Ethical Issues of Advertising to Children

Ethical Issues of Advertising to Children Ethical Dilemma, Practices and Implications of Children Advertising Creating outstanding products and programs to win marketplace is not an easy job. Specialists in marketing have to develop comprehensive research plans, carry out market researches, analyse the data collected and finally come up with marketing plans that target specific consumer segments. Finding out about human psychology, their preferences, choices and appeals are not only difficult but at times disappointingly inaccurate. Yet marketers today consider themselves experts in such endeavours, and are capable of achieving the almost impossible marketing objectives.   As if these aspects of marketing are not difficult enough, in modern-day marketing field there is a niche in which the marketers have to deal with children. The most difficult task is perhaps the determination of the choices and preferences of these fickle individuals who are still developing, absorbing the environment and learning to become like their adult counterparts. The task of marketing to children is not only daunting but also critical for many businesses such as Nike, Microsoft, Johnson Johnson, Disney, Pepsi, Sega,Kellogs and Mattel to name a few. These companies go through extensive research and consultancy to get to the untapped market of child consumers. One such example is evident in Dan S. Cuff and Robert H. Reiner’s (1998) Youth Market Systems.  According to the authors the development of outstanding products and programs to win childrens marketplace is entirely different from the rest of the market segments. For this purpose they invent a marketing process called Youth Market Systems. The System ensures marketers consider all aspects of marketing to children or teens for any category of goods or services that companies want to sell. There Isa great need for a system of analysis and interpretation as the authors feel that information pertaining to cognitive, emotional and social needs of age groups could transform the programs or product features that target them. Cuff and Reiner’s (1998) strategy merely opens window to the world of advertising to children. As one investigates the categories of products and services that are available to young children, one also tend to develop the consistent belief that children are a separate kind of consumer group and must be treated differently, from advertising to the designing of products. All these efforts no doubt are valid and justified in their own place and position, however a niggling thought crosses the mind when one observes the various approaches and efforts that marketers adopt to reach out to the vulnerable youth consumer segment. There are reasons for these tactics. Cuff and Rehire record approximately $1 billion annual gross revenue for Mattel Incorporated that sells Barbie’s. There are others such as Garfield, He-Man, Cabbage Patch Kids, Power Rangers, LEGO, GI Joes and a myriad of upcoming products invading the market with the sole purpose to tap on these young consumers who are bound by childish emotions and penchant for toys and games. Schemes and strategies are being devised to win over these young consumers for high stakes amounting to billions of pounds. What is more, advertising and marketing to children does not only involve the youngsters but their parents also. For example the Youth Market System identifies parents, grandparents and other close family members as the most influential on children’s purchasing decision. Exploring this group is critical because they are the ones who have control over the wallet and it is on them that children are dependent. The complexity in children marketing therefore lies in attracting both the youngsters and appealing to the parents. A winning formula must be developed to attract both the parents and children. The complexity of this formula makes success rate low which induces marketers to resort to all kinds of schemes and strategies to achieve their desired target, including crossing the line of ethics especially in the field of advertising of children related products (Cuff and Rehire 1998). Scholars and parents alike feel that there are no avenues that advertisers and businesses will not exploit to reach to the young consumers. Exploitations through mental, moral and physical developments of children are common. The strategies to target children involve creation of wants to satisfy the impulse rather than actual needs. For example consoles such as Mattels Hot Wheels, and Barbie’s fashion collections are not really required by children but wants created by advertisers and marketing campaigns. Long term needs satisfaction has been replaced by short term needs. They are not the only ones exploited. Their parents are also plagued with different kinds of created needs for their children such as the wellbeing; status symbol; and their selfish need to have their child preoccupied with the multitude of products and free them from child responsibilities. Statement of the Problem These aspects portray not only the ugly but also the unethical sides of the world of advertising. How true are these aspects and to what extent do advertisers reach to capture their target consumers? Do they cross the borders of ethics or not to maximise gains from vulnerable consumer market? And what, if anything, should be done to control and ultimately restrict the freedom of advertising aimed at children are some of the areas that the following research will endeavour to enumerate. Literature Review Children have become the key target for many advertisers. Children are vulnerable, easy to exploit consumers and they perceive things as advertisers want them to perceive, or so many of us believe. Despite the fact that children are nowadays smart and knowledgeable of the marketplace nevertheless for many marketers they are relatively easy to target due to the sheer size of the childrens consumer market. Advertisers thrive by earning billions of pounds with the backing and funding of the profit seeking organizations that hire them. These companies are not only producing goods that appeal to the children but they are also exploiting their parents. The dual targeting approach makes this market segment attractive as well as representative of high yield for investment. For example in many regions of the world including the US, Europe and Japan, companies are investing billions so that they can capture and tap the youth market segment but at the same time they are also reaping billions in return. Advertisers and marketers are entrusted with the task to achieve sales targets by generating desired actions from the segment. The wide appeal has motivated many professionals to enter and adopt whatever means and measures to achieve their targets. Ethical implications surpasses but few in the field of advertising that target children. For these reasons the authority, lobbyists and parents are demonstrating their concerns regarding the impact of media and advertising on children. The following literature review will first outline why and how children are targeted, followed by a review of the kind of ethical implications advertising and the media has on children. This will be followed by an exploration of the measures that are being taken to counteract the problem, if any. Children Advertising Advertising to children has not been an issue until recently with the boom of the media. More and more parents are concerned about the legal controls that the authority levy on advertising criteria as most are concerned about the kind of tactics advertisers are using to influence children for the sake of maximizing their profits. For example Begot and Dottie (2004) note that pornography, cigarette and tobacco related, alcohol and other products prohibited for children are being promoted on television freely without restriction. Advertisement messages for these adult related products are tailored for adult consumption but due to the appeal of mass viewership and the higher profits, the advertisements are aired during children television primetime. As a result the advertisements expose children to contents that are not meant for them. Had that been the only case then the issue of advertisement would not have been so controversial. Research suggest that children between the ages of 6 and 14 years old watch about 25 hours of television per week in the US and they are exposed to 20,000 commercials in a  year (Moore and Lutz 2000).Children at this age are vulnerable because they are developing a sense to comprehend and evaluate messages in the environment. Stimulated messages on television not only have a harmful impact but they are also detrimental in persuading children to develop wants for products that are not meant for them. According to Moore and Lutz (2000) Beyond advertisements, children gain marketplace information from the products they encounter, advice from friends and relatives, and their own consumption experiences. Through consumption, children learn what products are good and bad, whether advertising claims are truthful, what brands they prefer, and even products that convey social meanings apart from their functional properties. For children the experiences that heighten their importance in their social circle and the adult world have the most meaning. They do not have the ability to counteract or check on the viability or the authenticity of the message initially when they are young as they are dependent on adults for explanatory information accessible only through print media. By the time children grow to the teenage level the functionality of literacy diminishes tube replaced by their desire and need to fit in their social life. Without consideration for product usefulness or content, children develop wants for products beyond their pockets and reach. Similarly, children are also exposed to advertisements for fashion products that are actually designed for adult consumers but they are often condensed to tailor to the younger audience with the purpose to include the young consumers in the marketing campaigns. For this reason children develop receptivity for fashion products without the required information for decision making.  Moore and Lutz (2000) recognize the importance of childrens advertising and its impact on young audience by revealing that children are receptive to advertising demonstrated in experiments of relation between ads and products. They write: Research investigating childrens receptivity to television advertising has studied what children understand, under what circumstances they are persuaded, and how their responses evolve as they mature (e.g. Macklin 1987; Redder 1981). Drawing extensively on information processing and stage models, researchers have gained substantial insight into the development of childrens cognitive skills and their deployment during ad processing. (Moore and Lutz 2000) Their research indicates that children are at a stage where they are developing cognitive abilities. Advertisers vie on this susceptible developmental stage by targeting the limited processors of children that have not yet acquired efficient information processing strategies, a fact that may be reflected in their inability to distinguish between central and peripheral content in message learning. (Moore and Lutz2000). They further this idea by writing that at the stage of ages 8and 12 children are susceptible to information that are stimulated and that target the vulnerability of the strategic processors.   Because at this age group children tend to spontaneously employ efficient information storage and retrieval strategies. They organize and retrieve information based on available information and stimulus. Unless their knowledge of advertising is expressly activated by such acute, these children tend not to think critically or generate counterarguments spontaneously. They may also neglect to differentiate between central and peripheral content when learning new information. When there is an appropriate cue in their environment, however, they are likely to retrieve and use relevant information. (Moore and Lutz2000). Therefore children may develop recognition mechanism on how advertising should be viewed but that is dependent on external factors like parental guide, government policies or other mediating channels. Evidence suggests that there is substantial amount of influence on this age group when they are not guided in the preliminary stages in understanding the intent of advertisements. Research reveals that significant guidelines must be levied before children rationale and deliberate on the content of advertisements shown on television. â€Å"Advertising is thus implicitly accorded substantial power to shape children’s thinking until they acquire sufficient cognitive and attitudinal defences. (Moore and Lutz 2000). Other than the cognitive development impressions on children, advertising also influence them to take actions. In a study by Smithland Wynyard (1982) on consumer behaviour and response towards product trials offer through advertisements suggests that because consumers know that advertisers wish to present their brands in a favourable light, they react to ads by partially discounting claims and forming tentatively held brand beliefs and attitudes. In contrast when consumers have direct usage experience, they form stronger, more confidently held brand beliefs and attitudes. This phenomenon has been observed in a number of studies with adults and may be consistent with the case of children. The same expectations is held with regard to children advertising as researchers are of the opinion that with age, the capacity to form brand opinions tend to be more among older children. For example children of age groups 10 and 12, and 12 and 14year olds tend to tell the truth and more likely to be sceptical towards the institution of advertising