Effect of branding frequency on brand likeability and brand recall: a study of creative television ads targeting emerging adults.
Author: Miguel Angel Paz Chagoya Student ID: 10488634
Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication
Master’s programme Communication Science Youth and Media
Supervisor: Rinaldo Kühne
Abstract
Creativity is an essential element in the development of brand likeability and brand recall on TV ads aimed at emerging adults. Branding frequency is another important element for marketing and advertising practitioners when they have to develop an ad. In this paper we examine whether creativity is more important than branding frequency in the development of brand likeability and brand recall, necessary outcomes of advertising. We propose that frequency is a moderator of creativity on TV advertising and that it can improve positive results for likeability and recall. Using an online experiment, we find support for these hypotheses and demonstrate that frequency could be a moderator of creativity in some cases.
Keywords: Advertising, creativity, branding frequency, brand likeability, brand recall, emerging adults
Introduction
Emerging adults are an important consumer segment because they are heavy media users, they are early workers, they use new and traditional media, and they think more about their consumption decisions (Coyne, Padilla-Walker & Howard 2013).
They have specific characteristics and preferences, which marketers should take into account. They are individuals that are finishing their identity development stage, they are unstable, self focused, they are in a transition between adolescence and adulthood, and they are full of opportunities thanks to the freedom they have achieved (Arnett, 2004; Arnett, 2007).
Companies take these characteristics into account to develop brand loyalty in this age group because emerging adults are always changing from one brand to another (Generation Y, 2001); they still being in an exploratory stage (Arnett, 2000; Arnett, 2004). Digital media has increased its presence in our daily lives, and emerging adults are heavy users of it. Thanks to this new media companies have modified their marketing strategies and adapted to emerging adult’s new consumption media behavior (Prensky, 2001). Despite this fact, Television remains in its position as most used media in the world, considering that the numbers of hours of consumption have decreased and that emerging adults now like media multitasking (Zhang & Zhang, 2012; Nielsen, 2013).
There are two important elements of television advertising that have to be considered in each campaign: creativity and branding repetition (Ang, Leong, Lee & Lou, 2012; Tellis, 1997). This study investigates to what extent branding frequency within a TV ad and
creativity affects brand likeability and brand recall in emerging adults. The reason is because interaction between branding frequency and creativity has not been investigated yet, and it is not clear if one of these elements is more effective in the development of television
advertising. Another reason is that nowadays it is more difficult and there is less time to attract the attention of emerging adults because of their multitasking behavior that is why
practitioners need all the tools available to adapt and improve their communication strategies (Zhang & Zhang, 2012; Prensky, 2001).
Theoretical Background Creativity in Advertising
Market research companies and academic researchers have extensively studied advertising effects including the effects of creativity, storytelling, frequency, branding, and production elements, among others (Ang, Leong, Lee & Lou, 2012; Smith, Chen & Yang, 2008; Nguyen, Melewar & Chen, 2013; Kover, Goldberg & James, 1995).
Across time, different definitions of advertising creativity have been established. Advertising creativity is considered the production of ideas applied to an advertisement to make it divergent and relevant for a specific target group Smith and Yang (2004). Fabun (1968) defines creativity as the process where original ideas are formed and presented. Amabile (1997) establishes that creativity is the production of novel and relevant ideas aimed at a certain target group. Most definitions agree that creativity is the mix of divergent and relevant ideas applied to advertisements to make a brand’s message more attractive to current and potential consumer (Ang, Leong, Lee & Lou, 2012). Creativity is used in advertising to enhance the attention of this group and to make a message more interesting so the persuasion effect of it can be increased (El-Murad & West, 2003; Smith, MacKenzie, Yang, Buchholz & Darley, 2007). Besides, creativity is considered one of the most influential elements on advertising effectiveness (Smith & Yang, 2004).
Creativity in advertising has been studied extensively. Ang, Leong, Lee and Lou (2012) define advertising creativity as the development of messages in an innovative, out of the ordinary and unexpected way to communicate a “Unique Selling Proposition”. Some research establishes that creativity in advertising facilitates communication when the message has to be processed and it increases the viewer’s level of attention (Heath, Nairn &
Bottomley, 2009). It also makes the advertisement more memorable and appealing (Ang, Leong, Lee & Lou, 2012).
Ang, Leong, Lee and Lou (2012) establish that to assess an ad’s level of creativity we need to take in consideration 3 elements or dimensions: novelty, meaningfulness of the ad, and the connectedness that the ad has with the audience. Despite this fact, it has been found that creativity is very difficult to measure because even the lowest level of creativity has shown a statistical significance (Ang, Lee & Leong, 2007; Dahlén, Rosengren & Törn, 2008). An ad is considered novel if it is perceived as original, and if it puts new ideas together to make a message more interesting. It also relates to level of expectancy and how ordinary is the ad. An ad is meaningful if the image and the copy matches the main message that tries to convey, and how good do people understand what it tries to communicate. A high
connectedness exists when the consumers identify themselves with the ad and the message that is communicating; it is how good does the message make sense to them (Ang, Leong, Lee & Lou, 2012; El-Murad & West, 2003).
In the professional field the assessment and measure of creativity varies between awards companies, like Clio or Cannes. Nevertheless, this assessment partially fits with the methodology of Ang, Leong, Lee and Lou (2012). Nishad Ramachandran, Cannes jury in 2008 explains that the assessment of creativity of an advertising campaign in this contest depends in 4 elements: First, the idea has to be simple and easy to understand. Then, the strategy has to be sharp, original and valid. Also, the execution has to be unusual and finally, the campaign has to present precise and measurable results. In both cases the novelty (original idea, strategy and an unusual execution), the meaningfulness (sharp strategy where the idea that is trying to be conveyed matches the elements of the ad – image and copy) and the connectedness (measurable results that are obtained of how people evaluated and how positively they responded to the ad) are evaluated.
Young audiences including emerging adults have a high level of literacy when it comes to media production, they know how it is done, and they know when something is real or sponsored by a brand. Also, they know when a television content is creative or not,
including advertising. They consider creativity an important element of all the television content they consume in their daily lives, this suggests that creative ads are particularly appealing to this age group (Bernardin, Kemp-Robertson, Stewart, Cheng, Wan, Rossiter & Fukawa, 2008).
