Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The effectiveness of publicity versus advertising: a meta-analytic investigation of its moderators

  • Original Empirical Research
  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study provides an answer to the question whether and under which conditions publicity is more or less effective than advertising. Advertising refers to paid communication that identifies the message sponsor, whereas publicity is communication that secures editorial space in media for promotion purposes and does not have an identifiable sponsor. The primary advantage of advertising over publicity is the sponsor’s control over message content; its disadvantages are audience skepticism and lack of credibility. We investigate this trade-off between credibility effects and effects of recipients’ processing and evaluation of message content. Results of a meta-analytic structural equation model show that the positive credibility effect of publicity is on average about three times as strong as the information evaluation effect, supporting the overall superiority of publicity over advertising. This effect, however, is moderated by prior knowledge and only holds for products about which recipients lack prior knowledge. The effects change for known products when advertising becomes superior. The effectiveness of publicity depends on further moderating variables. In particular, academic studies tend to underestimate the true effects of publicity over advertising due to experimental manipulations. Campaigns that combine publicity and advertising weaken the effects of publicity, whereas advertorials (i.e., advertisements disguised as editorial material) are more effective, since they combine the advantages of both publicity and advertising. The results have theoretical and practical implications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahluwalia, R., Burnkrant, R. E., & Unnava, H. R. (2000). Consumer response to negative publicity: the moderating role of commitment. Journal of Marketing Research, 37, 203–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balasubramanian, S. K. (1994). Beyond advertising and publicity: hybrid messages and public policy issues. Journal of Advertising, 23, 29–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basuroy, S., Chatterjee, S., & Ravid, S. A. (2003). How critical are critical reviews? The office effects of film critics, star power, and budgets. Journal of Marketing, 67, 103–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bommer, W. H., Johnson, J. L., Rich, G. A., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1995). On the interchangeability of objective and subjective measures of employee performance: a meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 48, 587–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, G. T. (1994). Does publicity outperform advertising? An experimental test of the third-party endorsement. Journal of Public Relations Research, 6, 185–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Celebi, S. I. (2007). The credibility of advertising versus publicity for new FMCGs in Turkey. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 12, 161–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: the effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 460–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chew, C., Slater, M. D., & Kelly, K. A. (1995). Advertising versus product publicity: The effects on credibility and purchase intent.