rather than blindly accept advertisement claims. According to Michel Begot and Barbara Dottie (2004) children advertising are dynamic and highly appealing. The authors are of the opinion that children are the key target for advertisers because brand preferences in this age group remain unchanged for a long time. Children remain loyal to the brands they are used to yet at the same time they have growing pockets to afford more expensive items as they grow older. The above aspects indicate that children though are smart and knowledgeable to sceptically evaluate and experiment with products through advertisement claims they are also aware of the fact that these advertisers claim may not be true. At this point it is arguable to note that some school of thoughts separate the vulnerable youngsters from the smart young consumers who have the cognitive ability to critically examine the advertisement claims and disregard them if not proven true. According to Robertson and Resister (1974) if ads present information different from a childs actual experience, confusion may result and trust in advertising may be determined. Conversely, others suggest that until children actually experience discrepancies between products as advertised and as consumed, they are unable to fully comprehend advertisings persuasive intent. For this reason Moore and Lutz (2000) claim that advertising use frames for product trials known as transformational advertising in which adult consumers are drawn towards the products prior to advertising exposures by asking them to participate in the process of experimenting and interacting with the product with the view to interpret, evaluate and subsequently form their experience impressions. The expectancy or discrepancy frame sets are formed for comparison of later product trials which help in determining discrepancies or consistencies of product qualities. Mooreland Lutz (2000) present the testing paradigm to show that rational consumers are clever in testing advertising claims of product performances. Testing paradigm enable them the opportunity to evaluate and form opinions. Children, on the other hand do not have the same reaction or taste for distinguishing discrepancy in the same manner. On the other hand Ziegler (1996) believes that advertising and product trials have different effects on childrens capacity to integrate multiple sources of information for consideration. Young children tend to engage in one-dimensional thinking pattern and rely on multiple dimensions for a given task. Integration is imperative for children because they are dependent on this integration processing of information for forming perceptual domains and consumer behaviour. When younger children are presented with information it is encoded and stored in the recesses of the mind, and whenever needed retrieve it for evaluation. Information integration is basically combining new information presented in the media with the old information, and comparing the two. Disparate media information result in discrepancy inexperience. This in turn results in loss of trust in advertisement messages. Not all children however are wise enough to discriminate information. Moore and Lutz (2000) believe that age differences differentiate expectations and credibility of advertising. They write Younger children have been found to hold more positive attitudes about advertising, to be more likely to believe its claims, and to be less likely to understand its essential purpose. Thus, among younger children advertisings credibility is not likely to arise as a concern, and they are likely to perceive both advertising and a product trial experience as believable sources of information. (Moore and Lutz2000). Clearly, this statement identifies with the fact that younger children are more susceptible to advertising and they are prone to take actions without critical evaluation. For older children advertisers may not integrate strong expectations about a brand and instead focus on the stronger results to generate confidence in product usage (Fazio1986). Alternatively there are groups of advertisers who vie on the physical habits of children. For example one of the most invidious techniques is to use junk food in advertising for children. The use of celebrities to endorse these foods without any consideration for balanced diet or fitness is common in the industry. In the UK the BBC which is funded by licence and tax payers, received around 32 million pounds in 2001for franchising its Tweenies’ characters to McDonalds the Food Commission found that the Tweenies’ products were high in junk elements. Despite this fact the UK government continues to allow brands such as Cadburys to market its products and launch campaigns that have negative effects on the physical health of children. These efforts are designed to generate more profits and not the public interest. They are aware of the fact that the lack of exercise coupled with high calorie food result in obesity and other related diseases in children. The rate of obesity has doubled in the past 10 years from 8.5percent to 15 present among children under 16 years (The Lancet 2003).Yet advertisements continue to infiltrate the media and other channels with the objective to vie on children. Advertising Strategies Children have long been recognized as the target market for many companies due to its economic potential. Recent estimates by Moore(2004) indicate that children and associated markets account for 24billion dollars of direct spending and it has an additional 500 billion dollars influence over family purchases. Children are considered to be potential gold mines for campaigners and advertisers alike. Television channels and the print media as well as companies are constantly engaged in complex product placements, sales promotions, packaging design, public relations, and in-school marketing activities with the view to reach out to children and their parents. Given the time children spend in front of the television, on the Internet and media gadgets, marketers realize that children form a huge consumer base for â€Å"toys, breakfast cereals, candy and snacks etc. For this purpose there are more and more commercials on television to induce buying preference and action. TV commercials especially are being developed to induce children to purchase and participate in programs promoting cars, fashion, cell phones and other such adult related products. According to Moore (2004) At the root of the childrens advertising debate is the question of childrens unique vulnerabilities. Concerns about young children range from their inability to resist specific selling efforts to a fear that without benefit of well-developed critical thinking skills they may learn undesirable social values such as materialism†(Macklin, 1986 qt. Moore 2004). Her view is also affirmed by Cuff Andrei her (1998) who indicate through their study that children are susceptible to advertisements because of the extensive measures and strategies adopted by the advertisers. Their study reveals that marketers devise winning formulas to gain the confidence of children by sending out messages that winning children are those who are associated with certain brands. These may be Barbie, He-Man, Teletubbies or Spider-Man. Identification and association are the keys to the winning formula. The success rate of the winning formula depends on how deep an impact the product or brand has through the advertisements. These are developed based on the knowledge of the development of the mind of the growing consumers. The product leverage mix is formed based on qualities that are demanded by children such as characteristics of aero, power of a character and/or qualities of the product. The product leverage matrix is a comprehensive model formed for analysing the needs and wants of the young consumers and a guide to allow marketers to have look at the bigger picture. Once the matrix is determined the medium, concept, content, context, process, characters or personality, and attitude or style are established. Elements to be noted include: What is the psychological point of view of the target audience? What are the visual and verbal contents that will be used for the product? How marketers will form the context of the advertisements for the target audience and the kind of processes that will be involved to create an interface for interaction with the potential consumers? Character association or the use of personality to denote product quality is also common in the designing of the matrix etc. (Cuff and Rehire 1998). The marketers are also aware that young children are intelligent individuals who exercise their developing cognitive abilities by associating qualities with certain images. For example Bugs Bunny is clever rabbit or Kellogg’s Pop Tarts are fruity flavoured etc. They are able to associate as well as distinguish between products and characteristics of the products. Identifying the points of difference from the children’s perspectives is critical but not impossible. Acuffand Rehire (1998) also note that these are assumptions that adults make regarding the preferences of children such as teens wanting more energy; identifying with hero athletes; wanting great taste or new product names. Yet at the same time they also warn the marketers that: more often than not these assumptions are left unexamined as to veracity and strength. Its an important practice to check assumptions: check what the leverage actually is, and its relative power versus what has been assumed. More often than not, adults make erroneous assumptions about what kids perceive to be important and powerful because adults are looking at their product or program through adult eyes. It is critical to get at the actual leverage rather than the assumed leverage. With the above hypothetical Enerjuice example in mind, adults may be surprised when testing directly with kids focus groups reveals that the new products blue colour is its most powerful point of leverage and that the majority of kids tested dislike the new name. (Cuff and Rehire 1998). The basic premise in such a condition is that marketers need to ensure they give promises and fulfil them too thereby gaining competitive advantage. This kind of positioning helps them to organize and categorize products in the mind of the targeted consumers. In the end however, the marketers must realize that it is the bigger picture that needs to be satisfied that is product leverage matrix. At the centre of the matrix are the crucial elements that should not be neglected such as gender, stage, age, structure, dimension, style and past experience. The consumers are at the end of this list and are the most powerful deciding factor that can make or break their products. They conclude that Successful products and programs are those that satisfy their needs and wants in the short term (impulse) or in the long term. While a colourful and involving Tricks cereal package with a maze on the back provides for short-term needs satisfaction, Mattels Hot Wheel scars year after year continue to provide young boys with something they need and want small, easily manipulability, colourful minibars that are fun and involving to play cars with (Vroom! Vroom!) And to accumulate and collect. (Cuff and Rehire 1998). Ethical Implications Children advertising have attracted legal, scholars and parental attention. Proponents of the children targeted marketing and advertising argue that the financial backing that children programs are getting derive from sponsors who make programs on television possible. Advertising to children are therefore motivated by profitability. Furthermore they also argue that these sponsors target a separate niche market of children of age group 12 and 14. Advertising provides them with product information and does not really provide stimulus as children in this age group are more like adults with their specific ideologies, attitudes and behaviours where preferences of products and services are concerned. They have been exposed to persuasive messages for a long time and can distinguish persuasive messages from empowering ones. Thus they are product and advertising savvy. On the other hand opponents such as parents and consumer protection groups argue that advertising directed at children are not only unethical but they are also manipulative stimulants that promote consumerism in children from a very young age. Advertisements create wants and poor nutritional habits that induce children to pester parents for products that are harmful for them (Berger 1999). Their opinions have been affirmed by Cuff and Rehire (1997) who suggest that preschool children at two and three years old tend to identify with frequently seen images and therefore would be attracted towards spokes-character in advertising and marketing. The desire to see these characters and related products they see on television, packaging and promotions induce demand for the same among children. According to DelVecchio (1998, p. 225), The objective is to select an effective piece of advertising that will break through clutter, communicate the name of the brand, its key feature and benefit, and do so in a cool way that will elicit a childs request. Those advertisers are successful who successfully use innovation, meticulous marketing, planning and massive exposures in their key characters according to Schneider (1989). The ethical dilemma enters the scenario when one refers to the degree and extent of the use of stimuli. Research indicates that spokes-characters use role play and features that would relate animated with human characters and thereby influence childrens attitudes(Cheat et al 1992). The issues surrounding the use of advertising characters to children stem from the fact that the characters are commoditized without consideration for its impact on the children. Without regulations, advertisers tend to deviate from