The Impact of Creativity on Brand Likeability
Brand likeability can be defined as the level of affection that a consumer has with a brand. It leads to the creation of a long-term relationship with the current consumers and attract new ones. Thanks to brand likeability this relationship is then translated into loyalty across time. (Kamins, Brand, Hoeke & Moe, 1989; Ye & Van Raaij, 2004; Aaker, 1997). Brand likeability is one of the most important objectives of advertising. This is because every time potential consumers increase their brand likeability level, the brand equity defined as Franzen (2009) as the measure of influence that a brand has in the purchase intention of current and potential consumers), loyalty and sales will increase (Franzen, 2009; Aaker, 1996; Farquhar, 1989). Advertising creativity is a key element in the development of brand
likeability amongst emerging adults. Nowadays the level of creativity has to be higher to avoid consumers’ distraction, ad skipping or ad blocking (Smith, Chen & Yang, 2008), activities that are common on emerging adults (Zhang & Zhang, 2012).
The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion is the most used model when it comes to advertising because it explains through its 2 routes (central and peripheral), and it explains the way of how audiences process a specific content they are exposed to (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986; O’Keefe, 2008). The central route will be used when consumers care about the issue that is being exposed and it will be unlikely that gets distracted. On the other hand,
the peripheral route will be used when consumers are not so interested in the issue presented but they will pay attention to the peripheral elements that are presented (Heath, Nairn & Bottomley, 2009; White & Smith, 2001). With this being said, we consider the peripheral route the place where advertising creativity exists because it will be used to attract attention of the audiences (Bernardin, Kemp-Robertson, Stewart, Cheng, Wan, Rossiter & Fukawa, 2008).
Creativity is considered an enhancer of brand likeability because a high level of creativity will increase the attention to the ad, the brand and because the mental processing of the information can lead to the development of existing schemas on emerging adults (Yang & Smith, 2009; Smith, MacKenzie, Yang, Buchholz & Darley, 2007; Buckingham & Harvey, 2001). For example, we know that Passat is a luxury car, but in 2012 they launched the “Darth Vader Boy” commercial, that showed a kid trying to move things as Darth Vader does in Star wars without any luck. The entire ad happened in a suburban house, with a small family, the kid and his parents. At the end of this ad the kid tries to start the engine of his dad’s Passat with his “Sith” powers, and he did, but in reality his dad does it with a remote controller. With this new information we know that Passat is also a family car.
H1: A high level of creativity of an ad will improve the consumer’s brand likeability level compared to a low level of creativity.
The Impact of Creativity on Brand Recall
Brand recall is defined as the degree to which an individual retrieve a brand from his memory spontaneously after being exposed to a stimulus (Krishnan, Sullivan, Groza & Aurand, 2013; Bagozzi & Silk, 1983; Shapiro & Krishnan, 2001). Novelty, an aspect of advertising creativity, influences recall, because increases the attention that an advertisement can achieve. With creativity the level of recall increases as well, and with this ads can have a higher level of effectiveness (Mulligan, 1998; Cox & Locander, 1987). Till & Baack (2005) found that advertising creativity increases the level of unaided recall compared to
non-creative commercials, and that the ad and the brand can be immediately recalled after one week of the exposure. All the commercials that they selected for the creative sample won advertising awards (Communication Arts Awards); this means that awards are a benchmark when it comes to commercials selection for a research stimuli.
As we mentioned before, creativity needs two determinant elements that have to be taken into account so to be effective in the development of recall: divergence and relevance (Ang, Leong, Lee & Lou, 2012; Smith, MacKenzie, Yang, Buchholz & Darley, 2007). Divergence it is defined as Smith and Yang (2004) as the level of originality that is included in a creative idea of an advertisement. On the other hand, Smith and Yang (2004) define relevance as how meaningful, appropriate and valuable an advertisement is to the target audience. These two elements are a key factor to develop brand recall, as it is to develop brand likeability. The reason behind this is that advertising exposure leads to perceptual activities of the audience that develop different levels of attention and excitement -relevance-, then it leads to a more receptive mental information processing that help understand more complex ideas. For example the divergent family concept of Passat -divergence- and finally will lead to a memory trace of the brand, so the audience can retrieve it easier the next time they are in contact with the category (Bagozzi & Silk, 1983; Baer, 1998; Vanden Bergh & Stuhlfaut, 2006).
H2: A high level of creativity of an ad will improve the consumer’s brand recall level compared to a low level of creativity.
Frequency in Advertising
The American Marketing Association (2014) defines frequency as the number of times a target audience is exposed to an advertisement broadcasted in any kind of media scheduled within a specific period of time. This definition establishes that frequency considers
Frequency or repetition consists in two phases based on Berlyne’s (1970) two-factor theory: the first one is called “wear-in” that is the process of habituation of an individual to a message. Habituation is the process of an individual to assimilate new information of a message. The second phase is called “wear-out” that is the stage where people stop learning from the message. This is when the message loses it effectiveness completely (Campbell and Keller, 2003; Pechmann, & Stewart, 1988; Tellis, 1997).
Research on frequency started on the 1960 and since then its effects has been
extensively studied (Politz, 1960). One of the most important findings is that advertising has a short-term effect in memory thanks to frequency and directly affects brand recall, brand likeability and sales, among others (Wood, 2009; Bagozzi & Silk, 1983). Another important finding about frequency and how individuals process information to recall it when it is needed is that after the first exposure people can recall an advertisement (Jones, 1995; Tellis, 1997; Zajonc, 1968). Other studies have demonstrated that people learn through repetition. It is easier for a target audience to process and learn new information provided in an advertisement if they are expose to it in several occasions (Janiszewski, Noel & Sawyer, 2003; Batra & Ray, 1986).
Frequency refers to the number of exposures to an advertisement as we mentioned before. Despite this fact, there is another perspective from marketers; they apply the
broadcasting frequency knowledge to the branding frequency that exist within the ad. They think that a higher broadcasting frequency and branding frequency within the ad will lead to a higher level of recall until the message wears out (Campbell & Keller, 2003; Berlyne, 1970), and they leave aside the importance of elements like creativity (Bernardin, Kemp-Robertson, Stewart, Cheng, Wan, Rossiter, & Fukawa, 2008). Broadcasting frequency as we explained before it is the repetition of one entire commercial in a specific time (American Marketing Association, 2014). Branding frequency it is the repetition of any of the elements of the brand
(Logo, slogan, selling line, institutional color, etc.) during one commercial. For example, in all the ads of Coca Cola you can see the well-known red tone, the handwriting, name of the brand, the bottle, etc. All these elements are considered branding (Franzen, 2009) and its repetition happens within the different ad formats (print, outdoor, television, online, etc). The Impact of Frequency on Brand Likeability
The relationship between frequency and attention/excitement can be expressed in a curvilinear graph and it explains that the attention and the excitement of the audience will increase on the first exposures of an advertisement and its decrease will be directly
proportional to the number of exposures that the consumer will have with the possibility of developing negative feelings towards the ad and the brand (Batra & Ray, 1986; Campbell & Keller, 2003; Tellis, 1997). Research about frequency effects focuses on advertisement repetition and how it affects brand likeability, recall, brand recognition, purchase intention, among others. Advertising frequency has a limit of exposures before it generates boredom in the audience (Campbell and Keller, 2003). Moreover, to more repetition people are able to assimilate the persuasion intention that an advertisement has and this could lead to negative attitudes toward the ads and the brands. Other researchers have found that there is no need of high repetition; they have found that even mere exposures develop positive attitudes when it comes to advertising (Matthes, Wirth, Schemer & Pachoud, 2012).