  • Coulter, K. S. (2005). An examination of qualitative vs. quantitative elaboration likelihood effects. Psychology & Marketing, 22, 31–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowley, A. E., & Hoyer, W. D. (1994). An integrative framework for understanding two-sided persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 561–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, D. R., Daily, C. M., Certo, S. T., & Roengpitya, R. (2003). Meta-analyses of financial performance and equity: fusion or confusion? Academy of Management Journal, 46, 13–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • d’Astous, A., & Hébert, C. (1991). Une Étude Comparative Des Effets De La Publicité Écrite Conventionelle Et Du Public-Reportage. In T. Schellinick (Ed.), Marketing: Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Administrative Sciences Association of Canada (pp. 102–112). Niagara Fall: Administrative Sciences Association of Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dholakia, R. R., & Sternthal, B. (1977). High credible sources: persuasive facilitators or persuasive liabilities? Journal of Consumer Research, 3, 223–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisend, M. (2004). Is it still worth to be credible? A meta-analysis of temporal patterns of source credibility effects in marketing. In B. E. Kahn & M. F. Luce (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (pp. 352–357). Valdosta, GA: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisend, M. (2006). Two-sided advertising: a meta-analysis. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23, 187–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisend, M. (2009). A meta-analysis of humor in advertising. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37, 191–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, S. T. (1980). Attention and weight in person perception: the impact of negative and extreme behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 889–906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Kumar, N. (1999). A meta-analysis of satisfaction in marketing channel relationships. Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 223–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grewal, D., Kavanoor, S., Fern, E. F., Costley, C., & Barnes, J. (1997). Comparative versus noncomparative advertising: a meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing, 61, 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gruder, C. L., Cook, T. D., Hennigan, K. M., Flay, B. R., Alessis, C., & Halamaj, J. (1978). Empirical test of the absolute sleeper effect predicted from the discounting cue hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1061–1074.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallahan, K. E. (1995). Product publicity versus advertising: An investigation of third-party endorsement effects, the role of content class as a contextual processing cue. Dissertation: University of Wisconsin-Madison.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hallahan, K. (1999a). Content class as a contextual cue in the cognitive process of publicity versus advertising. Journal of Public Relations Research, 11, 293–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallahan, K. E. (1999b). No, Virginia, it’s not true what they say about publicity’s ‘implied third-party endorsement’ effect. Public Relations Review, 25, 331–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallahan, K. (2008). Need for cognition as motivation to process publicity and advertising. Journal of Promotion Management, 14, 169–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harmon-Jones, E., & Mills, J. (1999). Cognitive dissonance: Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hausknecht, D. M., Wilkinson, J. B., & Prough, G. E. (1989). Advertorials: Do consumers see the wolf in the sheep’s clothing? In P. Bloom (Ed.), 1989 AMA educators’ proceedings: Enhancing knowledge development in marketing (pp. 308–312). Chicago: American Marketing Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausknecht, D., Wilkinson, J. B., & Prough, G. E. (1991). Advertorials: effective? Deceptive? Or tempest in a teapot? Akron Business and Economic Review, 2, 41–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausman, M. (2003). PR vs. Ads: are you getting what you pay for? Brandweek, 44, 22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennessey, J. E., & Anderson, S. C. (1990). The interaction of peripheral cues and message arguments on cognitive responses to an advertisement. In M. Goldberg, G. Gorn, & R. Pollay (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (pp. 237–243). Provo: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henning-Thurau, T., Houston, M. B., & Walsh, G. (2006). The differing roles of success drivers across sequential channels: an application to the motion picture industry. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34, 559–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis. Correcting error and bias in research findings. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby, J., & Hoyer, W. D. (1989). The comprehension/miscomprehension of print communication: selected findings. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 434–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jin, H. S. (2003). Compounding consumer interest. Effects of advertising campaign publicity on the ability to recall subsequent advertisements. Journal of Advertising, 32, 29–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jin, H. S., Zhao, X., & An, S. (2006). Examining effects of advertising campaign publicity in a field study. Journal of Advertising Research, 46, 171–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jin, H. S., Suh, J., & Donovan, D. T. (2008). Salient effects of publicity on advertised brand recall and recognition: the list-strength paradigm. Journal of Advertising, 37, 45–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jo, S. (2004). Effect of content type on impact: editorial vs. advertising. Public Relations Review, 30, 503–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonas, E., Schulz-Hardt, S., & Frey, D. (2005). Giving advice or making decisions in someone else’s place: the influence of impression, defense, and accuracy motivation on the search for new information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 977–990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 219–266). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, E. E., & McGillis, D. (1976). Correspondent inferences and the attribution cube: A comparative reappraisal. In J. Harvey, W. J. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research (pp. 389–420). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamins, M. A., & Assael, H. (1987). Two-sided versus one-sided appeals: a cognitive perspective on argumentation, source derogation, and the effect of disconfirming trial on belief change. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 29–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, B.-H., Pasadeos, Y., & Barban, A. (2001). On the deceptive effectiveness of labeled and unlabeled advertorial formats. Mass Communication & Society, 4, 265–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2006). Marketing management. Upper Saddle River: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumkale, G. T., & Albarracin, D. (2004). The sleeper effect in persuasion: a meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 143–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Küster-Rohde, F. (2009). Immediate and delayed effects of credibility on different types of advertising messages. Dissertation. Free University Berlin.

  • Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. T. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loda, M. D., & Coleman, B. C. (2005). Sequence matters: a more effective way to use advertising and publicity. Journal of Advertising Research, 45, 362–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loda, M. D., Norman, W., & Backman, K. (2005). How potential tourists react to mass media marketing: advertising versus publicity. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 18, 63–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loda, M. D., Norman, W., & Backman, K. F. (2007). Advertising and publicity: suggested new applications for tourism marketers. Journal of Travel Research, 45, 259–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lord, K. R., & Putrevu, S. (1993). Advertising and publicity: an information processing perspective. Journal of Economic Psychology, 14, 57–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lord, K. R., & Putrevu, S. (1998). Communicating in print: a comparison of consumer responses to different promotional formats. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 20, 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lurie, N. H. (2004). Decision making in information-rich environments: the role of information structure. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 473–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacInnis, D. J., Moorman, C., & Jaworski, B. J. (1991). Enhancing and measuring consumers’ motivation, opportunity, and ability to process brand information from ads. Journal of Marketing, 55, 32–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maheswaran, D., & Meyers-Levy, J. (1990). The influence of message framing and issue involvement. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 361–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, W. J. (1968). Personality and susceptibility to social influence. In E. F. Borgatta & W. W. Lambert (Eds.), Handbook of personality theory and research (pp. 1130–1187). Skokie: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, W. J. (1978). An information processing model of advertising effectiveness. In H. L. Davis & A. J. Silk (Eds.), Behavioral and management science in marketing (pp. 156–180). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Micu, A. C. (2005). Testing for a synergistic effect between online publicity and advertising in an integrated marketing communications context. Dissertation. University of Missouri-Columbia.