the conventional use of these characters. They treat children and adult related products alike. That is perhaps the reason why Cross (2002) indicates that there has been a rise in restrictions on tobacco advertising during the 1990sto curb tobacco companies from targeting children by the use of spokes-characters in their advertising and marketing campaigns. In this context advertisements have a deep ethical impact on the cognitive and development of growing children and the authority needs to recognize this fact. According to Redder (1981) children are vulnerable and fail to utilize cognitive plans for storing and retrieving information. The categorization of processing deficiencies stem from the childs inability to use the actual strategies and aids for storing information in the memory. Limited processing capabilities in young age group especially induce children to learn through memorization and are not capable of using tools for separating, segregating and processing information according to utility. Instead they use information incidentally. Television uses fast pace visual graphics and audio-visual medium to influence pre-schoolers and around that age group. The effects become consistent when children are regularly exposed to these audio-visual images so that they become imprinted on the minds of the young children (Alit et al 1980).Animation and other stimulus have double impact on the information processors of children. As children become receptive to advertisements or images that are regularly shown they come to recognize it in their daily experiences. Once the images are imprinted in the targeted group’s mind it is easy to generate brand recognition through triggering keys which may be in the form of visual or audio effects. Spokes-characters such cartoon characters have this essential effects on the children. Studies have found that young children often discriminate between products on simple heuristic of whether one particular quality (which may include brand name or character) is present or not (Rust and Hyatt 1991 qt.Neeley and Schumann 2004). Another aspect of advertisements is that children tend to associate with the characters and brand that they prefer. Instilling a brand in children’s minds is easy when spokes-characters are used to define the qualities of the products. For example in Ban’s (1996) study four and five year olds proved to be receptive to product characteristics by inferring spokes-characters. Bah gives the example of cereal boxes. Boxes with cartoons are associated with sugary and sweet cereal meant â€Å"for kids while those that do not have cartoons are bland and not sweet, and are meant for adults. This logic for cereal preferences and choices indicate that advertisements with their logos, characters and cartoons all have a great impact on the minds of young children in this age group. While Ban’s example seem harmless whereby advertisers are merely using the characteristics and qualities of products to appeal to the young consumers, Fischer et all’s (1991) example raises ethical dilemma. In their study the researchers asked children ages three to six to identify logo brands with the appropriate product. They observe that children tend to associate the Old Joe character with cigarettes. This association has been developed through the inference of the Camel advertisements that uses Old Joe a cartoon character for brand personalization. Hence, the researchers conclude that regardless of the intentions of advertisers and marketers, the effects of advertising on children are inevitable. Yet there are arguments against this view by psychologists such sapient (1929). This group of individuals are of the view that preoperational children between ages two and seven do not really process information logically or abstractly. They rely on processing strategies such as â€Å"transductive† to connect between thoughts and reasoning and therefore not susceptible to the underlying qualities. They may understand simple expressions of but have difficulty in associating it with product differentiation. Consequently Neely and Schumann (2004) write: While research findings show that young childr Ethical Issues of Advertising to Children Ethical Issues of Advertising to Children Ethical Dilemma, Practices and Implications of Children Advertising Creating outstanding products and programs to win marketplace is not an easy job. Specialists in marketing have to develop comprehensive research plans, carry out market researches, analyse the data collected and finally come up with marketing plans that target specific consumer segments. Finding out about human psychology, their preferences, choices and appeals are not only difficult but at times disappointingly inaccurate. Yet marketers today consider themselves experts in such endeavours, and are capable of achieving the almost impossible marketing objectives.   As if these aspects of marketing are not difficult enough, in modern-day marketing field there is a niche in which the marketers have to deal with children. The most difficult task is perhaps the determination of the choices and preferences of these fickle individuals who are still developing, absorbing the environment and learning to become like their adult counterparts. The task of marketing to children is not only daunting but also critical for many businesses such as Nike, Microsoft, Johnson Johnson, Disney, Pepsi, Sega,Kellogs and Mattel to name a few. These companies go through extensive research and consultancy to get to the untapped market of child consumers. One such example is evident in Dan S. Cuff and Robert H. Reiner’s (1998) Youth Market Systems.  According to the authors the development of outstanding products and programs to win childrens marketplace is entirely different from the rest of the market segments. For this purpose they invent a marketing process called Youth Market Systems. The System ensures marketers consider all aspects of marketing to children or teens for any category of goods or services that companies want to sell. There Isa great need for a system of analysis and interpretation as the authors feel that information pertaining to cognitive, emotional and social needs of age groups could transform the programs or product features that target them. Cuff and Reiner’s (1998) strategy merely opens window to the world of advertising to children. As one investigates the categories of products and services that are available to young children, one also tend to develop the consistent belief that children are a separate kind of consumer group and must be treated differently, from advertising to the designing of products. All these efforts no doubt are valid and justified in their own place and position, however a niggling thought crosses the mind when one observes the various approaches and efforts that marketers adopt to reach out to the vulnerable youth consumer segment. There are reasons for these tactics. Cuff and Rehire record approximately $1 billion annual gross revenue for Mattel Incorporated that sells Barbie’s. There are others such as Garfield, He-Man, Cabbage Patch Kids, Power Rangers, LEGO, GI Joes and a myriad of upcoming products invading the market with the sole purpose to tap on these young consumers who are bound by childish emotions and penchant for toys and games. Schemes and strategies are being devised to win over these young consumers for high stakes amounting to billions of pounds. What is more, advertising and marketing to children does not only involve the youngsters but their parents also. For example the Youth Market System identifies parents, grandparents and other close family members as the most influential on children’s purchasing decision. Exploring this group is critical because they are the ones who have control over the wallet and it is on them that children are dependent. The complexity in children marketing therefore lies in attracting both the youngsters and appealing to the parents. A winning formula must be developed to attract both the parents and children. The complexity of this formula makes success rate low which induces marketers to resort to all kinds of schemes and strategies to achieve their desired target, including crossing the line of ethics especially in the field of advertising of children related products (Cuff and Rehire 1998). Scholars and parents alike feel that there are no avenues that advertisers and businesses will not exploit to reach to the young consumers. Exploitations through mental, moral and physical developments of children are common. The strategies to target children involve creation of wants to satisfy the impulse rather than actual needs. For example consoles such as Mattels Hot Wheels, and Barbie’s fashion collections are not really required by children but wants created by advertisers and marketing campaigns. Long term needs satisfaction has been replaced by short term needs. They are not the only ones exploited. Their parents are also plagued with different kinds of created needs for their children such as the wellbeing; status symbol; and their selfish need to have their child preoccupied with the multitude of products and free them from child responsibilities. Statement of the Problem These aspects portray not only the ugly but also the unethical sides of the world of advertising. How true are these aspects and to what extent do advertisers reach to capture their target consumers? Do they cross the borders of ethics or not to maximise gains from vulnerable consumer market? And what, if anything, should be done to control and ultimately restrict the freedom of advertising aimed at children are some of the areas that the following research will endeavour to enumerate. Literature Review Children have become the key target for many advertisers. Children are vulnerable, easy to exploit consumers and they perceive things as advertisers want them to perceive, or so many of us believe. Despite the fact that children are nowadays smart and knowledgeable of the marketplace nevertheless for many marketers they are relatively easy to target due to the sheer size of the childrens consumer market. Advertisers thrive by earning billions of pounds with the backing and funding of the profit seeking organizations that hire them. These companies are not only producing goods that appeal to the children but they are also exploiting their parents. The dual targeting approach makes this market segment attractive as well as representative of high yield for investment. For example in many regions of the world including the US, Europe and Japan, companies are investing billions so that they can capture and tap the youth market segment but at the same time they are also reaping billions in return. Advertisers and marketers are entrusted with the task to achieve sales targets by generating desired actions from the segment. The wide appeal has motivated many professionals to enter and adopt whatever means and measures to achieve their targets. Ethical implications surpasses but few in the field of advertising that target children. For these reasons the authority, lobbyists and parents are demonstrating their concerns regarding the impact of media and advertising on children. The following literature review will first outline why and how children are targeted, followed by a review of the kind of ethical implications advertising and the media has on children. This will be followed by an exploration of the measures that are being taken to counteract the problem, if any. Children Advertising Advertising to children has not been an issue until recently with the boom of the media. More and more parents are concerned about the legal controls that the authority levy on advertising criteria as most are concerned about the kind of tactics advertisers are using to influence children for the sake of maximizing their profits. For example Begot and Dottie (2004) note that pornography, cigarette and tobacco related, alcohol and other products prohibited for children are being promoted on television freely without restriction. Advertisement messages for these adult related products are tailored for adult consumption but due to the appeal of mass viewership and the higher profits, the advertisements are aired during children television primetime. As a result the advertisements expose children to contents that are not meant for them. Had that been the only case then the issue of advertisement would not have been so controversial. Research suggest that children between the ages of 6 and 14 years old watch about 25 hours of television per week in the US and they are exposed to 20,000 commercials in a  year (Moore and Lutz 2000).Children at this age are vulnerable because they are developing a sense to comprehend and evaluate messages in the environment. Stimulated messages on television not only have a harmful impact but they are also detrimental in persuading children to develop wants for products that are not meant for them. According to Moore and Lutz (2000) Beyond advertisements, children gain marketplace information from the products they encounter, advice from friends and relatives, and their own consumption experiences. Through consumption, children learn what products are good and bad, whether advertising claims are truthful, what brands they prefer, and even products that convey social meanings apart from their functional properties. For children the experiences that heighten their importance in their social circle and the adult world have the most meaning. They do not have the ability to counteract or check on the viability or the authenticity of the message initially when they are young as they are dependent on adults for explanatory information accessible only through print media. By the time children grow to the teenage level the functionality of literacy diminishes tube replaced by their desire and need to fit in their social life. Without consideration for product usefulness or content, children develop wants for products beyond their pockets and reach. Similarly, children are also exposed to advertisements for fashion products that are actually designed for adult consumers but they are often condensed to tailor to the younger audience with the purpose to include the young consumers in the marketing campaigns. For this reason children develop receptivity for fashion products without the required information for decision making.  