复制成功
  • 图案背景
  • 纯色背景

How Advertising Works The Role of Research_部分1

下载积分:1000

内容提示: How Advertising W)ites How Advertising W)ite The Role of Research EDITED BY JOHN PHILIP JONES SAGE Publications International Educational and Professional Publisher Thousand Oaks London New Delhi Copyright © 1998 by Sage Publications, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from ...

文档格式:PDF| 浏览次数:2| 上传日期:2019-01-20 09:37:39| 文档星级:
How Advertising W)ites How Advertising W)ite The Role of Research EDITED BY JOHN PHILIP JONES SAGE Publications International Educational and Professional Publisher Thousand Oaks London New Delhi Copyright © 1998 by Sage Publications, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. For information: 1^1 2455 Teller Road \ £ / Thousand Oaks, California 91320 E-mail: order@sagepub.com SAGE Publications Ltd. 6 Bonhill Street London EC2A 4PU United Kingdom SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd. M-32 Market Greater Kailash I New Delhi 110 048 India Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Main entry under title: How advertising works: The role of research/edited by John Philip Jones, p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-7619-1240-1 (acid-free paper) ISBN 0-7619-1241-X (pbk.: acid-free paper) 1. Advertising. 2. Advertising—Research. I. Jones, John Philip. HF5823.H58 1998 659.1—dc21 98-8871 This book is printed on acid-free paper. 00 01 02 03 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 Acquiring Editor: Harry M. Briggs Editorial Assistant: Anna Howland Production Editor: Michele Lingre Editorial Assistant: Karen Wiley Designer/Typesetter: Janelle LeMaster Cover Designer: Ravi Balasuriya This series of handbooks is dedicated to David Ogilvy The quality of research will improve, and this will generate a bigger corpus of knowledge as to what works and what doesn't. Creative people will learn to exploit this knowledge, thereby improving their strike rate at the cash register. —David Ogilvy, 1983 (the first of 13 predictions about advertising) Contents 1. Introduction John Philip Jones Parti Markets and Advertising 2. The Advertising Process Timothy Joyce 11 3. The Turbulent Depths of Marketing Leo Bogart 26 4. Brand Growth: The Past, the Present Josh McQueen, Alice K. Sylvester, and Scott D. Moore 49 5. Penetration, Brand Loyalty, and the Penetration Supercharge John Philip Jones 57 6. Repetitive Advertising and the Consumer Andrew S. C. Ehrenberg 7. Is Advertising Still Salesmanship? John Philip Jones 8. Expansion Advertising Brian Wansink Part II Research Before the Advertising Runs 9. Market Research: Why We Need to Be Careful John Philip Jones 10. Likeability: Why Advertising That Is Well Liked Sells Well Alexander L. Biel 11. Qualitative Research in Advertising Jan S. Slater 12. Perceptual Mapping John Philip Jones 13. Brain Wave Measures of Media Involvement Herbert E. Krugman 14. Consumer Preferences as Predictions Alfred Politz and W. Edwards Denting 15. Quantitative Pretesting for Television Advertising John Philip Jones 16. Rough Versus Finished Commercials in Research Paula Pierce 17. Electronic Media Audience Measurement Fiona Chew 180 18. Consumer Purchasing, Starch, and STAS: Does Magazine Advertising Produce an Immediate Effect? John Philip Jones 203 Part III Research After the Advertising Has Run 19. Retail Research, Consumer Panels, Store Checking John Philip Jones 211 20. Campaign Evaluation Through Modeling Simon Broadbent 222 21. Tracking Studies Paul Feldwick 234 22. Television Advertising: Measuring Short- and Long-Term Effects Nigel S. Hollis 244 23. Do Award-Winning Commercials Sell? Donald Gunn 266 24. Single-Source Research John Philip Junes 277 25. Is STAS a Uniform Measure for All Types of Buyers? John Philip Jones 283 Part IV Advertising Effects, Including Some Unexpected Ones 26. How Much Advertising Works? John Philip Jones 27. 28. 29. 291 Reduced Advertising and Its Impact on Profitability and Market Share in a Recession Alexander L. Biel 297 Margin and Price Effects of Manufacturers' Brand Advertising Robert L. Steiner 308 Macroeconomic Effects: The Influence of Advertising on Overall Sales Levels John Philip Jones 326 Name Index 337 Subject Index 341 About the Authors 353 Introduction John Philip Jones This handbook is the first in a planned series of five. The individual volumes are to come off the press in sequence and with minimal delays between them. The titles of the five volumes are as follows: 1. How Advertising Works: The Role of Research 2. Advertising Procedures and Operations 3. How to Use Advertising to Build Strong Brands 4. Multinational Advertising: Realities and Myths 5. Advertising Organizations and Publications: A Resource Guide This rather ambitious project, which I have been planning for many years, comprises a collection of separate articles by advertising specialists—many of them world-renowned figures—all of their contributions focused on the topics covered by the five volumes. Each volume is designed to cover its subject area fairly comprehensively. The large majority of individual chapters were written specially for this series, although a relatively small number are 1 2 HOW ADVERTISING WORKS adaptations of articles that have appeared in the professional press. These are the pieces that I consider to be the classics: the cornerstones of an edifice of knowledge about advertising and how it works. Notes accompanying the previously published