Little is known about how different types of advertising affect brand attitudes. We investigate the relationships between three brand attitude variables (perceived quality, perceived value and recent satisfaction) and three types of advertising (national traditional, local traditional and digital). The data represent ten million brand attitude surveys and $264 billion spent on ads by 575 regular advertisers over a five-year period, approximately 37% of all ad spend measured between 2008 and 2012. Inclusion of brand/quarter fixed effects and industry/week fixed effects brings parameter estimates closer to expectations without major reductions in estimation precision. The findings indicate that (i) national traditional ads increase perceived quality, perceived value, and recent satisfaction; (ii) local traditional ads increase perceived quality and perceived value; (iii) digital ads increase perceived value; and (iv) competitor ad effects are generally negative.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
The same labels are also applied to advertising content, which typically reflects the goals of the ad campaign, but is regrettably unobserved in our dataset.
Advertising experiments are scarce in general; see, e.g., Rao and Simonov (2018).
Digital advertising delivery facilitates experimentation and the measurement of individual-level response data, but the advertising medium is beset by several widespread problems that complicate experimental analysis, including ad (non-)viewability (IAB 2015), a high incidence of ad blocking by default (Shiller et al. 2018), non-human traffic (WhiteOps 2016), and advertising blindness (e.g., Owens et al. 2014). It remains unclear whether such display advertising results apply to other media.
https://www.facebook.com/business/learn/facebook-brand-polling, accessed March 2018.
The reporting incentives are mixed. A media outlet could exaggerate its ad price to offer perceived discounts in negotiations with advertisers. Or, a media outlet might underreport its ad price to attract interested advertisers. Actual ad prices in traditional media are typically set in confidential bilateral negotiations and may reflect price discrimination or quantity discounts. Digital advertising prices are typically set in complex, rapidly changing spot auction markets within or between ad networks, demand-side platforms and supply-side platforms.
See, for example, http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~atakos/studentevents/3-28-12MeasuringROMISlideDeck.pdf, or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketing_mix_modeling, accessed March 2018.
We remain circumspect about this argument, as agencies may be aware of their clients’ evaluation function and act to maximize their own incentives to demonstrate advertising effects to their clients.
Industry/week fixed effects were essentially replaced by a separate set of week fixed effects estimated within each partition.
Ailawadi, K.L., Lehmann, D.R., Neslin, S.A. (2003). Revenue premium as an outcome measure of brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 67(4), 1–17.
Blake, T., Nosko, C., Tadelis, S. (2015). Consumer heterogeneity and paid search effectiveness: a large scale field experiment. Econometrica, 83(1), 155—174.
Borkovsky, R.N., Goldfarb, A., Haviv, A.M., Moorthy, S. (2017). Measuring and understanding brand value in a dynamic model of brand management. Marketing Science, 36(4), 471–499.
Clark, C., Doraszelski, U., Draganska, M. (2009). Robert the effect of advertising on brand awareness and perceived quality: an empirical investigation using panel data. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 7(2), 207–236.
Danaher, P.J., Bonfrer, A., Dhar, S. (2008). The effect of competitive advertising interference on sales for packaged goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(2), 211–225.
Danaher, P.J., & Dagger, T.S. (2013). Comparing the relative effectiveness of advertising channels: a case study of a multimedia blitz campaign. Journal of Marketing Research, 50, 517–534.
Dotson, J.P., Fan, R.R., Feit, E.M., Oldham, J.D., Yeh, Y.-H. (2017). Brand attitudes and search engine queries. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 37, 105–116.
Draganska, M., Hartmann, W.R., Stanglein, G. (2014). Internet versus television advertising: a brand-building comparison. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(5), 578–590.
Draganska, M., & Klapper, D. (2011). Choice set heterogeneity and the role of advertising: an analysis with micro and macro data. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(4), 653–669.
Du, R.Y., Wilbur, K.C., Xu, L. (2018). Assessing TV ad spots by immediate online response: feasibility and advisability. Working paper.
Gordon, B.R., Zettelmeyer, F., Bhargava, N., Chapsky, D. (2018). A comparison of approaches to advertising measurement. Evidence from big field experiments at Facebook. Marketing Science, forthcoming.
Griliches, Z. (1977). Errors in variables and other unobservables. Econometrica, 42(6), 971–998.
Hanssens, D.M., Pauwels, K.H., Srinivasan, S., Vanhuele, M., Yildirim, G. (2014). Consumer attitude metrics for guiding marketing mix decisions. Marketing Science, 33(4), 534–550.
Hartmann, W.R., & Klapper, D. (2018). Super bowl ads. Marketing Science, 37(1), 78–96.
Hu, Y., Du, R.Y., Damangir, S. (2014). Decomposing the impact of advertising: augmenting sales with online search data. Journal of Marketing Research, 51, 300–319.