Moore and Lutz (2000) recognize the importance of childrens advertising and its impact on young audience by revealing that children are receptive to advertising demonstrated in experiments of relation between ads and products. They write: Research investigating childrens receptivity to television advertising has studied what children understand, under what circumstances they are persuaded, and how their responses evolve as they mature (e.g. Macklin 1987; Redder 1981). Drawing extensively on information processing and stage models, researchers have gained substantial insight into the development of childrens cognitive skills and their deployment during ad processing. (Moore and Lutz 2000) Their research indicates that children are at a stage where they are developing cognitive abilities. Advertisers vie on this susceptible developmental stage by targeting the limited processors of children that have not yet acquired efficient information processing strategies, a fact that may be reflected in their inability to distinguish between central and peripheral content in message learning. (Moore and Lutz2000). They further this idea by writing that at the stage of ages 8and 12 children are susceptible to information that are stimulated and that target the vulnerability of the strategic processors.   Because at this age group children tend to spontaneously employ efficient information storage and retrieval strategies. They organize and retrieve information based on available information and stimulus. Unless their knowledge of advertising is expressly activated by such acute, these children tend not to think critically or generate counterarguments spontaneously. They may also neglect to differentiate between central and peripheral content when learning new information. When there is an appropriate cue in their environment, however, they are likely to retrieve and use relevant information. (Moore and Lutz2000). Therefore children may develop recognition mechanism on how advertising should be viewed but that is dependent on external factors like parental guide, government policies or other mediating channels. Evidence suggests that there is substantial amount of influence on this age group when they are not guided in the preliminary stages in understanding the intent of advertisements. Research reveals that significant guidelines must be levied before children rationale and deliberate on the content of advertisements shown on television. â€Å"Advertising is thus implicitly accorded substantial power to shape children’s thinking until they acquire sufficient cognitive and attitudinal defences. (Moore and Lutz 2000). Other than the cognitive development impressions on children, advertising also influence them to take actions. In a study by Smithland Wynyard (1982) on consumer behaviour and response towards product trials offer through advertisements suggests that because consumers know that advertisers wish to present their brands in a favourable light, they react to ads by partially discounting claims and forming tentatively held brand beliefs and attitudes. In contrast when consumers have direct usage experience, they form stronger, more confidently held brand beliefs and attitudes. This phenomenon has been observed in a number of studies with adults and may be consistent with the case of children. The same expectations is held with regard to children advertising as researchers are of the opinion that with age, the capacity to form brand opinions tend to be more among older children. For example children of age groups 10 and 12, and 12 and 14year olds tend to tell the truth and more likely to be sceptical towards the institution of advertising rather than blindly accept advertisement claims. According to Michel Begot and Barbara Dottie (2004) children advertising are dynamic and highly appealing. The authors are of the opinion that children are the key target for advertisers because brand preferences in this age group remain unchanged for a long time. Children remain loyal to the brands they are used to yet at the same time they have growing pockets to afford more expensive items as they grow older. The above aspects indicate that children though are smart and knowledgeable to sceptically evaluate and experiment with products through advertisement claims they are also aware of the fact that these advertisers claim may not be true. At this point it is arguable to note that some school of thoughts separate the vulnerable youngsters from the smart young consumers who have the cognitive ability to critically examine the advertisement claims and disregard them if not proven true. According to Robertson and Resister (1974) if ads present information different from a childs actual experience, confusion may result and trust in advertising may be determined. Conversely, others suggest that until children actually experience discrepancies between products as advertised and as consumed, they are unable to fully comprehend advertisings persuasive intent. For this reason Moore and Lutz (2000) claim that advertising use frames for product trials known as transformational advertising in which adult consumers are drawn towards the products prior to advertising exposures by asking them to participate in the process of experimenting and interacting with the product with the view to interpret, evaluate and subsequently form their experience impressions. The expectancy or discrepancy frame sets are formed for comparison of later product trials which help in determining discrepancies or consistencies of product qualities. Mooreland Lutz (2000) present the testing paradigm to show that rational consumers are clever in testing advertising claims of product performances. Testing paradigm enable them the opportunity to evaluate and form opinions. Children, on the other hand do not have the same reaction or taste for distinguishing discrepancy in the same manner. On the other hand Ziegler (1996) believes that advertising and product trials have different effects on childrens capacity to integrate multiple sources of information for consideration. Young children tend to engage in one-dimensional thinking pattern and rely on multiple dimensions for a given task. Integration is imperative for children because they are dependent on this integration processing of information for forming perceptual domains and consumer behaviour. When younger children are presented with information it is encoded and stored in the recesses of the mind, and whenever needed retrieve it for evaluation. Information integration is basically combining new information presented in the media with the old information, and comparing the two. Disparate media information result in discrepancy inexperience. This in turn results in loss of trust in advertisement messages. Not all children however are wise enough to discriminate information. Moore and Lutz (2000) believe that age differences differentiate expectations and credibility of advertising. They write Younger children have been found to hold more positive attitudes about advertising, to be more likely to believe its claims, and to be less likely to understand its essential purpose. Thus, among younger children advertisings credibility is not likely to arise as a concern, and they are likely to perceive both advertising and a product trial experience as believable sources of information. (Moore and Lutz2000). Clearly, this statement identifies with the fact that younger children are more susceptible to advertising and they are prone to take actions without critical evaluation. For older children advertisers may not integrate strong expectations about a brand and instead focus on the stronger results to generate confidence in product usage (Fazio1986). Alternatively there are groups of advertisers who vie on the physical habits of children. For example one of the most invidious techniques is to use junk food in advertising for children. The use of celebrities to endorse these foods without any consideration for balanced diet or fitness is common in the industry. In the UK the BBC which is funded by licence and tax payers, received around 32 million pounds in 2001for franchising its Tweenies’ characters to McDonalds the Food Commission found that the Tweenies’ products were high in junk elements. Despite this fact the UK government continues to allow brands such as Cadburys to market its products and launch campaigns that have negative effects on the physical health of children. These efforts are designed to generate more profits and not the public interest. They are aware of the fact that the lack of exercise coupled with high calorie food result in obesity and other related diseases in children. The rate of obesity has doubled in the past 10 years from 8.5percent to 15 present among children under 16 years (The Lancet 2003).Yet advertisements continue to infiltrate the media and other channels with the objective to vie on children. Advertising Strategies Children have long been recognized as the target market for many companies due to its economic potential. Recent estimates by Moore(2004) indicate that children and associated markets account for 24billion dollars of direct spending and it has an additional 500 billion dollars influence over family purchases. Children are considered to be potential gold mines for campaigners and advertisers alike. Television channels and the print media as well as companies are constantly engaged in complex product placements, sales promotions, packaging design, public relations, and in-school marketing activities with the view to reach out to children and their parents. Given the time children spend in front of the television, on the Internet and media gadgets, marketers realize that children form a huge consumer base for â€Å"toys, breakfast cereals, candy and snacks etc. For this purpose there are more and more commercials on television to induce buying preference and action. TV commercials especially are being developed to induce children to purchase and participate in programs promoting cars, fashion, cell phones and other such adult related products. According to Moore (2004) At the root of the childrens advertising debate is the question of childrens unique vulnerabilities. Concerns about young children range from their inability to resist specific selling efforts to a fear that without benefit of well-developed critical thinking skills they may learn undesirable social values such as materialism†(Macklin, 1986 qt. Moore 2004). Her view is also affirmed by Cuff Andrei her (1998) who indicate through their study that children are susceptible to advertisements because of the extensive measures and strategies adopted by the advertisers. Their study reveals that marketers devise winning formulas to gain the confidence of children by sending out messages that winning children are those who are associated with certain brands. These may be Barbie, He-Man, Teletubbies or Spider-Man. Identification and association are the keys to the winning formula. The success rate of the winning formula depends on how deep an impact the product or brand has through the advertisements. These are developed based on the knowledge of the development of the mind of the growing consumers. The product leverage mix is formed based on qualities that are demanded by children such as characteristics of aero, power of a character and/or qualities of the product. The product leverage matrix is a comprehensive model formed for analysing the needs and wants of the young consumers and a guide to allow marketers to have look at the bigger picture. Once the matrix is determined the medium, concept, content, context, process, characters or personality, and attitude or style are established. Elements to be noted include: What is the psychological point of view of the target audience? What are the visual and verbal contents that will be used for the product? How marketers will form the context of the advertisements for the target audience and the kind of processes that will be involved to create an interface for interaction with the potential consumers? Character association or the use of personality to denote product quality is also common in the designing of the matrix etc. (Cuff and Rehire 1998). The marketers are also aware that young children are intelligent individuals who exercise their developing cognitive abilities by associating qualities with certain images. For example Bugs Bunny is clever rabbit or Kellogg’s Pop Tarts are fruity flavoured etc. They are able to associate as well as distinguish between products and characteristics of the products. Identifying the points of difference from the children’s perspectives is critical but not impossible. Acuffand Rehire (1998) also note that these are assumptions that adults make regarding the preferences of children such as teens wanting more energy; identifying with hero athletes; wanting great taste or new product names. Yet at the same time they also warn the marketers that: more often than not these assumptions are left unexamined as to veracity and strength. Its an important practice to check assumptions: check what the leverage actually is, and its relative power versus what has been assumed. More often than not, adults make erroneous assumptions about what kids perceive to be important and powerful because adults are looking at their product or program through adult eyes. It is critical to get at the actual