chapters detail where they originally appeared. Most of the individual chapters include endnotes that contain carefully selected references to further published sources, with an emphasis on the empirical rather than the theoretical. It is my ambition to make the battery of references represented here the best possible knowledge bank relating to advertising available anywhere. Each of the five volumes in this series covers a relatively self-contained field, and I have tried to minimize the overlap between volumes (although I fear that some will inevitably remain—but perhaps this does not matter much). Each of the individual chapters can also stand on its own, although in many cases different contributors, using different types of analysis, come to similar conclusions about advertising. This volume is the work of 20 authors; 15 are practitioners and 5 are academics. Of these, 13 are American and 7 are British (of whom 6 have lived and worked in the United States). The contributions of the British analysts signal the importance of the British intellectual contribution both to our understanding of how advertising works and to those developments in meth­ods that were pioneered in the United Kingdom. The Advertising Business Advertising is carried out by three main groups of participants: clients, the media, and agencies (including agencies' outside suppliers). Some analysts think that researchers should be included as a fourth group. However, I believe research to be so important that I prefer to consider it as a component part—a strong basic element—of each of the three main groups. Clients and agencies carry out work that overlaps to a considerable degree. They are both involved in strategy, budgeting, media planning, media buying, and the evaluation of campaign effects. The specific expertise of agencies lies in their flair for developing creative ideas and their craft skills in supervising how these are executed as finished commercials and print advertisements. This supervision calls for intimate knowledge of the talent market as well as negotiating ability. Introduction 3 Agencies to some extent resent clients' attempts to trespass on the agencies' creative territory, but this does not prevent most clients from expressing robust views about their agencies' creative efforts. Some clients go further and try to become a (not totally welcome) part of the creative team. It is a refined art for a client to develop sensitivity in exercising informed and constructive creative judgment while at the same time not interfering in the creative process itself. Some client organizations are cleverer than others in this regard, and within the better client companies there are wide differences among individuals. The division of responsibilities between clients and agencies highlights the fact that advertising is partly a scientific and partly an artistic activity. The "science" is the concern of both clients and agencies; the "art" is the respon­sibility of the agencies alone. Science is rather a flattering word to use in this context. Nevertheless, there is (or should be) a good statistical foundation to advertising strategy, media planning, and much advertising evaluation. Also, agencies carry out on a routine basis a good deal of qualitative research to help develop strategy and to evaluate creative ideas. This duality in the advertising process is the reason advertising agencies (and clients, to a smaller degree) recruit two types of people—those with analytic skills and those with creative skills. The combination of these two types of talent working closely together is a source of much excitement, but at the same time considerable tension. To use a reasonably appropriate metaphor, this tension acts like the grit in an oyster necessary to produce a pearl. Advertising Agencies A striking characteristic of the advertising agency business is its fragmented nature. Individual agencies may appear prima facie to be large. However, in comparison with the aggregate size of the advertising business, they are in fact small. In most years, the top six individual agencies in the United States account for a total of only about 20% of all advertising in measured media—an extremely low concentration ratio in comparison with the fields in which their clients operate. The six-firm concentration ratio in most consumer goods industries is at least 60%, and in many cases it is much higher than that. The figure for breakfast cereals is more than 90%. 4 HOW ADVERTISING WORKS There are two reasons for this fragmentation. First, clients are very restric­tive about their agencies' accepting competitive business—a narrowness that often goes to extreme lengths. A client employing an agency in one product field but in no others will often require that the agency not accept competitive business in other fields in which the client operates but the agency does not. This attitude on the part of clients has grown stricter over time, and it inevitably inhibits agency growth. Interestingly, the only important country that does not put sanctions on agencies' handling competitive business is Japan. As a result, Japan is a country of many large agencies. This does not mean, however, that the large Japanese agencies are better than the smaller American ones. There is in fact a limit to growth. The second reason for the relatively small size of agencies is that econo­mies of scale are less apparent in the agency business