Frequency generates short-term effects and long term in effects and both of them generate positive feelings in the audience (Jones, 1995). In the short term, the main effect of frequency on brand likeability is the creation of brand awareness Franzen, 2009). The American Marketing Association defines brand awareness as the level of knowledge that a consumer has about a brand. Brands develop their awareness through creative concepts to create a bond with the consumers and achieve different levels of likeability (Franzen, 2009). In the long-term effects of frequency on brand likeability the most important effect is prior
attitudes. If consumers have already a prior positive attitude towards a brand and they have mere repeated exposure, the positive attitudes will be enhanced. If the prior attitude is negative can be improved the same way. (Messmer, 1979; Zajonc, 1968).
H3: A high level of branding frequency within an ad will improve the consumer’s brand likeability level compared to a low level of branding frequency.
The Impact of Frequency on Brand Recall
Wood (2009) confirms that after two exposures to an advertisement the individual responses reached a high peak. Besides, there are other studies that establish that responses can show a high peak after the first exposure, reaching an excellent effectiveness of the ad (Jones, 1989; Jones 1995). Cacioppo and Petty (1989) explain the main reason of repetition effectiveness in the development of recall; they found that a mere exposure to a certain message has a specific level of persuasion in the audience, and that individuals learn better from repetition. With these findings they established that repetition is an enhancer of the message persuasion created by a mere exposure.
Other research has shown that frequency has a positive effect on brand awareness by increasing brand familiarity, recognition and recall (Ye and Van Raaij, 2004). The reason of this is because frequency has a short and long term effects that will help consumers to recognize the brand when they see the brand logo; will develop an image of the brand and will recall it every time they think in a specific product. For example every time you see red, you think in Coca Cola or every time you think in high-quality cigarettes you can think in Marlboro or Camel. Some studies have focus in the variation of frequency and have found that recall varies (Wood, 2009; Tellis, 1997). Some found that recall could be reached after having only one exposure to an ad (Jones, 1989; Jones 1995; Tellis, 1997). There are others that have found that only after five exposures to an ad recall is reached (Wood, 2009; Messmer, 1979). There is some research that focuses on brand familiarity and they have
found that only frequency can lead to an effective familiarity with the brand. The brand has to be constantly present to achieve this (Campbell & Keller, 2003; Machleit & Wilson, 1988; Goschke & Kuhl, 1996). Other research focuses in cognitive processing which leads to brand recall. They establish that recall will be achieved thanks to the processing of the message of an ad thanks to repetition (Batra & Ray, 1986; Northup & Mulligan, 2013). Other research has found that individuals will react to any exposure it does not matter if the stimulus is non-sense (Janiszewski & Meyvis, 2001), but the repeated exposure to this message will improve the attitude towards an advertisement and the brand (Messmer, 1979).
H4: A high level of branding frequency within an ad will improve the consumer’s brand recall level compared to a low level of branding frequency.
The Interaction of Creativity and Branding Frequency on Brand Likeability and Brand Recall within an Ad.
It has been explained that creativity is an important element of advertising to develop brand likeability and brand recall. Advertising creativity enhances the possibility to increase the level of brand likeability that will lead to a long-term relationship with the current
consumers and attract new ones. Advertising creativity will enhance brand likeability because a high level of creativity will increase the attention of an ad, a brand and the cognition
processing will be more receptive to keep developing existing schemas (Yang & Smith, 2009; Smith, MacKenzie, Yang, Buchholz & Darley, 2007), Advertising creativity is an element, which will help in the development of brand recall. The reason behind this is because of the two key elements of advertising creativity that increase the level of the audience attention: Divergence and relevance (Mulligan, 1998; Ang, Leong, Lee & Lou, 2012; Smith,
MacKenzie, Yang, Buchholz & Darley, 2007).
When we talk about advertising creativity, frequency can be considered a moderator that increases the effects of creativity in the generation of brand likeability and brand recall.
The reason behind this theory is because individuals including emerging adults learn through repetition because each time a person is exposed to new information is adapting to it,
processing it, creating schemas until the information is acquired (Batra & Ray, 1986; Campbell & Keller, 2003; Piaget, 1965). The attention created by advertising creativity and the learning processed facilitated by frequency can create a correlation that improves brand likeability and brand recall. The proposal of having frequency as a moderator is because it has a main positive effect on brand likeability during the wear in stage, that is the moment when the audience is learning from the message (Jones, 1995; Messmer, 1979; Zajonc, 1968). Moreover, frequency is an important element in the development of brand recall because to a higher repetition a higher comprehension of the advertisement and a better level of recall (Messmer, 1979).
Most of the samples of creativity and frequency are built with graduate or
undergraduate students that are part of emerging adulthood (Nguyen, Melewar & Chen, 2013; Broach & Manrai, 1992; Smith, MacKenzie, Yang, Buchholz & Darley, 2007). Despite this fact the interaction effect of advertising creativity and branding frequency in brand likeability and brand recall has not been studied yet, because research focuses in broadcasting frequency instead of branding frequency (Jones, 1989; Jones 1995; Wood, 2009). It is important to build a sample with emerging adults because of the importance of this target to most marketers. Nowadays this target is known for being self-centered and having a high level of
multitasking, which leads to a reduced level of attention (Zhang & Zhang, 2012; Generation Y, 2001).
H5a: The positive effect of creativity on brand likeability is moderated by frequency. That is, a creative television advertisement with high branding frequency it has a stronger effect compared to a television advertisement with low branding frequency.