leverage rather than the assumed leverage. With the above hypothetical Enerjuice example in mind, adults may be surprised when testing directly with kids focus groups reveals that the new products blue colour is its most powerful point of leverage and that the majority of kids tested dislike the new name. (Cuff and Rehire 1998). The basic premise in such a condition is that marketers need to ensure they give promises and fulfil them too thereby gaining competitive advantage. This kind of positioning helps them to organize and categorize products in the mind of the targeted consumers. In the end however, the marketers must realize that it is the bigger picture that needs to be satisfied that is product leverage matrix. At the centre of the matrix are the crucial elements that should not be neglected such as gender, stage, age, structure, dimension, style and past experience. The consumers are at the end of this list and are the most powerful deciding factor that can make or break their products. They conclude that Successful products and programs are those that satisfy their needs and wants in the short term (impulse) or in the long term. While a colourful and involving Tricks cereal package with a maze on the back provides for short-term needs satisfaction, Mattels Hot Wheel scars year after year continue to provide young boys with something they need and want small, easily manipulability, colourful minibars that are fun and involving to play cars with (Vroom! Vroom!) And to accumulate and collect. (Cuff and Rehire 1998). Ethical Implications Children advertising have attracted legal, scholars and parental attention. Proponents of the children targeted marketing and advertising argue that the financial backing that children programs are getting derive from sponsors who make programs on television possible. Advertising to children are therefore motivated by profitability. Furthermore they also argue that these sponsors target a separate niche market of children of age group 12 and 14. Advertising provides them with product information and does not really provide stimulus as children in this age group are more like adults with their specific ideologies, attitudes and behaviours where preferences of products and services are concerned. They have been exposed to persuasive messages for a long time and can distinguish persuasive messages from empowering ones. Thus they are product and advertising savvy. On the other hand opponents such as parents and consumer protection groups argue that advertising directed at children are not only unethical but they are also manipulative stimulants that promote consumerism in children from a very young age. Advertisements create wants and poor nutritional habits that induce children to pester parents for products that are harmful for them (Berger 1999). Their opinions have been affirmed by Cuff and Rehire (1997) who suggest that preschool children at two and three years old tend to identify with frequently seen images and therefore would be attracted towards spokes-character in advertising and marketing. The desire to see these characters and related products they see on television, packaging and promotions induce demand for the same among children. According to DelVecchio (1998, p. 225), The objective is to select an effective piece of advertising that will break through clutter, communicate the name of the brand, its key feature and benefit, and do so in a cool way that will elicit a childs request. Those advertisers are successful who successfully use innovation, meticulous marketing, planning and massive exposures in their key characters according to Schneider (1989). The ethical dilemma enters the scenario when one refers to the degree and extent of the use of stimuli. Research indicates that spokes-characters use role play and features that would relate animated with human characters and thereby influence childrens attitudes(Cheat et al 1992). The issues surrounding the use of advertising characters to children stem from the fact that the characters are commoditized without consideration for its impact on the children. Without regulations, advertisers tend to deviate from the conventional use of these characters. They treat children and adult related products alike. That is perhaps the reason why Cross (2002) indicates that there has been a rise in restrictions on tobacco advertising during the 1990sto curb tobacco companies from targeting children by the use of spokes-characters in their advertising and marketing campaigns. In this context advertisements have a deep ethical impact on the cognitive and development of growing children and the authority needs to recognize this fact. According to Redder (1981) children are vulnerable and fail to utilize cognitive plans for storing and retrieving information. The categorization of processing deficiencies stem from the childs inability to use the actual strategies and aids for storing information in the memory. Limited processing capabilities in young age group especially induce children to learn through memorization and are not capable of using tools for separating, segregating and processing information according to utility. Instead they use information incidentally. Television uses fast pace visual graphics and audio-visual medium to influence pre-schoolers and around that age group. The effects become consistent when children are regularly exposed to these audio-visual images so that they become imprinted on the minds of the young children (Alit et al 1980).Animation and other stimulus have double impact on the information processors of children. As children become receptive to advertisements or images that are regularly shown they come to recognize it in their daily experiences. Once the images are imprinted in the targeted group’s mind it is easy to generate brand recognition through triggering keys which may be in the form of visual or audio effects. Spokes-characters such cartoon characters have this essential effects on the children. Studies have found that young children often discriminate between products on simple heuristic of whether one particular quality (which may include brand name or character) is present or not (Rust and Hyatt 1991 qt.Neeley and Schumann 2004). Another aspect of advertisements is that children tend to associate with the characters and brand that they prefer. Instilling a brand in children’s minds is easy when spokes-characters are used to define the qualities of the products. For example in Ban’s (1996) study four and five year olds proved to be receptive to product characteristics by inferring spokes-characters. Bah gives the example of cereal boxes. Boxes with cartoons are associated with sugary and sweet cereal meant â€Å"for kids while those that do not have cartoons are bland and not sweet, and are meant for adults. This logic for cereal preferences and choices indicate that advertisements with their logos, characters and cartoons all have a great impact on the minds of young children in this age group. While Ban’s example seem harmless whereby advertisers are merely using the characteristics and qualities of products to appeal to the young consumers, Fischer et all’s (1991) example raises ethical dilemma. In their study the researchers asked children ages three to six to identify logo brands with the appropriate product. They observe that children tend to associate the Old Joe character with cigarettes. This association has been developed through the inference of the Camel advertisements that uses Old Joe a cartoon character for brand personalization. Hence, the researchers conclude that regardless of the intentions of advertisers and marketers, the effects of advertising on children are inevitable. Yet there are arguments against this view by psychologists such sapient (1929). This group of individuals are of the view that preoperational children between ages two and seven do not really process information logically or abstractly. They rely on processing strategies such as â€Å"transductive† to connect between thoughts and reasoning and therefore not susceptible to the underlying qualities. They may understand simple expressions of but have difficulty in associating it with product differentiation. Consequently Neely and Schumann (2004) write: While research findings show that young childr

Preface :: Economics

Preface Since the early customs union, the European Union has been keen to create a single market for its member states. In this assignment, I am going to discuss to what extent the European Union has created a single integrated economy for its member states. 2. Introduction From the early Customs Union to the Single European Market to the recent Single European Currency—the Euro, the European Union achieved a lot of successes in the process of creating a single integrated economy for its member states in the last fifty years. Nonetheless, with so many successes, the European Union still have a long way to go to create a true single economy for its member states. For example, there are still significant differences of corporate governance regimes and social/labour models between member states. And the enlargement towards Central and Eastern Europe is another incomplete big task for the European Union. In the following, I am going to discuss, with more details, to what extent the European Union has created a single integrated economy for its member states. 3. Major Achievements 3.1 Customs Union and The Early Enlargement In 1948, the Benelux--a customs union in industrial goods was formed by the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg. After the Treaty of Paris and the Treaty of Rome were signed, the customs union comprised Benelux, France, Germany and Italy and was extended to all industrial goods (not just for coal and steel). In 1969, the customs union completed the elimination of customs duties and quantitative restrictions on the import and export goods between the original six. (McDonald D, 1999) This was the most basic economic arrangement of the EU. Between the elimination of tariffs and quotas and the agreement of establishing the Single European Market, there was very little progress towards the single market. (McDonald D, 1999) But enlargements were very successful with member states growing from 6 to 15 which included Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom joined in 1973, Greece in 1981, Spain and Portugal in 1986 and Austria, Finland and Sweden in 1995. (Europa, 2003a) 3.2 The Single European Market In 1985, the European Commission chaired by Jacques Delors published a White Paper proposing the member states for completing the internal market. This white paper made it clear that there were three types of barriers (physical, technical and fiscal) standing in the way of the completion of the internal market. (Mercado S. et al, 2001) In the next year, 12 member states signed the Single European Act which contained a blueprint and a timetable for adopting over 270 liberalising measures which would be necessary for the creation of a single market. (Europa, 2003a) Between the passing of the Single European Act and the deadline of 31st

Advertising Creativity Matters

Advertising Creativity Matters MICAEL DAHLEN Stockholm School of Could â€Å"wasteful† advertising creativity that does not add to the functionaiity of the advertisement (i. e. , it neither enhances recaii and iiking of the advertising, nor Economics micael,[email  protected] se increases comprehension and persuasiveness of the communicated message) be useful? An experimentai study shows that it can. By signaling greater effort on behaif SARA ROSENGREN Stockholm School of Economics sara. [email  protected],se of the advertiser and a greater ability of the brand, advertising creativity enhances both brand interest and perceived brand quaiity.The effects are mediated by consumer-perceived creativity, suggesting that consumers are important Judges of FREDRIK TORN creativity. Bringing advertising creativity into new iight, the resuits provide impiications Stockholm School of for the development, measurement, and positioning of creative advertising. Economics fredrik,[email   protected] se INTRODUCTION There is no guarantee that creativity in an advertisement makes it more memorable or appealing to consumers (Kover, Goldberg, and James, 1995). In fact, research by, for example, Kover, James, and Sonner (1997) suggests that many creative advertising efforts may be wasted, in the sense hat they do not add to the functionality of the advertisement (i. e. , they neither enhance consumer recall and liking of the advertising, nor increase comprehension and persuasiveness of the communicated message). However, this article argues that such wasteful advertising creativity may have other positive effects. Previous research on advertising spending has found that, when bypassing functional aspects of high spending, for example, that bigger advertisements increase attention or that repeated exposures facilitate comprehension and breed liking, wasteful expenses have positive effects on brand perceptions (e. g..Ambler and HoUier, 2004; Kirmani and Rao, 2000). The pres ent research investigates whether or not the same conclusion follows with respect to advertising creativity. A common view is that creativity is a mission of the entire advertising industry, its raison d'etre (Koslow, Sasser, and Riordan, 2003). The fact that 3 9 2 JDUBOIIL OF (IDUERTISinG BESEflRCH September 2 0 0 8 advertising agencies spend a great deal of time and energy competing for creative awards, even though they are not sure that these efforts actually increase the functionality of their work, suggests that creativity is perceived to be important in its own right (e. g. Helgesen, 1994; Kover, James, and Sonner, 1997). In a frequently cited study. Gross (1972) showed that wasteful advertising creativity in advertising agencies, in the form of an abundance of creative ideas, yield more effective advertisements in the long run. This article takes the notion of wasteful advertising creativity to the level of the individual advertisement to see whether an abundance of creativit y (that does not enhance functionality) in a single advertisement yields positive effects. Building on the research on marketing signals, we suggest it does. Studies show that the very employment of various marketing elements, such s warranties (long-lasting) or price (correlates with quality), sends signals about the brand that guide consumer evaluations and choice (e. g. , Kirmani and Rao, 2000). Advertising expense has been found to be a signal that consumers interpret as the marketers' efforts due to their belief in the brand (Kirmani, 1990; Kirmani and Wright, 1989) or as proof of the brand's superiority or â€Å"brand DOI: 10. 