than in capital-intensive enterprises, such as most manufacturing businesses. It is true that in advertis­ing, large clients will normally generate slightly higher relative profits than small clients, as a result of lower operating costs per million dollars of billing, because the costs are more widely spread. But clients are aware of this and frequently impose sliding scales on their agencies' remuneration, with the rates going down as the volume of business increases—a procedure that pinches out the agencies' financial rewards from their scale economies. A related point regarding scale is that diseconomies of scale set in fairly early in an agency's initial growth phase. An individual agency is invariably dominated professionally by a small number of people at the top—sometimes by only one key figure. The larger an agency grows, the thinner becomes the contribution of the top talent to each individual client. This naturally tends to slow growth; in the words of a notable contemporary practitioner, Jay Chiat, founder of Chiat/Day (now TBWA Chiat/Day), "How big must we grow before we get bad?" These characteristics of the advertising agency business have contributed to the ferocious nature of the competition among agencies. Secular Difficulties for Advertising This volume is concerned with the research needed to understand the adver­tising process. The problems afflicting the industry that are discussed in this section would be solved by the wider exposure of effective advertising. Introduction 5 Perhaps not surprisingly, advertising agencies have always put great emphasis on generating powerful ideas. The trouble is that we do not know enough about which ideas are powerful before advertising is exposed; and we are also not very good at evaluating the effectiveness of ideas after the event. Hence the stress I am placing on research. The strong growth that was such a remarkable feature of the advertising business during the period after World War II came to an end during the mid-1980s. Although 1996 and 1997 saw a cyclical upturn, advertising is no longer making large strides in real terms, and the earlier rate of growth is unlikely to be renewed. The reasons are complex, but they ultimately stem from the fact that in developed economies most consumer goods categories have stopped growing significantly. What has made the situation worse is a factor already mentioned: the weakness of agencies in providing account­ability for their campaigns. Demonstrably effective work is still the exception and not the rule. Clients have contributed to the lack of advertising growth in two ways. First, they have hugely increased their expenditure on sales promotions, mainly direct price-cutting to consumers and the retail trade. This is described as "below-the-line" activity. Clients have done this because they judge pro­motions to have greater immediate sales effects than advertising does. (The cruel paradox is that most promotions are unprofitable.) This trend toward promotions has of course decelerated the long-term growth in advertising. Second, clients have put downward pressure on their agencies' incomes (e.g., through the imposition of sliding scales, as mentioned above) so that agency income has not kept pace with increases in the absolute size of the business. Advertising agencies, although engaged in an apparently vibrant activity, are in reality extremely conservative. Their first response to the lack of aggregate growth, the pressure on agency incomes, and the move of funds below the line demonstrated an astonishing lack of imagination. Agencies tried to maintain their profits by reducing their costs. They did this by cutting savagely into their payrolls, which had a predictable effect on their ability to produce superior work and to prove its effectiveness—the very things that might have started billings growing again. Until the present temporary revival in their fortunes, agencies floundered in a sea of difficulties. At the same time they were cutting into their numbers of employees, they also made a strong move toward amalgamation. This was done with the aim of generating scale economies that could in some way compensate for the downward pressure on their income. As already discussed, 6 HOW ADVERTISING WORKS scale economies are relatively unimportant in the agency field; the opportu­nities for these economies appeared more tempting than their performance has demonstrated. A number of "multiagencies"—unwieldy conglomerates— were also assembled, the most important being interpublic Omnicom, Saatchi & Saatchi (which subsequently fragmented), and WPP. The reasons for these super-amalgamations were mixed, and went beyond simple scale economies; and they certainly did not have much to do with generating superior advertis­ing. Perhaps predictably, the marketplace performance of these bulky organi­zations has proven disappointing, as judged by the market value of their stock. What it all comes down to is that most agencies have been too narrow in their thinking to realize that size alone—being a large unit with a traditional framework and conventional professional capability—is not enough for suc­cess in the future, a future that may continue to be both troubled and volatile. What is needed is some sort of radical restructuring: 1. Agencies must provide greater accountability for their work, so that they can separate the efficient campaigns from the inefficient ones and dump the latter. This key recommendation has caused me to devote the first volume of these handbooks to the basic and applied research that, if suitably developed, will provide such accountability. 