H5b: The positive effect of creativity on brand recall is moderated by frequency. That is, a creative television advertisement with high branding frequency it has a stronger effect compared to a television advertisement with low branding frequency.
Method Design, participants and procedure
An online experiment 2x2 factorial design was used in this study to test our
hypotheses. We recruited 120 emerging adults (18-25 years old), from different nationalities, that graduated from a bachelors or a master avoiding communication and marketing. We excluded people that have studies on these fields to prevent that they noticed the manipulation check during the pre-test and the main study. In the pre-test we recruited 12 participants and they were asked to assess the level of creativity and the branding frequency of four television advertisements of KIA that differed in their level of creativity and branding frequency (High Creativity – High Frequency, High Creativity – Low Frequency, Low Creativity – High Frequency and Low Creativity – Low Frequency). Participants of the pre-test had to access an online survey that started with a consent form, which they to agree with before starting. Then, they were exposed to one commercial at a time. After each commercial, participants were asked to assess how they evaluated the creativity of the ad and how many times they had seen the brand logo. The purpose of this was to see if the scales used were reliable, and if the stimuli matched the level of creativity and frequency that correspond to each group created. The results of the pre-test will be explained in the results section.
In the main study, from the pre-test ads we created four different groups based on the different conditions of creativity and frequency. We recruited 120 participants that were randomly assigned to one of the four groups. For this recruitment we followed the same guidelines than in the pre-test. Depending on the group participants were exposed to longer stimuli that included one of KIA’s advertisements. The stimuli included an episode of
“Friends” and a commercial cut with 5 TV advertisements. The participants of the main study had to access an online survey. The survey started with a consent form so people could agree to participate. Then, we included an explanation of what the participants were just about to see and the time that was supposed to be spent for the study. After participants watched the stimuli they were asked to recall the number of logos or brand names they saw. Then, they were asked to recall the first three brands that came to their minds, and if they knew to which category they belonged to. Moreover, they had to assess the level of creativity of KIA’s commercial, and finally they had to answer based on the ad they saw what was their attitude towards. Also, they had to demographic questions to know the nationality, age and gender. Stimulus Material
First, in the pre-test two KIA television ads were chosen. This brand was chosen because their yearly communication focus in one of their products and they develop different kind of campaigns (creative and no creative). The ads chosen varied in level of creativity (low and high) and branding frequency (low and high), resulting in 4 ads. The length of the 4 advertisements was 90 seconds and all of them were previously edited to meet the level of frequency we wanted (High Frequency: 6 logos; Low Frequency: 3 logos). Also, the ads showed the same car (KIA Optima) of the same color (white). The high creativity ad chosen is called “A dream car for real life” and it focuses in what the car can do for you in your dreams. The low creativity ad chosen is called “Impressive” and it focuses in presenting the details of the car while a young lady is driving it on a highway.
For the main study, we recreated a real life situation were the participants had to watch part of an episode of a famous show and a commercial cut in the middle, as it happens in normal TV viewing. We developed a stimulus of 11 minutes each, which included an edited version of the television program aimed at emerging adults “Friends”. This show included a regular commercial cut; a compilation of 5 television spots of brands that are in the awareness
stage. There were four groups that were exposed to the same show and 4 commercials. The fifth television spot varied in each group, this ad belonged to KIA, which was our
manipulation. The ads included varied in the level of creativity (low and high), and the level of branding frequency (low and high). The commercial cut considered the following TV advertisements: Marvin (Toucan), John Smith’s (No Nonsense Babies), Veet (Morning – Don’t Risk Dudeness), and Orange (Patrick Swayze Pitch). Finally, one of the different versions of KIA’s commercials was included in the middle of commercial cut, between John Smith’s and Veet’s advertisements. The commercials were randomly assigned in the
commercial cut as media agencies and broadcasters normally do it. Measurements
Four concepts were measured, creativity and branding frequency as the independent variables and brand recall and brand likeability as dependent variables. To measure the level of branding frequency we considered Wood’s (2009) frequency findings that say that after two repetitions of an ad recall will reach a high peak. Based on this we considered three exposures to the brand logo or name during the television spot as “low frequency”. In the “high frequency” level, we considered six repetitions of the brand logo or name during the television spot to have a substantial difference compared to the low frequency level. Based on Till and Back (2005) findings that creativity enhances recall, and Cacioppo and Petty (1989) says theory that mere exposure can lead to recall, we included a recall question. The
participants were asked after being exposed to the stimulus, which were the three first brands they remembered from the commercial cut. To classify the level of creativity we considered Smith, MacKenzie, Yang, Buchholz & Darley’s (2007) 30-item creativity scale and its two elements divergence and relevance. Based on this scale we chose two different commercials that were assessed during the pre-test to evaluate if the difference of the level of creativity was significant. These commercials were from brand aimed at emerging adults from different
categories where this target is very active. The categories included were: cars, alcoholic beverages, media, wax and mobile services.
To measure the brand likeability after being exposed to the stimulus we used Spears and Singh (2004) attitude towards the brand five items scale, and Yoo and Donthu (2001) brand likeability five items scale. Spears and Sigh (2004) scale includes the following items: how appealing, how good, how pleasant, how favorable and how likeable is a brand to a current or potential consumer. Yoo and Donthu (2001) scale is different only in two items: how attractive and how desirable is the brand to a current or potential consumer. We took both scales and used all the different items to create a new one, resulting in an eight items scale.