2501/S002184990808046X ADVERTISING CREATIVITY MAHERS fitness† (Amhler and Hollier, 2004): The greater the expense, the more confident the marketer and the more fit the brand. Categorizing advertising creativity as a arketing signal, we expect that greater creativity signals more effort (as creative advertising is harder to produce than â€Å"nofr ills† advertising) and greater fitness (as the sender must have the knowledge resources to take the extra communicative leap and communicate in a nontraditional marmer) and thus produces more favorable brand perceptions. By investigating the signaling effects of advertising creativity on brand perceptions, we bypass the functional aspects that have previously been in focus in creativity research. Previous research focuses on intermediate effects such as advertising recall, liking, and comprehension (e. . , Kover, James, and Sonner, 1997; Stone, Besser, and Lewis, 2000; Till and Baack, 2005), or different facets of creativity, such as originality, meaningfulness, and emotions (e. g. , Ang and Low, 2000; Kover, Goldberg, and James, 1995; White and Smith, 2001). As advertising (and creativity) can take many shapes and forms, it is not very surprising that most authors seem to agree that the research on advertising creativity to date is troubled by contradictory and inconclusive f indings (e. g. , ElMurad and West, 2004; Koslow, Sasser, and Riordan, 2003: Stone, Besser, and Lewis, 2000).For instance, some (awardwinning, which is often the criterion in these studies) creative advertising may be very original and yield high recall, but low liking, whereas other advertising could produce strong emotions and liking, but be harder to recall. Avoiding such obstacles may be achievable by focusing on creativity as a signal in itself, rather than its facets and intermediate effects. The present study includes a number of elements that are novel to advertising creativity research. First, rather than using real advertisements as representatives of more versus less creative advertising, the tudy manipulates advertising creativity in the same manner as Ambler and Hollier (2004) manipulate advertising expense. Thus, we are able to compare advertising for the same brands with the same messages and control for the functionality of the tested advertisements. Most research to date has employed real advertisements, which makes it harder to discern the effects of the creativity in itself, as it also becomes a matter of different brands with different messages. Second, our manipulation does not produce creative advertising that is â€Å"outstanding,† but rather moderately creative. As noted by Haberland and Dacin (1992), the focus n awards creates a dichotomous view of advertising as creative yes/no. It is more likely that advertising varies in its degree of creativity. Not all advertisements win prizes for creativity, but that does not mean that those advertisements are not creative. Third, in addition to manipulating advertising creativity, we also measure consumer-perceived creativity. Previous research has usually kept the degree of creativity â€Å"hidden† from consumers, utilizing awards and expert judgments as assessments of creativity. Whereas advertising effects materialize to a considerable degree without consumer awareness (e. g..He ath and Nairn, 2005), the present study tests the notion that consumer explicit thoughts about advertising creativity matter. ADVERTISING CREATIVITY AS A MARKETING SIGNAL Most markets are flooded with products for consumers to choose between. As consumers are unable to sample all products that are available to them, or even assess the quality of all the products they have actually consumed, they rely on marketing signals (Kirmani and Rao, 2000). Ad- vertising expense is the marketing signal that has gained most attention in advertising research. According to Kirmani and Wright (1989), advertising expense is an ndicator of marketing effort: The more money spent on advertising, the greater the effort—meaning that the advertiser must really believe in the product. Spending a great deal of money on advertising is a more powerful signal to consumers about the quality of the product than the content of the advertising, as the advertiser â€Å"put their money where their mouth is. † More money means greater risk, and thus consumers feel safe that the advertiser will deliver on her promise (Kirmani, 1997). In tests of advertising expense, Kirmani (1990,1997) manipulates advertising sizes, colors, endorsers, and repetition and finds hat they may all increase perceived marketing effort. Interestingly, Kirmani (1990) notes that it is possible that perceived advertising quality (â€Å"includes the care and creativity used to design the ad†) could also have an effect on perceptions of marketing effort. However, Kirmani (1990) does not manipulate advertising quality (and more specifically, advertising creativity). Such a manipulation would result in perceptions of greater marketing effort. Coming up with a creative concept is more demanding for the advertiser than simply applying a standard solution based one's own or others' previous efforts.Consumers are â€Å"advertising literate† enough today to infer that creative advertising is probably the result of a development process that is both longer and more costly (they may even refer this to the employment of a â€Å"fancy advertising agency†). HI: Advertising creativity increases perceived marketing effort. Ambler and Hollier (2004) suggest that advertising expense may not only serve September 2 0 0 8 JDUIIOIIL OF HDUERTISIOG RESEHRCH 3 9 3 ADVERTISING CREATIVITY IVIATTERS An extra degree of creativity may send signais about tiie advertiser tiiat rub off on consumer perceptions of tiie brand. as a signal of effort, but also as a more irect signal of â€Å"brand fitness. † Referring to the biological theory of handicapping, they argue that advertising expense may be a signal of wealth—arguably, the advertiser can afford such wastefully expensive advertising. The wealth, in tum, could be interpreted as proof of previous success due to the brand's great ability to serve the market. Extending the reasoning to advertising creativity, wasteful creativity (i. e. , the surplus creativity that does not add to the functionality of the advertisement) could work as a signal of wealth as well, wealth in the form of knowledge and smartness. For example, the literature n rhetorical figures (which are a form of wasteful creativity as they convey nessages in unnecessarily clever ways) suggests that they may signal smartness on behalf of the sender (e. g. , Toncar and Munch, 2001, 2003). However, this notion has not been tested. Ambler and Hollier's (2004) concept of â€Å"brand fitness† is especially interesting in light of the growing body of research on perceived corporate ability. Perceived corporate ability refers to consumers' beliefs that the company is able to improve the quality of existing products and to generate new products innovatively (Luo and Bhattacharya, 2006).Studies show that perceived corporate ability influences the success of new-product introductions and marketing activities, as well as the market value of the entire company. In fact, perceived corporate ability may be the most powerful source of sustainable competitive advantage (Brown and Dacin, 1997; Luo and Bhattacharya, 2006). Advertising creativity could be a signal of brand ability (the equivalent of corporate ability on the individual, advertised, brand level). Coming up with a creative advertising concept signals the ability and desire to â€Å"think outside the box† and think in new and different ways compared to he competition and compared to the brand's history. Thus, advertising creativity says less about the brand's historical success and more about what could be expected from it in the future. H2: Advertising creativity increases customers' perceived abuity in the brand. ADVERTISING CREATIVITY'S EFFECTS ON BRAND PERCEPTIONS Recent advertising literature argues that the most important and reliable measures of advertising effectiveness are consumers' perceptions and experiences of the brand rather than of the advertising its elf. This influence is due to the facts that consumers are not able to remember r discern all the advertising they encounter (e. g.. Heath and Nairn, 2005; Weilbacher, 2003). Powerful advertising affects consumers' perceptions of the brand immediately (Hall, 2002). As creativity is supposed to make powerful advertising, the expectation is that more versus less powerful advertising results in immediate effects on brand perceptions. The main brand perception that has been uncovered in previous studies of marketing signals is perceived quality. As mentioned previously, perceived marketing effort signals confidence on behalf of 3 9 4 JOUIIIlflL DfflDUERTISinGRESEflRCH September 2 0 0 8 he advertiser (e. g. , Kirmani and Rao, 2000). Perceived brand ability would also signal high quality, as corsumers expect the brand to improve quality over the competition. Therefore, the hypothesis is that advertising creativity enhances perceived brand quality. H3: Advertising creativity enhances custo mers' perceptions of brand quality. Conventional wisdom holds that creative advertising pushes the message into consumers' minds (e. g. , El-Murad and West, 2004; Kover, James, and Sonner, 1997). However, recent literature argues that the individual brand does not really have much to say (e. g. Ehrenberg, Barnard, Kennedy, and Bloom, 2002; Heath and Nairn, 2005). In the massive marketspace and mindspace competition, it is increasingly difficult to be unique and virtually impossible to persuade consumers to buy your product (Weilbacher, 2003). In line with this notion, a survey among top-level agency creatives ranked the sameness among brands as the number one reason for improved creativity; rather than communicating a specific message (which is likely to resemble competitors'), advertising creativity must make the brand interesting and exciting (Reid, Whitehill King, and DeLorme, 1998).This goal is particularly relevant to established brands, which make up the majority of the market place. The greatest enemies to these brands are predictability and consumer disinterest (Machleit, Allen, and Madden, 1993). Brands must continuously reinvent themselves and challenge expectations to stay in touch with consumers. This touch could be achievable with creative advertising. Creative advertising in itself suggests that the brand has something interesting to offer, as it signals effort and confidence, and ability to deliver ADVERTISING CREATIVITY MAHERS something different from the competition. Therefore, the study expects a positive elationship between advertising creativity and brand interest. H4: Advertising creativity enhances brand interest. CONSUMERS AS JUDGES OF ADVERTISING CREATIVITY Most research on advertising creativity conceptualizes it as a â€Å"hidden tool† for advertising professionals to create powerful advertising. That is, it is important that the professionals perceive the advertising to be creative for it to be effective, but consumers are not supposed to think in such terms, rather just to like the advertising, remember it, and select the brand (e. g. , Koslow, Sasser, and Riordan, 2003; Stone, Besser, and Lewis, 2000; Till and Baack, 2005).However, a professional judgment of advertising creativity is no guarantee that the advertising will be successful (e. g. , Kover, James, and Sonner, 1997). For instance. Stone, Besser, and Lewis (2000) found that while 70 percent of the advertising that consumers remembered and liked was categorized as creative by trained judges, 47 percent of strongly disliked advertising was also categorized as creative by the judges. White and Smith (2001) compare creativity ratings between advertising professionals and the general public and found that the two groups differed in their ratings. The question is, who is the better judge?Kover, James, and Sonner (1997) argue that less professionalism is needed in the judgments of creativity, as at the end of the day, consumers' perceptions are what m atter. The present study puts this argument to the test by testing whether manipulated advertising creativity (pretested on advertising professionals) has a direct effect on our hypothesized variables, without consumers being aware of this â€Å"hidden tool,† or if consumer perceptions of advertising creativity are necessary and mediate the effects. The hypothesis is that consumer perception of the advertising creativity is the first step n the process that leads to all the hypothesized effects in H1-H4: H5: The effects of advertising creativity are mediated by consumerperceived creativity. METHOD To test the hypotheses, we must be able to compare responses between consumers who have been exposed to a more creative versus a less creative advertisement for the same brand with the same message. Furthermore, to test with certainty whether consumer-perceived advertising creativity is an intervening, mediating step