2. Agencies must apply their skills—which they have up to now applied only to a small number of main media—to all media, including nontraditional ones, such as direct mail, cable television, interactive television, and point-of-sale consumer promotions. The synergistic use of all such media—which has been called integrated marketing communications (IMC)—has been a source of much spoken and written chatter, but there has been very little definite movement in the agency world toward implementing it. 3. Agencies must adapt their expertise in their familiar product fields (e.g., repeat-purchase packaged goods) to a situation in which aggregate growth is no longer possible in these fields and where the most important task is the protection of existing brand franchises. 4. At the same time, agencies must develop the capability to sell new types of goods and services that have good prospects for growth, such as direct-response business, financial and many other types of services, retail operations, and new concepts in the field of consumer durables. Given that many of the latter may not yet be discovered, let alone exploited, agencies should be playing a major role in product development in cooperation with their clients. 5. Following the above points, agencies must learn to operate in a more flexible, responsive, uninhibited, and entrepreneurial fashion than they have in the past. An astonishing feature of advertising agencies is that for such small and skilled organizations, they have always had essentially bureaucratic corporate cultures. Introduction 7 6. Agencies must abandon the anachronistic system of remuneration by commis­sion. In the way in which it has been used since the introduction of reduced rates and sliding scales, commission has had two pernicious effects: It undernourishes agencies, and at the same time it grossly impedes organizational change in the industry. It discourages experimentation with new systems and structures be­cause these will cost the agencies money that, under the commission system, clients will not underwrite. (Small, vigorous agencies invariably begin opera­tions remunerated by fees.) 7. Most important, agencies need to equip themselves to produce more highly effective advertising—and more often—than they do at present. The traditional inflexibility of the advertising agency business helps to explain why it has suffered a most significant loss of esteem over the course of the past 30 years. My feeling about the decline in the prestige of advertising is not unsupported. The two meticulous investigations of the business con­ducted by the eminent journalist Martin Mayer (Madison Avenue, USA, published in 1958, and Whatever Happened to Madison Avenue? published in 1991) make this point with considerable force. In fact, Mayer's work reveals the sharpest single change that has taken place in the advertising industry since the late 1950s. Whether or not this change will prove irreversible is totally within the control of today's agency practitioners. P a r t I Markets and Advertising The Advertising Process Timothy Joyce In 1967, at a seminar on advertising research organized by the European Society for Opinion and Marketing Research (ESOMAR), I gave an invited paper titled, "What Do We Know About How Advertising Works?" 1 For some reason, at that time this paper appeared to strike a chord. It came to be frequently quoted and was several times reprinted—including in a somewhat revised form in Simon Broadbent's collection of ESOMAR papers, Market Researchers Look at Advertising. 2 It was also, in the year of the original seminar, picked up by Advertising Age in the United States and published by them in three parts. On my first visit to the United States, in 1967, I was surprised to find that many of the research and advertising people I met were familiar with it. NOTE: The paper on which this chapter is based was first published in Marketing and Research Today, Volume 19, Number 4, November 1991. Permission for using this material has been granted by ESOMAR, the European Society for Opinion and Marketing Research, J.J. Viottastraat 29, 1071 JP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 11 12 MARKETS AND ADVERTISING In the early 1990s, it was suggested that I should attempt to update that paper, which was by then almost 25 years old. In one key respect, however, I am handicapped. When I wrote the 1967 paper, I had the good fortune to have had considerable hands-on experience of advertising research in the 1960s, principally for clients of J. Walter Thompson (JWT), encompassing scores of tracking and brand image studies and hundreds of copy tests, both quantitative and qualitative. I could call upon practical examples and generalizations based on them to make my points. For the past 20 years, however, I have been laboring in the vineyards of media and media research. What I know about recent trends in advertising research is necessarily therefore secondhand rather than firsthand, informed largely by reading journal articles such as many in the Journal of Advertising Research and Admap. Recalling advertising research in the 1960s evokes nostalgia. Research budgets were sizable; many clients were keen to fund research that was primarily developmental; everything