Analysis and Results
In this section we present the findings of the analyses of the relationship between advertising creativity towards brand likeability and brand recall. We also analyzed the interaction role that frequency plays in this model as a moderator, and as an enhancer of creativity to improve the brand likeability and brand recall when a television ad is creative. Pre-test
In the pre-test 12 participants between 18 and 25 years old were exposed the 4 KIA commercials that corresponded to each level of creativity and frequency (High Creativity – High Frequency, High Creativity – Low Frequency, Low Creativity – High Frequency and Low Creativity – Low Frequency). Then they answered Smith, MacKenzie, Yang, Buchholz & Darley’s (2007) creativity scale that included thirty items (Cronbach’s alpha= .93)
(M=3.02, SD=.90) and a frequency question (Do you remember how many times the logo and the name of the brand were visible?) (M=3.39, SD= 1.56). This assessed the scales and see if the commercials chosen matched each group of creativity and frequency. The items of this scale can be checked on the appendix. To check how creative the ads were perceived a
one-way ANOVA was performed based on the 30-item scale. Participants perceived the High Creativity – High Frequency ad as the most creative and with highest frequency as it was planned. The difference between the four groups was significant F (3,44) = 28,97, p < .05. Table 1. The mean and standard deviation for each ad is depicted (N=12)
Mean Standard Deviation N Exposure:
HC–HF 3.82 .51 12
HC–LF 3.68 .49 12
LC–HF 2.32 .54 12
LC–LF 2.28 .59 12
HC: High Creativity, HF: High Frequency, LC: Low Creativity, LF: Low Frequency
As can be seen in the table, the first advertisement was perceived as the most creative one and the least creative was the “Low Creativity-Low Frequency” ad. A post hoc analysis showed that there were significant group differences. First, between the high creativity groups (High Creativity-High Frequency and High Creativity-Low Frequency), there was no significant difference (Mdifference = .13, p >.05). Second, the ads of the “High Creativity-High Frequency” and “High Creativity-Low Frequency” condition were considered more creative than the “Low High Frequency” ads (Mdifference =1.49, p <.05) and the “Low Creativity-Low Frequency” ads (Mdifference =1.54, p <.05). Finally, there was no significant difference between both low creative ads (Low Creativity-High Frequency and Low Creativity-Low Frequency) (Mdifference =.04, p >.05). These results suggest that the ads differ with regard to their creativity nd frequency (high creativity, low creativity and high frequency, low
frequency) and that they can be used in the main study. Moreover, to analyze the frequency variable a chi-square test was performed, and the result was significant X2 (15, N = 12) = 24.97, p<.05. In the High Creativity-High Frequency group, 33% of people reported that they saw 5 KIA logos, when in reality there were 6. In the High Creativity-Low Frequency group, 33% of people said that they saw the logo 3 times. In the Low Creativity-High Frequency group, 41% of the participants reported that they saw the KIA logo 4 times, when in reality there were 6. In the Low Creativity-Low Frequency group, 27% of the participants said that
they saw 4 logos when they were only 3. With these results we assure the effectiveness of the stimuli for the current study.
Main Study
In the main study we had 120 participants, 51 (42.5%) were men and 69 (57.5%) women between 18 and 25 years old and from different nationalities. Before starting the analysis a principal component analysis for creativity and brand likeability. The factor analysis showed for creativity that the 30 items formed 3 different components with an eigenvalue higher than 1. All the loadings below .40 were not considered in any of the 3 components. In the first component (eigenvalue 18.71) there were only two negative loadings and one loading of .48, the rest of the loading reached a number higher than .70. The variance explained by this component was 62.36%. In the second component (eigenvalue 2.60) there were 5 loadings that were shared with the first component but four of them were negative and lower than .50. In this case the second component explained 8.39% of variance. In the third component (eigenvalue 1.04) there was only one loading that was shared with the first component. This component explained 3.48% of the variance.
An oblimin rotation showed that the loadings of the components changed. The second component increased (eigenvalue 14.87) but most of the items’ loadings were negative
compared to the first components, which means that the variables only improved their fit with the first factor and we only used the first factor. Based on this we decided to take out the two negative items leaving 28 items of the first component so we could perform the reliability test. The scale was highly reliable (Cronbach’s alpha = .97). With this being said we can use Smith, MacKenzie, Yang, Buchholz & Darley’s (2007) creativity scale. Moreover, the factor analysis for the eight items of brand likeability formed and the result was only one component with an eigenvalue above 1 (eigenvalue 5. 84). The loadings of six items were between .67 and .80. This component explained 73% of the variance. Also, an oblimin rotation did not
show a change of the component’s loadings. In this case the scale was highly reliable (Cronbach’s alpha = .94). This means that Yoo and Donthu (2001) and Spears and Sigh (2004) scales can be used.
We also carried out a Kolmorov Smirnov’s test of normality to check the sample’s distribution of brand likeability. There were 6 outliers that were identified based on the first results of this test, giving a total of 114 participants. To identify the outliers we checked the plot of the test and took out the cases that were far from the normality line. After getting rid of the outliers the results showed that three out of the four groups were normally distributed (High Creativity-High Frequency D(114)=.14, p>.05; High Creativity-Low Frequency
D(114)=.14, p>.05; Low Creativity-High Frequency D(114)=.17, p>.05; Low Creativity-Low Frequency D(114)=.17,p<05). Furthermore, a parametric Levine’s test was used to verify the equality of variances in the sample (p>.05). These results suggest that no assumptions were violated and which means that our results will not be misleading on brand likeability.
Effects on Brand Likeability (H1, H3 & H5)
A two-way ANOVA test was performed for hypothesis 1, 3 and 5 to see the effects of creativity and frequency on brand likeability. Hypothesis 1 posits that a high level of
creativity of a television ad would improve the consumer’s brand likeability level compared to a low level of creativity. The result was positive and significant as we can see on the table below F(1,114) = 116.06, p<.05. The high creativity groups (M=4.02, SD=.54) scored higher compared to the low creativity groups (M=3.65, SD=.63). This suggests that creativity has a positive effect on brand likeability in television advertisements. These results corroborate our first hypothesis and indicate that creative television ads would improve brand likeability compared to ads that are not creative. Hypothesis 3 postulates that a high level of branding frequency within an ad will improve the consumer’s brand likeability level compared to a low level of branding frequency. We found a significant effect of branding frequency on brand
likeability F(1,114) = 4.12, p<.05. The high frequency group scored higher (M=2.80, .43) compared to the low frequency group (M=2.76, SD=.41). These results support our hypothesis, and a high branding frequency television ad would improve brand likeability compared to ads that have low branding frequency. Hypothesis 5 posits that the effect of creativity on brand likeability would be moderated by frequency. That is, a creative television advertisement with high branding frequency should lead to a bigger increase in brand
likeability, compared to a television advertisement with low branding frequency. However, we did not find a significant interaction effect F(1,114) = 2.79, p>.05. Despite this fact, the p-value suggest that we found a trend on this interaction (p=.09),
Table 2. Creativity*Frequency on Brand Likeability
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p η2 Creativity 31.52 1 31.52 116.06 .01 .51 Frequency 1.12 1 1.12 4.12 .04 .03 Creativity*Frequency .75 1 .75 2.79 .09 .02 Error 29.88 110 .27
Total 1335.41 114
Effects on Brand Recall (H2, H4 & H5b)
To analyze the effects of creativity and frequency on brand recall we carried out a chi square test for each brand included in the stimuli (KIA, Orange, Veet, John Smith’s and Marvin), We did this for each hypothesis. Also, we recoded the brand recall variable to see how many times each brand was mentioned as first, second, third brand or if it was not mentioned at all. Originally on this question, participants had to fill in the first three brands that they recalled from the commercial cut; to recode divided the five brands and create a new variable for each one. For each variable we wrote down how many times each brand was mentioned first, second, third or not mentioned at all. First, in hypothesis 2 we proposed that a high level of creativity of an ad would improve the consumer’s brand recall level compared to a low level of creativity. The chi-square test for KIA was the only significant one X2 (3,
N=114) =16.70, p<.05. This suggests that there is an association between creativity and brand recall. From the participants that were exposed to the high creativity condition, 27 (45%) mentioned KIA as their first brand, 17 (28.3%) as the second brand, 7 (11.7%) as the third brand, and 9 (15%) did not mention it. On the other hand, from the participants who were exposed to the low creativity condition, 17 (31.5%) mentioned KIA as their first brand, 4 (7.4%) as their second one, 10 (18.5%) as their third brand, and 23 (42.6%) did not mention it. As we can see the count of the chi-square was significant and the difference of the people that mentioned KIA in the high and low creativity conditions is also relevant to indicate that our hypothesis has been proven. Examining the results it is noted that in the high creativity conditions there were more people that mentioned KIA as one of their first three brands. If we compare this with the low creativity conditions, it is noted that people who answered KIA as one of their first three brands that can be recalled is less, and that people that did not mention it increases.