between manipulated creativity and our hypothesized effects, we mu st measure creativity perception before versus after he other variables (for H5 to hold, creativity perception should have a greater effect when measured before the other variables, cf. Kenny, 1975). To this end, we chose a 2 (more creative/less creative advertisement) X 2 (perceived creativity before/after) experimental design where informants were randomly assigned to one of the four cells. To avoid stimulus specific effects, four different brands and accompanying messages were used for a total of 16 experiment cells. All four brands are established and well known in their respective product categories (pain relief, coffee, vodka, and condoms). We chose well-known rands for two reasons. First, the majority of advertising in major media are for established brands (e. g. , Kent, 2002). Second, as consumer perceptions of wellknown brands are harder to influence than those of unfamiliar brands, the test brands make a more robust test of our hypotheses. Research instrument development Similar to Ambler and Hollier (2004), we wanted to ensure that only the wastefulness of creativity would differ between advertisements, not their functionality with respect to what was communicated. Therefore, we needed to develop advertising stimuli differing only with respect to the creative execution.To this end, a method similar to that of Toncar and Munch (2003) was used. Four pairs of print advertisements were developed, one pair for each brand. Print advertisements usually have three main elements: the brand, text, and pictorial. In our manipulation, the brand and the pictorial was kept constant, while the text was varied to communicate the same message in a more (employing rhetorical figures, cf. Tom and Eves, 1999) or less (without rhetorical figures) creative way. The number of words was kept constant. The advertisements were pretested to make sure that the pairs communicated the same message, and equally strongly.Twenty plus twenty consumers from the target population (be low) were asked â€Å"how well do you agree that the advertisement's main message is. .. † and rated one of the advertisements from each pair on a scale of 1 = totally disagree/ 7 = totally agree. There were no significant differences within the pairs (A^more creative = 5. 4 verSUS Mjess creative = 5. 5). Next, 12 plus 12 advertising professionals from eight major agencies rated one of the advertisements from each pair on creativity (scale: 1 = not at all creative/ 7 = very creative). The more creative advertisements rated significantly higher than the less creative advertisements Mmore creative = 4. 0 verSUS Mjess creative = 2. 7, p < 0. 01). Notably, although significantly different from each other, neither of the two groups of advertisements was seen as particularly creative. However, September 2 0 0 8 JOURIIIIL OF HDUERTISIOG RESERRCH 3 9 5 ADVERTISING CREATIVITY MAHERS By focusing too much on award-winning advertising and treating creativity as a yes/no variabie, one mis ses out on ail the improvements that can be made and effects that can be attained at more moderate leveis. â€Å"How much do you think development of the advertisement cost? † (1 = very cheap/7 = very expensive), and â€Å"How uch time do you think has been devoted to the development of the advertisement? † (1 = very little/7 = very much). We included the variables both separately and as an index (r = 0. 52) in the analyses. Perceived brand ability ( H2) was mea- we are not interested in the absolute levels of creativity; the goal is to compare differences in degree of creativity. This approach differs from most previous research, which often employs â€Å"outstanding† (award-winning) creative advertisements. The fact that the degree of creativity is fairly low in our more creative advertisements makes our test of the effects of advertising creativity more robust.It also makes the results more applicable in practice, as most advertisements do not win awards, but may still be creative (e. g. , Haberland and Dacin, 1992; Kover, James, and Sonner, 1997). Procedure We employed a procedure similar to Ambler and Hollier (2004). The participants were part of an internet panel of a professional market research firm and recruited to represent a cross section of the working population (56/44 female-male breakdown, age range 18-65 years, average 39 years). In total, 1,284 consumers participated in the study, making a cell size of approximately 80 respondents. Asked to participate in an advertising retest, consumers were randomly exposed to one of the stimulus print advertisements online and then directly filled out a questionnaire. Measures A number of measures were employed to test the advertisement's functionality (which is supposed to be the same across conditions): Brand identification w as measured as an open-ended question, where respondents typed in the brand name they believed was featured in the advertisement. Key message identification w as measured by asking respondents to tick the correct message out of four alternatives (the alternatives were the same across all cells and were designed to be plausible for all four rands). Furthermore, we measured difficulty of comprehension (1 = very easy to comprehend/7 = very difficult to comprehend), advertising attitude (â€Å"What is your opinion about the advertisement you just saw? â€Å"), and brand attitude [â€Å"What is your opinion of (brand)? ,† both on a scale from 1 (very bad) to 7 (very good)]. We also measured brand familiarity and price estimates to rule out confounding effects of consumer knowledge or competing signals (cf. Kirmani and Rao, 2000). Similar to Till and Baack (2005) familiarity with the brand was measured before exposure (1 = never heard of it/7 = know t very well). Price estimates were measured after exposure with an open-ended question where respondents were asked to type in how much they estimated that the advertised product cost (employ ing familiar brands and products in the study, we expected no differences between conditions). We calculated differences in price estimates within the advertising pairs and compared them by product category. The following measures were used for the hypothesis tests: Perceived marketing effort ( HI) was mea- sured with two items on a 7-point scale. 3 9 6 JOUBflflL OFflDUERTISlOGflESEflRCHS eptember 2 0 0 8 ured with three items (1 = do not agree/ 7 = agree completely): â€Å"(Brand) is smart,† â€Å"(Brand) is likely to develop valuable products in the future,† and â€Å"(Brand) is good at solving consumers' problems. † We included the items both separately and as an index (Cronbach's alpha = 0. 83) in the analyses. Perceived brand quality (H3) was as- sessed by asking: â€Å"What is the general quality level of the brand? † with answers given on a scale from 1 (very low quality) to 7 (very high quality). Brand interest (H4) was measured with two items on a 7-point scale: â€Å"I find (brand) interesting,† and â€Å"I want to buy the brand† 1 = do not agree/7 = agree completely). We included the variables both separately and as an index (r = 0. 68) in the analyses. Perceived advertising creativity (H5) was measured by asking: â€Å"To what extent do you think that the advertisement you just saw is creative? † (1 – not at all creative/ 7 = very creative). The question was placed before the measures of perceived effort (HI) and brand ability (H2) in one-half of the questionnaires and after the same measures in the other half. This design enables us to test the direction of causalities between the variables (Kenny, 1975). It has been used in previous research on, for xample, the causal effects between slogan evaluations and brand perceptions (Dahlen and Rosengren, 2005). RESULTS Manipulation and confound checks Comparing the groups of more creative versus less creative advertisements. ADVERTISING CREATIVITY M AHERS perceived creativity rated significantly TABLE 1 higher for the group of more creative ad- Effects of Advertising Creativity vertisements (M = 3. 94 versus M = 3. 37, p ; 0. 01), suggesting that our manipulation of advertising creativity was successful. See Table 1. Furthermore, the analyses include testing for differences in function- More Creative Less CreativeAdvertisements, Advertisements, Planned M {SD) M (SD) Comparisons ,. . ,. Manipulation check ality between the groups with respect to †¢ ^ 5 iF brand identification, message identification, comprehension, and advertising and brand attitudes. Only comprehension and advertising attitude differed between conditions, suggesting that the more creative advertisements were more difficult to com, , . , ,. , , , , prehend and were better liked than the less creative advertisements. To rule out competing effects from these variables. they were included as covariates in the subsequent analyses, meaning that these ^ †¢;  ° ifferences were accounted for in the re- r, †¢ ^ †¢Ã¢â‚¬ ¢ Perceived creativity 3,94 (1. 51) 3. 37 (1. 64) p ; 0 . 01 ^^'^^  °^ advertising functionality †¦. ^rapd identification 0. 99(0. 26) iVIessage identification 0. 99(0. 18) Comprehension 4. 96 (1. 71) 0,98(0. 28) 0,99(0,11) 4. 64 (1. 79) n . s. n,s, p < 0 . 01 Advertising attitude  ° †¦.. ^. ‘[^uf?.. ^. ^^. ‘! ^. ‘^. ^.? Confounding variables Brand familiarity ^ ^. ^ . . ,. „ Estimated pnce, difference ,. ^ by product category 4. 08(1. 47) †¢ f^. :^l. ‘ih^^). 3. 81(1. 28) p < 0 . 01 †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ ^. ^^.. {hf! ‘^). â€Å". :! ; 4-,58 (2,23) „„^ +0. 04 4. 44 (2. 23) :28. (1:45) 3. 14 (1. 54) 3,41 (1,75) 2. 96 (1. 58) 2. 78 (1,50) 3. 16 (1. 71) p < 0 . 01 p < 0 . 01 p < 0 . 01 3 . 67(1,71) †¢ †¢ 3. 22 (;i. 26) 4. 25 (1. 19) ^ . . ,^ ,-^^ 3. 44 (1. 51) 3,42(1. 40) †¢ †¢ †¢ 3. -. 04. (1. 37) 4. 00 (1 ,70) ^ ^ , r-^ 3. 12 (1,50) p < 0 . 01 †¢ †¢ P†¦ ; p < 0. 01 † r†¦ 7. Smart 4. 02 (1. 53) 2. 37 (1. 40) p ; 0. 01 significantly greater when consumer- Develop valuable products 5. 02 (1. 25) 3. 35 (1. 55) p ; 0. 01 perceived creativity precedes the other vari- Good problem solver 4. 20 (2. 44) 2. 29 (1. 67) p ; 0. 01 Perceived brand quaiity 5. 48 (1. 16) 4. 02 (1. 0) p ; 0 . 01 DiSCUSSION Waste in advertising creativity matters. Brand interest 4. 62 (1. 51) 2. 56 (1. 41) p ; 0. 01 The results of the present study show that Interesting 4. 50 (1. 62) 2. 39 (1. 43) p ; 0. 01 Purchase intention 4. 73 (1. 71) ;. ! 2. 73 (1. 78) . ; p ; 0. 01 † r:.. 7. ^^^ † â€Å"^^ ^†Ã¢â‚¬Ëœ^^^^ ^ ^ * ^ ^^^^- ^^^^^' * ^^† improving the functionality of the adver.. ^ j u .. u tisement and push the message into †¢^ †¦. P^. ‘P^. ‘y^. l^^O':* H2 consumer-perceived creativity and the mar, .. . , j /o^ ^u i†¢ ketmg signals, and (2) the correlations are ables, implying a causal direction from he former onto the latter. H3 H4 Note: F(4, 729) = 80. 40, p < 0. 01, Wilkes' lambda, 0. 53. Consumers' minds, which conventional September 2 0 0 8 JDUROHL OF RDUERTISIIIG RESEHRCH 3 9 9 ADVERTISING CREATIVITY MAHERS lished brands that consumers were familiar Regression Coefficients, Test of Mediation by Perceived _ .. Advertismg Creativity s ? Coefficient t-Statistic p< Dependent variable Perceived marketing effort Independent variables .^, ,^ .. v ertising creativity is a p owerful signal when communicating familiar brands a s ,, well. The signaling power of Advertising creativity 0. 18 2. 31 0. 1 Advertising creativity (after inclusion of 0. 02 0. 16 n. s. perceived advertising creativity) Perceived advertising creativity , v ant mamly when communicating with c onsumers that a re u nfamiliar with t he b rand (e. g. , Kirmani a nd R ao, 2000), a d- Standardized gg^g Variables k eting signals argues that they a re r ele- 0 . 33 7. 69 0. 01 advertising creativity Recent research suggests that it is b ecom†^g i ncreasingly harder t o p osition a nd differentiate brands with advertising (e. g.. Ehrenberg, Barnard, Kennedy, a nd Bloom, Dependent variable 2002; Heath a nd N airn, 2005). A s m arkets †¦ ^. ^. ‘[^^}}'. ^^.. ^. ^^! ^^.. ^'! ^'! }]^y.. a re c rowded with similar products, c om- Independent variables m unicating a u nique message or m aking Advertising creativity 0 . 29 2. 56 0. 01 a dvertising that sticks is v irtually impos- Advertising creativity (after inclusion of perceived advertising creativity) 0. 16 0. 99 n. s. 0. 38 5. 76 0. 01 ^^^^^ â„ ¢ ^ ^^^ ‘ ^^ ^ °Ã¢â‚¬ ^^ * ° ‘^†Ã¢â‚¬Ëœ^'^^^'^^ ‘ ^^^ † ‘^ â€Å"†Ã¢â‚¬ Ã¢â‚¬ Ã¢â‚¬Ëœ^ important than ever to use creativity that really pushes the message ,, . / I T-,  » , , j , . , r,r,r,A^ t hrough (cf. E l-Murad a nd West, 2004). A nother Conclusion would b e t hat creativ-P erceived advertising creativity ^ Note: n. s. = noi significant. ity becomes less a m atter of m essage a nd content generation, a nd m ore a m atter of y/^BLE 5 form a nd s ignaling power. Crowded m ar- Correlation Coefficients, Test of Causality ^^*' ^†'^ ^^†^  °^ differentiation are the very reasons provided for the use of m ar- Perceived Creativity Perceived Creativity k eting signals such a s a dvertising e x-  »Ã¢â‚¬ ¢perceived creativity x „.. „ Perceived effort iVIeasured First -„_ 0 . 35 iVIeasured Last ^„, 0. 24 Difference „„^ p ; 0 . 05 P^-^ived ability Perceived quality 0 . 42 0 . 43 0. 32 0. 4 p ; 0 . 01 p ; 0 . 01 Brand interest 0 . 49 0. 40 p ; 0 . 