was new; we had the feeling that we were writing the book on the subject, not just applying it. "Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, but to be young was very heaven!" Not only the clients but the agency itself, JWT, were generous patrons of research. As to the latter, for example, JWT sponsored the development of a tracking service called the Advertising Planning Index, a pioneering venture that was a precursor of the studies Millward Brown has so successfully exploited in Europe and more recently in the United States. JWT put much more money into development of copy research methods. Perhaps most important, they sponsored, based on my proposal, the experimental "single-source" diary work of 1966, which justly became famous when Colin McDonald published his analysis of the data with respect to the short-term effects of advertising.3 What Vk Thought W Knew What did we, or more correctly what did I, think we knew back in 1967 about how advertising works? I shall start by recapitulating some of the main themes of my 1967 paper. I queried certain quite common assumptions about the advertising process, and substituted conclusions based to the extent possible on actual data and experience. An explicit limitation of the paper was that it was restricted to advertising for what the Americans call repeat-purchase packaged goods and the British call fast-moving consumer goods (fmcg). The Advertising Process 13 The first assumption that was queried related to purchasing itself, in terms of what advertising would achieve if it was effective. This assumption was that advertising achieved "conversion," in the sense of converting loyal users of the other brands to loyal users of the brand advertised. I pointed out that this pattern, although it could on occasion be found in actual purchasing sequences, was actually quite rare. Far more common was a situation in which the consumer had a repertoire of brands within the category that were pur­chased with varying frequency. Those familiar with consumer panel data know this very well. It came out particularly clearly from the single-source diary work referred to above, because the diary was a "journal," recording purchases day by day, so that an actual time sequence of brands purchased within a given category could be established for each panelist. Clearly, therefore, if advertising is to "work," in most cases it will do so by causing the brand to be added to the consumer's repertoire (or at least preventing it from being dropped) or causing it to be purchased more fre­quently (or at least preventing it from being purchased less frequently). Conversion in the sense of "I have always bought brand B, but now the advertising for brand A has persuaded me that it is better, so in future I'll buy brand A" just never occurs—well, hardly ever. The second assumption that was queried related to the advertising commu­nication process—to the effect that the consumer was merely a passive receiver of messages. It was pointed out that this was not supported by actual experience of copy testing, and indeed that by that time there was a consider­able body of evidence in the field of social psychology showing that commu­nication is a far more dynamic and interactive process than this would suggest. People took away from communications, including advertising, what they chose to and, indeed, brought existing preconceptions to them. To cite a classic example, people in theater test audiences exposed to commercials for Persil and Kellogg's Corn Flakes guessed the ages of the same eight different presenters (16 tests in all) as considerably older when they were advertising Persil than when they were advertising Kellogg's Corn Flakes—Persil mostly being thought of as "used by older housewives" and Kellogg's as "used by younger housewives." The preexisting images of the brands influenced the perceptions of the presenters; and, at least in the context of these single-exposure tests, the actual ages of the presenters (which were of course varied in the design) did not affect the images of the brands one little bit! The third set of assumptions that was queried had to do with models of the advertising process that were then rather conventional—models described 14 MARKETS AND ADVERTISING variously as step-by-step, hierarchical, or transmissional—all, in any event, implying a rational consumer being moved by advertising through a sequence of steps to purchase of the product. There were a number of models, but at that time perhaps the best known was DAGMAR (Defining Advertising Goals for Measured Advertising Results), which had been devised for the Associa­tion of National Advertisers in the United States. The stages in this model were as follows: Awareness-Comprehension-Conviction-Action. To quote again from Russell Colley, who was incidentally another one of the invited speakers at the 1967 ESOMAR seminar: All commercial communications that aim at the ultimate objective of a sale must carry a prospect through four levels of understanding: from unawareness to Awareness—The prospect must first be aware of the existence of a brand or company; Comprehension—He must have a comprehension of what the product is and what it will do for him; Conviction—He must arrive at a mental disposition or conviction to buy the product; Action—Finally, he must stir himself to action.4 DAGMAR had the great merit of proposing that there could be quantifiable objectives for