Second, in hypothesis 4 we proposed that a high level of branding frequency within an ad would improve the consumer’s brand recall level compared to a low level of branding frequency. The percentages were in line with this hypothesis but the chi-square tests did not show significant results for any of the brands including KIA X2 (3, N=114) = 3.20, p = .36. From all the participants of the high frequency condition, 26 (45.6%) mentioned KIA as their first brand, 8 (14%) as the second brand, 9 (15.8%) as the third brand, and 14 (24.6%) did not mention it. On the other hand, from the participants of the low frequency condition, 18 (31.6%) mentioned KIA as their first brand, 13 (22.8%) as their second one, 8 (14%) as their third brand, and 18 (31.6%) did not mention it. These results suggest that this hypothesis was not proven and that branding frequency does not have an association on branding recall. Despite this fact, we can see that people from the high frequency groups mentioned more KIA as one of their first three brands compared to the low frequency groups.
Finally, in hypothesis 5b we proposed that the effect of creativity on brand likeability would be moderated by frequency. That is, a creative television advertisement with high branding frequency it has a stronger effect compared to a television advertisement with low branding frequency. In this occasion we crossed creativity and frequency as the independent variables and brand recall as the dependent variable. From the chi-square tests that were performed per brand for this hypothesis, the only significant one was KIA’s test X2
(3, N=114) = 12.40, p < .05. Within KIA’s test we observed that the low frequency groups were not significant X2 (3, N=114) = 5.85, p=.11. These findings indicate that despite the fact that chi-square it is not a test to measure effect, this significance suggests that branding frequency is a moderator of creativity on brand recall.
Conclusion and Discussion
Summary of findings
In this experiment we examined how emerging adults respond to the brand likeability and brand recall base on two elements: creativity and branding frequency. We investigated if branding frequency is a moderator of creativity in the development of likeability and recall in television ads aimed at emerging adults (people from 18 to 25 years old). On the effect of creativity on brand likeability we confirmed what previous literature has found: creativity is an enhancer of brand liking because it increases the attention of an ad (Yang & Smith, 2009; Smith, MacKenzie, Yang, Buchholz & Darley, 2007). On the effect of branding frequency on brand likeability we found that within a television ad a high branding frequency leads to a higher level of brand likeability amongst emerging adults. It is important to take into account that in this research six logos or brand names was considered high frequency, and three logos or brand names was considered low frequency. On the moderation effect of branding
On the effect of creativity on brand recall we confirmed previous research findings: Thanks to the increased attention that an advertisement can achieve with creativity the level of recall increases as well, and with this ads can have a higher level of effectiveness (Mulligan, 1998; Cox & Locander, 1987). On the effect of frequency on brand recall, we found that brand recall could be achieved with low branding frequency. On the moderation effect of branding frequency on brand recall we found that there was a positive association between creativity and branding frequency on brand recall. Based on this we were able to answer our research question, frequency can be a moderator of creativity to obtain more positive
outcomes in the development of brand likeability and brand recall. Contributions to literature
Previous research has demonstrated that creativity has a positive and strong effect on brand likeability and brand recall (Nguyen, Melewar & Chen, 2013; Broach & Manray; 1992; Mulligan, 1998; Cox & Locander, 1987). In fact it is one of the most important elements of advertising effectiveness. Research on the effects of frequency has found as well that it affects positively on likeability and recall, but it has its limits, because in some point it generates boredom in the consumers when advertising is on the wear-out stage (Campbell and Keller, 2003; Jones, 1989; Jones 1995). Our research complements previous research specially on branding frequency. First, findings showed that branding frequency has an effect on brand likeability amongst the target, which means that as an independent variable it is important but not determinant. Nevertheless on the interaction effect we saw that branding frequency does not have a significant moderating creativity on brand likeability, so in television advertising creativity is determinant in the development of brand likeability if we compare it to
frequency. These new findings reinforce the importance of creativity in the research of advertising effects.
Furthermore, the not significant results of the effect of branding frequency on brand recall help us confirm previous research; a high level of recall can be achieved with low frequency on emerging adults. However, in the interaction effects of frequency and creativity on brand recall the significant positive result suggests that frequency it is fundamental to increase the effect of creativity.
. These contributions to frequency literature suggests that broadcasting frequency findings can be applied to branding frequency research like in this study, because even after three exposures (low frequency) to a logo or the brand name in one ad the brand can be recalled. This suggests that creativity by itself can achieve good outcomes and that frequency is just a trigger to maintain the brand in the consumers’ mind. The contribution for creativity literature it is the reinforcement of previous research findings. The reinforcement that
creativity it is determinant in the development of brand likeability and brand recall, and that creativity is so powerful amongst emerging adults that elements like frequency lose their importance.