01 p ense (Kirmani a nd R ao, 2000). Focusing on the execution in itself, rather than the actual message, t he a dvertiser could u se c reativity a s a p owerful marketing signal a s w ell. O † ‘ a nalysis reveals that more versus less advertising creativity pr oduces a s ignal of m arketing effort that is s imilar t o advertising expense. This is g ood news, wisdom holds t o be the major benefit of t aken a s proof of the b rand's smartness, a s t his revelation implies that t he a dver- creativity, a n e xtra degree of c reativity nd ability t o s olve problems a nd de- t iser does n ot n eed t o s pend excessive may send signals about t he a dvertiser that velop valuable products. A s a r esult, con- a mounts of m oney t o s ignal confidence i n rub off on c onsumer perceptions of the s umers became more interested i n the her p roduct. Instead of s pending money brand. I n our e xperiment, more versus brand a nd p erceived it to be of h igher o n b igger advertising spaces or l onger less creative advertising signaled greater quality. T he l atter is a p articularly inter- a nd m ore frequent campaigns (e. g. , Kir- ffort o n the a dvertiser's behalf a nd was e sting result, a s t he s tudy featured estab- mani, 1990, 1997), t he s ame effects m ay 4 0 0 JDUBnflL OF eOUERTISIIlG BESEIIIICH September 2 0 0 8 ADVERTISING CREATIVITY MAHERS be attainable by increasing creativity instead. Thus, the present study provides compelling evidence that creativity could be a way to produce greater results per advertising dollar. Creativity seems to have the greater effect through signaling brand ability than through effort. One reason for this is that creativity may fit more logically with what the brand, and advertising in general, is erceived to be about: displaying great solutions in the advertised product category. While high versus low creativity also has a signaling effect through perceived effort, most consumers would probably agree that trying hard is not the true purpose of any advertising or brand. Advertising is not primarily about spending money; advertising is about cleverly presenting the brand, and a desirable goal for any brand should be to deliver a more sophisticated product than the competition (cf. Brown a nd Dacin, 1997). The very (creative) form of the advertising could be a powerful clue to consumers about the brand.Creativity Is not a yes/no The presented numbers reveal that the advertising creativity in our study was not very high (ratings were not above the midpoint of the scale for either the more or the less creative advertisements). Thus, the study does not test the effects of outstandingly creative advertisements. Neither of the advertisements in the study would likely win an award. Still, at these (relative to previous research and to awardcompeting advertisements) low levels of creativity, increases did matter. This result provides evidence that creativity is not only important at an award-winning level, t is important at any level. By focusing too much on award-winning advertising and treating creativity as a yes/no variable, one misses out on all the improvements that can be made and effects that Consumer perceptions of the creativity in an advertisement mediate the adve rtisement's effects on the brand and malee the impact of the manipulated (â€Å"hidden†) creativity much greater. can be attained at more moderate levels. Considering the high risk that is associated with high levels of creativity (e. g. , El-Murad and West, 2003; West, 1999), taking baby steps is both easier and safer han quantum leaps—viewing creativity as a spectrum rather than a high absolute level encourages increases in advertising creativity across all advertising campaigns. Creativity is not a iiidden tool Given the signaling power of advertising creativity, viewing creativity as a hidden tool for advertising professionals is a mistake. Consumer perceptions of the creativity in an advertisement mediate the advertisement's effects on the brand and make the impact of the manipulated (â€Å"hidden†) creativity much greater. This is a powerful case for Kover, James, and Sonner's (1997) call to bring consumers nto the agencies' processes and invite them to pa rtake in the development—and definition—of creative advertising. Whereas copy testing is becoming more common in practice, advertising professionals still interpret the results on behalf of the consumer, deciding whether her responses indicate that the advertisement is creative or not. Not surprisingly, Koslow, Sasser, and Riordan (2006) find that formal testing had no effect on agencies' self-assessed creative output. If advertising professionals both ask the questions and interpret consumers' answers to them, what need is there to actuaUy ask consumers?If agencies had included consumer perceptions of the advertisements' creativity in the testing, Koslow, Sasser, and Riordan's findings would probably have been different. As Kover, James, and Sonner (1997) suggest, taking a consumer perspective offers new ideas and nuances in the creative process and provides more concrete feedback on the creative level of the advertising that would facilitate benchmarking and enhancem ent of the creative output. In enhancing perceived brand ability, the very creative form of advertising could be a way of branding. As suggested in the corporate ability literature, ability could e a powerful positioning in itself (Biehal and Sheinin, 2007; Brown and Dacin, 1997). For brands that have no particular unique feature, becoming increasingly common with the overwhelming number of alternatives available in most markets, ability in itself could be a sustainable source of advantage leveraging consumer expectations and trust in any product the brand introduces. This view is particularly interesting considering the trend toward continuously releasing new products under the same brand (Biehal and Sheinin, 2007). The research on marketing signals focuses mainly on unfamiliar brands (Kirmani and Rao, 2000).Whereas it still needs to be tested, creativity should have important effects on unfamiliar brands as well, as they may benefit more from marketing signals in general. However, the present study shows that high versus low creativity works as a signal for familiar and September 2 0 0 8 JDURHIIL OF BDOERTISIIIG RESEflRCH 4 0 1 ADVERTISING CREATIVITY MAHERS Creative advertising does increase consumer interest in ations and Consumer Product Responses. † Journal of Marketing 6 1, 1 (1997): 68-84. the brands, not by communicating a new message, but by COHEN, JACOB, a nd P ATRICI COHEN. Applied ommunicating the same message in another way. Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. H iilsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1983. established brands. Such brands make up the bulk of advertising in major media (Kent, 2002), They need to stay interesting to consumers even when they have nothing new to say (Machleit, Allen, and Madden, 1993), Creative advertising does increase consumer interest in the brands, not by communicating a new message, but by communicating the same message in another way. The present study focuses on a small number of advertis ements for consumer products.We employed only one exposure that was forced on consumers. Our experimental design was a way to test previously uncovered effects of creativity in a controlled setting. This way, we show that advertising creativity may work in different ways than in previous literature and have powerful effects. Whether these effects materialize in a real setting (with noise, less motivated consumers), and for different kinds of products, must be subject to further research, within advertising, PR, and brand communications DAHLEN, MICAEL, a nd SARA ROSENGREN, † Brands have been published in, for example, the Journal ofAffect Slogans Affect Brands? Brand Equity, Com- Advertising Research, the Journal of Advertising, the petitive Interference, and the Brand-Slogan Link. † Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, Journal of Brand Management 1 2,3 (2005): 151-64, and the Journal of Brand Management. EHRENBERG, ANDREW S . C , N E I L BARNARD, FREDRI K TORN is a Ph. D. candidate at the Stockholm RACHEL KENNEDY, a nd H ELEN BLOOM, † Brand School of Economics, focusing on incongruent brand Advertising a s C reative Publicity. † Journal of communications. His studies have been published in, Advertising Research 42, 4 (2002): 7-18. or example, the Journal of Advertising, the Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, and the Journal of Consumer Behavior. EL-MURAD, JAAEAR, a nd D OUGLAS C . W EST, â€Å"Risk and Creativity in A dvertising,† Journal of Marketing Management 19, 4 (2003): 657-73, REFERENCES and â€Å"The Definition a nd Mea- surement of C reativity: What D o We K now? † AMBLER, T IM, a nd E. A N N H OLLIER † The Waste Journal of Advertising in Advertising Is the P art That Works. † Journal 188-201. Research 44, 2 (2004): of Advertising Research 44, 4 (2004): 375-89, GROSS, IRWIN, † The Creative Aspects of AdverANG, SWEE HOON, a nd S HARON Y.M , LOW. â€Å"Explorin g t he D imensions of Ad C reativity,† tising. † Sloan Management Review, 14, 1 (1972): 83-109. Psychology & Marketing 17, 10 (2000): 835-54, MICAEL DAHLEN is a professor of marketing at the BARON, REUBEN M , , a nd D AVID A. K ENNY, † The Stockholm School of Economics, His research fo- Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in So- cuses on innovative advertising and brand strategies, cial Psychological Research: Conceptual, Stra- with the ambition to join creativity, business, and con- tegic, a nd Statistical Considerations,† Journal of sumer value. Having been published in, for example,Personality and Social Psychology 5 1, 6 (1986): the Journal of Advertising Research, the Journal of HABERLAND, GABRIELE S. , and P ETER A, D A – 1173-82. GIN. † The Development of a M easure to Assess Viewers' Judgments of the C reativity of an Advertisement: A P reliminary Study,† Advances in Consumer Research 19 (1992): 817-25, Advertising, Psychology & Marketing, the Journal of HALL, BRUCE F . † A New Model for Measuring Brand Management, he has taken the first baby steps BiEHAL, G ABRIEL J. , and D ANIEL A, S HEININ, Advertising Effectiveness,† Journal of Advertis- toward realizing that ambition. The Influence of C orporate Messages o n the ing Research 42, 2 (2002): 2 3-31. Product Portfolio. † Journal of Marketing 7 1, 2 SARA ROSENGREN is a Ph. D. candidate at the Stock- (2007): 1 2-25. holm School of Economics, presenting her thesis on HEATH, ROBERT, a nd A GNES NAIRN. † Measur- ing Affective Advertising: Implications of L ow marketing communications in cluttered environments BROWN, T OM J. , and P ETER A, D ACIN, † The Attention Processing o n Recall,† Journal of Ad- in the fall of 2 008, Her experiments on competition Company a nd the P roduct: Corporate Associ- vertising Research 45, 2 (2005): 2 69-81, 0 2 JOUBUfiL OF BDUEBTISinG RESERRCH September 2 0 0 8 ADVERTISING CREATIVITY MATTERS HELGESEN, THOROLF. † Advertising Awards and cies. † Journal of Advertising Research 4 3,1 (2003): STONE, GERALD, DONNA BESSER, a nd L ORAN E . Advertising Agency Performance Criteria. † Jour- 96-110. LEWIS. â€Å"Recall, Liking a nd C reativity in TV nal of Advertising Research 34, 4 (1994): 4 3-53. Commercials: A N ew Approach. † Journal of Adand â€Å"Do Marketers G et KENNY, DWAYNE A . â€Å"Cross-Lagged Panel Cor- the Advertising They Need or t he A dvertising relation: A Test for S puriousness. † Psychological They Deserve?Agency Views of H ow C lients Bulletin 82, 6 (1975): 887-903. Influence Creativity. † Journal of Advertising 35, vertising Research 40, 3 (2000): 7 -18. TILL, BRIAN D . , a nd D ANIEL W . BAAGK. â€Å"Recall 3 (2006): 8 1-101. and Persuasion. Does Creativity Matter? † Journal of Advertising 34, 3 (2005): 47-57. KENT, ROBERT J. â€Å"The Effects of M edia-Source Cues i n Ad Recall Tests. † Journal of Current KOVER, ARTHUR J. , S TEPHEN M . G OLDBERG, a nd Issues and Research in Advertising 24, 1 (2002): WILLIAM M . J AMES. † Creativity v s. Effective- TOM, GAIL, a nd A NMARIE EVES. † The Use of 1-9. ness?A n I ntegrating Classification for A dver- Rhetorical Devices i n A dvertising. † Journal of tising. † Journal of Advertising Research 3 5,6 (1995): Advertising Research 39, 4 (1999): 3 9-43. KIRMANI, AMNA. † The Effect of P erceived A d- 29-40. vertising Costs o n B rand Perceptions. † Journal ToNGAR, M ARK E , a nd J AMES MUNGH. † Con, W ILLIAM L . J AMES, a nd B RENDA S . S ON- of Consumer Research 17, 2 (1990): 1 60-71. NER. â€Å"To Whom Do Advertising Creatives Write? sumer Responses t o Tropes in P rint Advertising. † Journal of Advertising 30, 1 (2001): 55-65. An Inferential Answer. † Journal of Advertising â€Å"Advertising Repetition as a Signal of Research 37, 1 (1997): 4 1-53. Quality: If I t's A dvertised So M uch, S omething , a nd Must Be W rong. † Journal of Advertising 26, 3 . â€Å"The Influence of S imple , a nd AKSHAY R . R AO. † N O P ain, N o Gain: Luo, XuEMiNG, and C. B. BHATTAGHARYA. â€Å"Cor- porate Social Responsibility, Customer Satisfac- tance a nd M emory. † Journal of Marketing Theory tion, a nd M arket Value. † Journal of Marketing (1997): 7 7-86. and Complex Tropes o n Believability, Impor- & Practice 11, 4 (2003): 3 9-53. 70, 4 (2006): 1-18. A Critical Review of t he L iterature o n SignalWEILBAGHER, WILLIAM M . H O W A dvertising ing Unobservable Product Quality. † Journal of Marketing 64, 2 (2000): 66-79. MAGHLEIT, KAREN A. , C HRIS T . A LLEN, a nd Affects Consumers. † Journal of Advertising Re- THOMAS J. M ADDEN. † The M ature Brand a nd search 4 3, 2 (2003): 230-34. Brand Interest: A n A lternative Consequence of , a nd P ETER WRIGHT. † Money Talks: Per- ceived Advertising Expense a nd Expected Prod- Ad-Evoked Affect. â €  Journal of Marketing 57, 4 WEST, DOUGLAS C . â€Å"360 ° of C reative Risk. † (1993): 7 2-82. Journal of Advertising Research 2 9,1 (1999): 39-50. uct Quality. † Journal of Consumer Research 16, 3 1989): 3 44-53. REID, L EONARD N . , K AREN WHITEHILL KING, KOSLOW, SCOTT, SHEILA L . SASSER, a nd E D – Creatives Look a t A dvertising Creativity Then ing Advertising Creativity Using t he C reative WARD A. R IORDAN. † What is C reative t o W hom and N ow. † Journal of Advertising 27, 2 (1998): Product Semantic Scale. † Journal of Advertising and Why? Perceptions o n A dvertising Agen- 1-16. Research 4 1, 6 (2001): 27-34. and D ENISE E . D ELORME. â€Å"Top-Level Agency WHITE, ALISA, a nd BRUGE L . S MITH. † Assess- September 2 0 0 8 JDURDHL OF HDUEIITISIOG RESEflRCH 4 0 3