IAB. (2015). Internet Advertising Bureau. State of viewability transaction. White paper.
Joo, M., Wilbur, K.C., Bo, C., Yi, Z. (2014). Television advertising and online search. Management Science, 60(1), 56–73.
Kaul, A., & Wittink, D.R. (1995). Empirical generalizations about the impact of advertising on price sensitivity and price. Marketing Science, 14(3), 151–160.
Kent, R.J., & Allen, C.T. (1994). Competitive interference effects in consumer memory for advertising- the role of brand familiarity. Journal of Marketing, 58, 97–105.
Lee, D., Hosanagar, K., Nair, H. (2017). Advertising content and consumer engagement on social media. Evidence from Facebook. Management Science, forthcoming.
Lewis, R.A., & Rao, J.M. (2015). The unfavorable economics of measuring the returns to advertising. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 130(4), 1941–1973.
Lewis, R.A., & Reiley, D.H. (2014). Online ads and offline sales: Measuring the effect of retail advertising via a controlled experiment on Yahoo! Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 12(3), 235–266.
Liaukonyte, J., Teixeira, T., Wilbur, K.C. (2015). Television advertising and online shopping. Marketing Science, 34(3), 311–330.
Lodish, L.M., Abraham, M., Kalmenson, S., Livelsberger, J., Lubetkin, B., Richardson, B., Stevens, M.E. (1995). How T.V. advertising works: a meta-analysis of 389 real world split cable t.v. advertising experiments. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(2), 125–139.
Lovett, M.J., Peres, R., Xu, L. (2018). Can your advertising really buy earned impressions? Working paper.
Mela, C.F., Gupta, S., Lehmann, D.R. (1997). The long-term impact of promotion and advertising on consumer brand choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(2), 248–261.
Owens, J.W., Palmer, E.M., Chaparro, B.S. (2014). The pervasiveness of text advertising blindness. Journal of Usability Studies, 9(2), 51–69.
Rao, J.M., & Simonov, A. (2018). Firms’ reactions to public information on business practices. Case of search advertising. Working paper.
Raj, S., Tellis, G.J., Briesch, R. A. (2011). How well does advertising work? generalizations from meta-analysis of brand advertising elasticities. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(3), 457–471.
Shapiro, B. (2018). Positive spillovers and free riding in advertising of prescription pharmaceuticals: The case of antidepressants. Journal of Political Economy, 126(1), 381–437.
Shiller, B., Waldfogel, J., Ryan, J. (2018). The effect of ad blocking on website traffic and quality. The RAND Journal of Economics, 49(1), 43–63.
Srinivasan, S., Vanhuele, M., Pauwels, K.H. (2010). Mind-set metrics in market response models: an integrative approach. Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (4), 672–684.
Tellis, G.J., Chandy, R.K., Thaivanish, P. (2000). Which ad works, when, where and how often modeling the effects of direct television advertising. Journal of Marketing Research, 37, 32–46.
Tellis, G.J., & Franses, P.H. (2006). Optimal data interval for estimating advertising response. Marketing Science, 25(3), 217–229.
Tuchman, A.E., Nair, H.S., Gardete, P.M. (2018). Television ad-skipping, consumption complementarities and the consumer demand for advertising. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 16(2), 111–174.
WhiteOps. (2016). The methbot operation. Working paper.
Xu, L., Wilbur, K.C., Siddarth, S., Silva-Risso, J. (2014). Price advertising by manufacturers and dealers. Management Science, 60(11), 2816–2834.
Yang, Y., Lu, Q., Tang, G., Pei, J. (2015). The impact of market competition on search advertising. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 30, 46–55.
The authors thank Wes Hartmann, two anonymous reviewers, and numerous seminar audiences for helpful comments and discussions. This study was made possible by the authors’ employers, and data were drawn from standard Kantar and YouGov data sources, but the analysis is the authors’ alone as it was not funded or otherwise influenced by any other party.
This appendix presents information and results that are not included in the main body for brevity. Table 12 lists all brands in the sample by industry. Tables 13, 14, 15 and 16 present ad parameter estimates and their standard errors in descriptive models, models with industry/week controls, models with brand/quarter controls, and all-controls models, respectively. Tables 17, 18, 19 and 20 present parameter estimates and standard errors for lagged dependent variables in all four models. Table 21 presents ad parameter estimate variation with number of lags included in the perceived quality all-controls model specification. Tables 22 and 23 report industry-specific ad parameters in the perceived value and recent satisfaction models. Tables 24 and 25 indicate results for the all-controls models estimated in data aggregated into two-week and four-week intervals.
About this article
Cite this article
Du, R.Y., Joo, M. & Wilbur, K.C. Advertising and brand attitudes: Evidence from 575 brands over five years. Quant Mark Econ 17, 257–323 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11129-018-9204-6
- Brand attitude
- Brand tracking metrics
- Media mix models