  • Pohl, G. M. (2008). Public relations adding to businesses’ bottom line. Journal of Promotion Management, 14, 195–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preston, I. L., & Scharbach, S. E. (1971). Advertising: more than meets the eye? Journal of Advertising Research, 11, 19–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putrevu, S. (2005). Differences in readers’ response towards advertising versus publicity. Psychological Reports, 96, 207–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush, S. W. (1994). Random effects models. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 301–321). New York: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ries, A., & Ries, L. (2002). The fall of advertising and the rise of PR. New York: HarperBusiness.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rinallo, D., & Basuroy, S. (2009). Does advertising spending influence media coverage of the advertiser? Journal of Marketing, 73, 33–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • .Rosengren, S. (2008). Publicity vs. advertising in a cluttered environment: effects on advertising and brand identificiation. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 30, 27–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, M. C. (1994). The fugitive literature. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 85–94). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, C. T., Reid, L. N., Pokrywczynski, J., & Willett, R. W. (1985). The effectiveness of advocacy advertising relative to news coverage. Communication Research, 12, 546–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, T. L., & Hitchon, J. C. (1999). When advertising and public relations converge: an application of schema theory to the persuasive impact of alignment ads. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 76, 433–455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, N., Kumpf, M., & Bussmann, W. (1986). Resistance to persuasion as a consequence of influence attempts in advertising and non-advertising communications. Psychology. A Quarterly Journal of Human Behavior, 23, 72–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shadish, W. R., & Haddock, C. K. (1994). Combining estimates of effect sizes. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 261–281). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shimp, T. A. (2007). Integrated marketing communications in advertising and promotion. Thomson: Mason.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skoworonski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E. (1989). Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: a review of explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 131–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stammerjohan, C., Wood, C. M., Chang, Y., & Thorson, E. (2005). An empirical investigation of the interaction between publicity, advertising, and previous brand attitudes and knowledge. Journal of Advertising, 34, 55–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straughan, D., Bleske, G. L., & Zhao, X. (1996). Modeling format and source effects of an advocacy message. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 73, 135–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tybout, A. M. (1978). Relative effectiveness of three behavioral influence strategies as supplements to persuasion in a marketing context. Journal of Marketing Research, 15, 229–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1995). Theory testing: combining psychometric meta-analysis and structural equations modeling. Personnel Psychology, 48, 865–885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, S.-L. A. (2003). Customer testimonials and news clips as contextual cues in the consumer cognitive processing of online shopping: how do they build trust and then increase purchase intention? Journal of Promotion Management, 9, 145–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, A. (2006). When synergy in marketing communication online enhances audience response: the effects of varying advertising and product publicity messages. Journal of Advertising Research, 46, 160–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, A. (2007). When web pages influence web usability: effects of online strategic communication. Journal of Strategic Communication, 1, 93–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, A. S.-L., & Nelson, R. A. (2006). The effects of identical versus varied advertising and publicity messages on consumer responses. Journal of Marketing Communications, 12, 109–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, M. (1961). Does the “sleeper effect” apply to advertising? Journal of Marketing, 25, 65–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, J. B., Hausknecht, D., & Prough, G. E. (1995). Reader categorization of a controversial communication: advertisement versus editorial. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 14, 245–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winkielman, P., Schwarz, N., Fazendeiro, T. A., & Reber, R. (2003). The hedonic marking of processing fluency: implications for evaluative judgment. In J. Musch & K. C. Klauer (Eds.), The psychology of evaluation (pp. 189–217). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, H., Wayne, S. J., Glibkowski, B. C., & Bravo, J. (2007). The impact of psychological contract breach on work-related outcomes: a meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 60, 647–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank the editor and the four anonymous JAMS reviewers for their constructive and helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. European University Viadrina, Große Scharrnstr. 59, 15230, Frankfurt (Oder), Germany

    Martin Eisend

  2. Marketing-Department, Free University Berlin, Otto-von-Simson-Str. 19, 14195, Berlin, Germany

    Franziska Küster

Authors
  1. Martin Eisend
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Franziska Küster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Eisend.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Eisend, M., Küster, F. The effectiveness of publicity versus advertising: a meta-analytic investigation of its moderators. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 39, 906–921 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-010-0224-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-010-0224-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation