi, J. (1990). Cognitive and Affective Priming Effects of the Context for Print Advertisements, Journal of Advertising, 19(2), 40-48.
Yoon, H. J. (2012). Understanding schema incongruity as a process in advertising: Review and future recommendations. Journal of Marketing Communications, 19(5), 360-376.
Appendix
B) Moderate incongruent traditional advertisement for an unfamiliar brand (HairJoy).
D) Four items used during questionnaire to measure brand evaluations
F) Table displaying post hoc test: ad style, level of incongruity and brand memory
Ad Style and Level of Incongruence Associated Probability Mean Difference Traditional Extreme Incongruity &
Traditional Moderate Incongruity P= .137 -.312 Traditional Extreme Incongruity &
Ambient Extreme Incongruity
P= .242 -.303
Traditional Extreme Incongruity &
Ambient Moderate Incongruity P= .019* -.410* Ambient Moderate Incongruity &
Traditional Moderate Incongruity
P= 1.00 .104
Ambient Moderate Incongruity &
Ambient Extreme Incongruity P= 1.00 .122
Ambient Extreme Incongruity &
Traditional Moderate Incongruity P= 1.00 -.030 * p< .05. Significant differences between groups.
G) Graph indicating that both ambient and traditional ads scored higher on brand evaluation than their extreme incongruity counterparts.