Contributions to practice
Our research has important implications to advertising and marketing practitioners as well. We found that creativity is an essential element that drives attention to a brand; changes attitudes towards the brand and it can exist by itself. We also found that it is an important element to attract emerging adults’ attention. In fact, they enjoy creativity so much that branding frequency does not attract so much attention. Emerging adults recalled KIA’s advertisements but they were not focused in how many logos they saw during the
commercials. For advertising and marketing practitioners this is an important finding because when they develop television campaigns they have to focus in creativity. For branding
frequency they have to put a couple of logos so people can recall the brand and know which brand is talking to them. With creativity the level of brand likeability on emerging adults
increases as well. One of the most important outcomes of advertising is to develop brand likeability so practitioners have to focus on creativity instead of frequency. Branding
frequency only exists to develop recognition and recall but the amount it is not a determinant. Advertising campaigns can have higher levels of creativity instead of higher levels of
frequency in the development of brand likeability and brand recall, because the only element that makes a difference is creativity.
Practitioners can add these findings to their marketing strategies and develop brands that can be well known for being creative, for being more interesting, for being more attractive to emerging adults. It is possible that this target can be reached with this and increasing advertising effectiveness. Creativity has to be a basic element for brands in the awareness stage and this creativity has to evolve. Practitioners cannot use the same kind of creativity all the time, has to move with emerging adults’ interests so attention can be maintained and with this increasing the level of persuasion of the messages.
Limitations and directions for future research
Our work comes with some limitations and brings some interesting questions for future research. First, the not significant interaction between branding frequency and creativity in the development of brand likeability suggests that frequency it is not a
determinant in the model. In future research new interactions need to study to obtain better brand likeability results when creativity is used as an independent variable. Second, the small difference in the effect of frequency on brand recall between the high and the low creativity condition reaffirms that frequency it is not a variable that help creativity to reach better results.
In future research online television advertisements should be studied because in this research we focused on traditional television. Emerging adults use traditional and online media and television formats have reached the online world. Because of this it is important to
study these television formats and see if creativity works in the same way on this
environments. For example some brands have decided to get rid of their logo in some online video advertisements, like Wren and its “First Kiss” ad, where they just put the name of the brand on Youtube’s description. Did people really notice that this was an advertisement for a clothing brand? Besides, this research recruited emerging adults from different nationalities. Additional work should be done on advertisement length. We saw that branding frequency is not determinant in the development of brand recall and previous research found that
frequency leads to boredom, so how different length can affect attention or brand recall. References
Aaker, D. A. (1996). Measuring brand equity across products and markets.California
management review, 38(3).
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing research, 347-356.
Amabile, T. M. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: on doing what you love and loving what you do. California management review, 40(1).
American Marketing Association Dictionary. (2014). Retrieved on April 2014. https://www.ama.org/resources/Pages/Dictionary.aspx?dLetter=F
Ang, S. H., Lee, Y. H., & Leong, S. M. (2007). The ad creativity cube: Conceptualization and initial validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(2), 220-232. Ang, S. H., Leong, S. M., Lee, Y. H., & Lou, S. L. (2012). Necessary but not sufficient: Beyond novelty in advertising creativity. Journal of Marketing Communications, (ahead-of-print), 1-17.
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American psychologist, 55(5), 469.
Arnett, J. J. (2004). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the
twenties. Oxford University Press.
Arnett, J. J. (2007). Emerging adulthood: What is it, and what is it good for?.Child
development perspectives, 1(2), 68-73.
Baer, J. (1998). The case for domain specificity of creativity. Creativity Research
Bagozzi, R. P., & Silk, A. J. (1983). Recall, recognition, and the measurement of memory for print advertisements. Marketing Science, 2(2), 95-134.
Batra, R., & Ray, M. L. (1986). Situational effects of advertising repetition: The moderating influence of motivation, ability, and opportunity to respond. Journal of Consumer
research, 432-445.
Bernardin, T., Kemp-Robertson, P., Stewart, D. W., Cheng, Y., Wan, H., Rossiter, J. R., ... & Fukawa, N. (2008). Envisioning the future of advertising creativity research: alternative perspectives. Journal of Advertising, 37(4), 131-150.
Berlyne, Donald E. (1970). Novelty, Complexity, and Hedonic Value. Perception and Psychophysics, 8, 279–286.
Broach Jr, V. C., & Manrai, A. K. (1992). Advertising Appeal and Tone: Implications for Creative Strategy in Television Commercials. Journal of Business
Research, 25(43m58), 19.
Buckingham, D., & Harvey, I. (2001). Imagining the audience: language, creativity and communication in youth media production. Journal of Educational
Media, 26(3), 173-184.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1989). Effects of message repetition on argument
processing, recall, and persuasion. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10(1), 3-12. Campbell, M. C., & Keller, K. L. (2003). Brand familiarity and advertising repetition
effects. journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 292-304.
Coyne, S. M., Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Howard, E. (2013). Emerging in a Digital World A Decade Review of Media Use, Effects, and Gratifications in Emerging Adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 1(2), 125-137.
Cox, D. S., & Locander, W. B. (1987). Product novelty: does it moderate the relationship between ad attitudes and brand attitudes?. Journal of Advertising,16(3), 39-44.
Dahlén, M., Rosengren, S., & Törn, F. (2008). Advertising creativity matters. Journal of
Advertising Research, 48(3), 392-403.
El-Murad, J., & West, D. C. (2003). Risk and creativity in advertising. Journal of
Marketing Management, 19(5-6), 657-673.
Fabun, D. (1968). You and creativity (5th ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Glencoe. Farquhar, P. H. (1989). Managing brand equity. Marketing research, 1(3). Franzen, G (2009). Brand Portfolio and Brand Architecture Strategies.
Generation Y: No Brand Loyalty, Only Self (2001). Retrieved on February 2014.
Goschke, T., & Kuhl, J. (1996). Remembering what to do: Explicit and implicit memory for intentions.
Heath, R. G., Nairn, A. C., & Bottomley, P. A. (2009). How effective is creativity?
Emotive content in TV advertising does not increase attention.Journal of Advertising
Research, 49(4), 450-463.
Janiszewski, C., & Meyvis, T. (2001). Effects of brand logo complexity, repetition, and spacing on processing fluency and judgment. Journal of consumer
research, 28(1), 18-32.
Janiszewski, C., Noel, H., & Sawyer, A. G. (2003). A Meta‐ analysis of the Spacing
Effect in Verbal Learning: Implications for Research on Advertising Repetition and Consumer Memory. Journal of consumer research, 30(1), 138-149.
Jones, J. P. (1989). Ad spending: maintaining market share. Harvard Business
Review, 68(1), 38-42.
Jones, J. P. (1995). Single-source research begins to fulfill its promise. Journal of
Advertising Research.
