Abstract
We advance a broadened conceptualization of advertising context effects by considering how consumer response is influenced by the competitive advertising context. This contextual variable reflects how typically or atypically advertising tactics are employed by brands in a product category. Study 1 demonstrates that employing an advertising tactic that is perceived by consumers as atypical in a category undermines its influence on brand attitudes. Study 2 shows that this persuasion penalty is circumvented by innovative brands through a phenomenon we refer to as advertising flexibility that enables innovative brands to successfully employ advertising tactics under a wider range of conditions than non-innovative brands. A final study provides process evidence for this effect by showing that brand attitudes are determined by advertising content for innovative brands but by considerations of the competitive advertising context for non-innovative brands.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
It is possible that the actions of prominent brands in a category may disproportionately impact perceptions of a tactic’s perceived typicality in a given category. Thus, an advertising tactic employed by a high-profile brand in a category may be particularly salient to consumers in their thinking about the competitive advertising context, disproportionately influencing their development of beliefs about the tactic’s typicality in the category.
For example, tactics that are generally viewed as offensive (e.g., those containing distasteful images or language) are likely to be viewed as inappropriate for marketers to use regardless of whether they are commonly or uncommonly used by competitors. Similarly, ads sponsored by brands that consumers view negatively may be seen as inappropriate regardless of whether the competitive advertising context suggests they are typically relied upon by other brands.
References
Barone, M. J., & Jewell, R. D. (2012). How category advertising norms and consumer counter-conformity influence comparative advertising effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 496–506.
Barone, M. J., & Jewell, R. D. (2013). The innovator’s license: the latitude to deviate from category norms. Journal of Marketing, 70, 120–134.
Chandy, R. K., Tellis, G. J., MacInnis, D. J., & Thaivanich, P. (2001). What to say when: advertising appeals in evolving markets. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 399–414.
Darke, P. R., & Ritchie, R. J. B. (2007). The defensive consumer: advertising deception, defensive processing, and trust. Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 114–127.
DePelsmacker, P., Guens, M., & Anckaert, P. (2002). Media context and advertising effectiveness: the role of context appreciation and context/ad similarity. Journal of Advertising, 31, 49–61.
Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: how people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 1–31.
Goldberg, M. E., & Gorn, G. J. (1987). Happy and sad tv programs: how they affect reactions to commercials. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 387–403.
Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A. (2012). Data collection in a flat world: the strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. doi:10.1002/bdm.1753.
Goodstein, R. (1993). Category-based applications and extensions in advertising: motivating more extensive ad processing. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 87–99.
Grewal, D., Kavanoor, S., Fern, E. E., Costley, C., & Barnes, J. (1997). Comparative versus noncomparative advertising: a meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing, 61, 1–15.
Homburg, C., Bornemann, T., & Totzek, D. (2009). Preannouncing pioneering versus follower products: what should the message be? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37, 310–327.
Hult, G. T. M., & Ketchen, D. J., Jr. (2001). Does market orientation matter: a test of the relationship between positional advantage and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 899–906.
Jewell, R. D., & Barone, M. J. (2007). Norm violations and the role of marketplace comparisons in positioning brands. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35, 550–559.
Lord, K. R., Lee, M., & Sauer, P. L. (1994). Program context antecedents of attitude toward radio commercials. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22, 3–15.
Lukas, B. A., & Ferrell, O. C. (2000). The effect of market orientation on product innovation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28, 239–247.
Malthouse, E. C., Calder, B. J., & Tamhane, A. (2007). The effects of media context experiences on advertising effectiveness. Journal of Advertising, 36, 7–18.
Meyers-Levy, J., & Tybout, A. M. (1989). Schema congruity as a basis for product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 39–54.
Meyers-Levy, J., & Tybout, A. (1997). Context effects at encoding and judgment in consumption settings: the role of cognitive resources. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 1–14.
Mishra, S., & Slotegraaf, R. J. (2013). Building an innovation base: exploring the role of acquisition behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. doi:10.1007/s11747-013-0329-6.
Moorman, M., Neijens, P. C., & Smit, E. G. (2002). The effects of magazine-induced psychological responses and thematic congruence on memory and attitude toward the ad in a real-life setting. Journal of Advertising, 31(4), 27–41.
Murry, J. P., Jr., Lastovicka, J. L., & Singh, S. N. (1992). Feeling and liking responses to television programs: an examination of two explanations for media-context effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 441–451.
Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(5), 411–419.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: the moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 135–146.
Rose, R. L., Miniard, P. W., Barone, M. J., Manning, K. C., & Till, B. D. (1993). When persuasion goes undetected: the case of comparative advertising. Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 315–330.
Shenkar, O. (2010). Imitation is more valuable than innovation. Harvard Business Review, 88, 28–29.
Shiv, B., Edell, J. A., & Payne, J. W. (1997). Factors affecting the impact of negatively and positively framed ad messages. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 285–294.
Singh, S. N., & Churchill, G. A. (1987). Arousal and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Advertising, 16, 4–10.
Soldow, G. F., & Principe, V. (1981). Response to commercials as a function of program context. Journal of Advertising Research, 21, 59–64.
Szymanski, D. M., Kroff, M. W., & Troy, L. C. (2007). Innovativeness and new product success: insights from the cumulative evidence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35, 35–52.
Tellis, G. J. (2009). Generalizations about advertising effectiveness in markets. Journal of Advertising Research, 49, 240–245.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Both authors contributed equally to the development of this paper.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Barone, M.J., Jewell, R.D. How brand innovativeness creates advertising flexibility. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 42, 309–321 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-013-0352-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-013-0352-7