advertising (in terms of awareness levels, brand ratings, and so on) over and above sales objectives. Indeed, independently JWT had devel­oped the Advertising Planning Index to provide just such measurements on a continuing basis—what would now be called tracking studies. However, at the outset we had had the belief—which would seem to be supported by DAGMAR and similar models—that such measures as brand awareness and ratings would be leading indicators of sales; that they would go up ahead of sales if a campaign were successful, and helpfully decline ahead of sales if there were a problem—for example, the campaign was proving ineffective or was encountering superior competition. In real life, we found nothing of the kind. On a static basis, it was found that awareness and ratings (or intentions to buy) were very closely associated with usage. On a dynamic basis, in general we found that sales (use) moved first. This was noticed anecdotally a number of times, and then documented systematically by Andrew Ehrenberg and Michael Bird in several published papers.5 In the mid-1960s, several major U.S. studies were reported that were portrayed as demonstrating that "attitude change causes behavior change." My late colleague Jack Fothergill, in an ESOMAR conference paper, dem­onstrated most ingeniously that the data in these studies proved nothing of the The Advertising Process 15 sort.6 He showed that they would follow directly from the assumption that one was looking at static markets in which probabilities of purchasing bear a constant relationship to probabilities of making specific ratings or intentions-to-buy claims. In a dynamic situation, the finding that attitude changes may be found to follow behavior changes—and may therefore at least in part be caused by them—has turned up in a considerable amount of more recent research and is now generally accepted. To summarize the main point of my 1967 paper, I portrayed the consumer as being far-from-passive advertising fodder. There is a continual tug-of-war between perception of advertising and brand attitudes, and between brand attitudes and behavior. Further, advertising evidently can affect behavior "directly" without affecting attitudes as an intermediate variable in any measurable sense. I believe that most of the above reasoning would now be generally ac­cepted. An important development of the late 1960s/early 1970s, however, was the "multiattribute attitude model," which with hindsight was somewhat against the spirit of the 1967 paper and also of then current thinking about advertising. The best-known model was that of Fishbein.7 But let us now move to the present time, noting before we do so that there still are two important sets of benefits to be had from advancing our knowledge of how advertising works. First, with respect to advertising itself, knowledge of how it works can help with decisions about what to say, how to say it, and where to say it, as well as how many times to say it. This is the old question of "How much is enough?"—and, therefore, "How much to spend on it?" with implications for profitability. Second, with respect to advertising research, knowledge of how advertising works potentially can help determine ^yfiat measures are relevant both in pretests of copy and in tracking research, and also help target group definition (with direct implications, therefore, for media research). What Has Happened Since? Over the past 25 years or so, many things have changed. I shall list four major changes in the advertising environment that seem worth noting, and also four 16 MARKETS AND ADVERTISING major changes in the advertising research environment. Of course, I am referring primarily to the U.S. market, with which I am most familiar, secondarily to the U.K. market, and less so to other European markets. As to advertising, the first thing to be noted is that the consumer has be­come exposed to still more advertising messages. Any meaningful quantifica­tion will support this conclusion. In part, it is due to the growth in importance of shorter-length (and therefore more) TV commercials, but also to more magazines read, which are thicker magazines with more ads. In European countries that are experiencing the deregulation of TV, of course audiences will enjoy (if that is the right word) the same experience—more ads. Second, advertising messages in every respect have on average become briefer. In the case of TV, this again can be quantified. Fifteen-second commercials now account for more than 35% of all network spots in the United States. In the case of print, general observation and some quantitative work show that ads have become more visual, less wordy, and more like billboards—whatever the product advertised. It is generally understood that in the case of print, to use Herb Krugman's telling phrase, "advertising works as quick as a wink." Third—and now I am referring principally to TV, and this is a more subjective comment—there is more emphasis on creativity and on likeability. It used to be thought that there was a great gulf fixed between U.S. and U.K. commercials in these terms, with U.K. commercials being highly creative and enjoyable, even if in some cases not too relevant to the product, and U.S. commercials often being intrusive, strident, and loaded with copy points ("Tell more—sell more"). I don't now, myself, see a big difference. There is some quantitative support for the con...

关注我们

关注微信公众号

您选择了以下内容