Kamins, M. A., Brand, M. J., Hoeke, S. A., & Moe, J. C. (1989). Two-sided versus one- sided celebrity endorsements: the impact on advertising effectiveness and
credibility. Journal of Advertising, 18(2), 4-10.
Kover, A. J., Goldberg, S. M. & James, W. M. (1995). Creativity vs. Effectiveness? An Integrating Classification for Advertising. Journal of Advertising Research 35(6), 29-40.
Krishnan, V., Sullivan, U. Y., Groza, M. D., & Aurand, T. W. (2013). The Brand Recall Index: a metric for assessing value. Journal of Consumer Marketing,30(5), 415- 426. Machleit, K. A., & Wilson, R. D. (1988). Emotional feelings and attitude toward the
advertisement: The roles of brand familarity and repetition. Journal of
Advertising, 17(3), 27-35.
Matthes, J., Wirth, W., Schemer, C., & Pachoud, N. (2012). Tiptoe or Tackle? The Role of Product Placement Prominence and Program Involvement for the Mere
Exposure Effect. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising,33(2), 129-145. Messmer, D. J. (1979). Repetition and attitudinal discrepancy effects on the affective
response to television advertising. Journal of Business Research,7(1), 75-93. Mulligan, N. W. (1998). The role of attention during encoding in implicit and explicit
memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 24(1), 27.
Nguyen, B., Melewar, T. C., & Chen, J. (2013). A framework of brand likeability: an exploratory study of likeability in firm-level brands. Journal of Strategic
Nielsen: Global Ad Spend: With Double Digits Gains, Displays Ads Drive In-Your-Face Results (2013). Retrieved on February 2014.
http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/newswire/2013/global-ad-spend-with-double-digit-gains-display-ads-drive-in-y.html
Northup, T., & Mulligan, N. (2013). Conceptual implicit memory in advertising research. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27(1), 127-136.
O’Keefe, D. J. (2008). Elaboration likelihood model. The International Encyclopedia of
Communication, 4.
Pechmann, C., & Stewart, D. W. (1988). Advertising repetition: A critical review of
wearin and wearout. Current issues and research in advertising, 11(1-2), 285- 329. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of
persuasion (pp. 1-24). Springer New York.
Piaget, J. (1965). The stages of the intellectual development of the child.Educational
psychology in context: Readings for future teachers, 98-106.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the horizon,9(5), 1-6. Politz, Alfred, Media Studies (1960). The Rochester Study. New York: The Saturday
Evening Post.
Shapiro, S., & Krishnan, H. S. (2001). Memory-based measures for assessing advertising effects: a comparison of explicit and implicit memory effects. Journal of
advertising, 30(3), 1-13.
Smith, R. E., Chen, J., & Yang, X. (2008). The impact of advertising creativity on the hierarchy of effects. Journal of Advertising, 37(4), 47-62.
Smith, R. E., MacKenzie, S. B., Yang, X., Buchholz, L. M., & Darley, W. K. (2007). Modeling the determinants and effects of creativity in advertising. Marketing
Science, 26(6), 819-833.
Smith, R. E., & Yang, X. (2004). Toward a general theory of creativity in advertising: Examining the role of divergence. Marketing Theory, 4(1-2), 31-58.
Spears, N., & Singh, S. N. (2004). Measuring attitude toward the brand and purchase intentions. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising,26(2), 53-66. Tellis, G. J. (1997). Effective frequency: one exposure or three factors?.Journal of
Advertising Research, 75-80.
Till, B. D., & Baack, D. W. (2005). Recall and persuasion: does creative advertising matter?. Journal of Advertising, 34(3), 47-57.
Vanden Bergh, B., & Stuhlfaut, M. (2006). Is advertising creativity primarily an individual or a social process?. Mass Communication & Society, 9(4), 373-397.
White, A., & Smith, B. L. (2001). Assessing advertising creativity using the creative product semantic scale. Journal of Advertising Research, 41(6), 27-34.
Wood, L. (2009). Short-term effects of advertising: Some well-established empirical law-like patterns. Journal of Advertising Research, 49(2), 186-192.
Yang, X., & Smith, R. E. (2009). Beyond attention effects: Modeling the persuasive and emotional effects of advertising creativity. Marketing Science,28(5), 935-949. Ye, G., & Van Raaij, W. F. (2004). Brand equity: extending brand awareness and liking
with signal detection theory. Journal of marketing communications,10(2), 95- 114. Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2001). Developing and validating a multidimensional
consumer-based brand equity scale. Journal of business research, 52(1), 1-14. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal Effects of Mere Exposure. J. Pers. Sot. Psychol.
Monogr. Suppl. 9: l-27.
Zhang, W., & Zhang, L. (2012). Explicating multitasking with computers:
Gratifications and situations. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1883-1891.
Appendix A
Creativity Scale Items (Five items likert-scale; from strongly disagree to strongly agree).
1. The ad was out of the ordinary.
2. The ad broke away from habit-bound and stereotypical thinking. 3. The ad was unique.
4. The ad contained ideas that moved from one subject to another. 5. The ad contained different ideas.
6. The ad shifted from one idea to another.
7. The ad connected objects that are usually unrelated. 8. The ad contained unusual connections.
9. The ad brought unusual items together. 10. The ad contained numerous details.
11. The ad finished basic ideas so that they become more intricate. 12. The ad contained more details than expected.
13. The ad was visually/verbally distinctive.
14. The ad made ideas come to life graphically/verbally. 15. The ad was artistically produced.
16. The ad was different. 17. The ad was uncommon. 18. The ad was unusual.
19. The ad was meaningful to me. 20. The ad was appropriate for me. 21. The ad was useful to me. 22. The ad was valuable to me.
23. The product or brand was meaningful to me. 24. The product or brand was appropriate to me. 25. The product or brand was useful to me. 26. The product or brand was valuable to me. 27. I do NOT care about this product/service. 28. The viewing experience was relevant to me. 29. The viewing experience was useful to me.
30. Overall, the ad and the brand were NOT really applicable to me.
Brand Likeability Scale Items (Five items likert-scale).
Measurement To you the brand is Brand
Likeability
Very Unappealing Very Appealing
Brand Likeability
Very Bad Very Good
Brand Likeability
Very Unpleasant Very Pleasant
Brand Likeability
Very Unfavorable Very Favorable
Brand Likeability
Very Unlikable Very Likeable
Brand Likeability
Brand Likeability
Very Awful Very Nice
Brand Likeability
Very Undesirable Very Desirable
Table 1. One-way ANOVA stimuli pretest
