PMOTIVATING FACTORS IN ADVERTISEMENT FOR BRAND RECOGNITION IN PRINT MEDIA

Umara Noreen Foundation University Islamabad, Pakistan umaranoreen@yahoo.com

Noor ul Islam
Foundation University, Islamabad. Pakistan noor.mpa@gmail.com, noor_mpa@yahoo.co.uk Pareesa Raza Khan Foundation University, Islamabad. Pakistan deeya.khan@gmail.com

Dr. Kashif UR-Rehman
Iqra University, Islamabad, Pakistan dr.kashifurrehman@gmail.com
ABSTRACT

With the advent of internet, the current landscape of audience is becoming much more challenging for the advertisers than ever. This challenge is exerting a great pressure on the established media such as printed magazines, newspapers, and printed inserts. This research paper explores the most important factors for brand recognition in print media. The canvas of this research paper is limited to the factors important to the university graduates i-e brand recognition and purchase behavior with respect to age and
gender.

Perhaps the most distinctive skill of professional marketers is their ability to create, maintain, protect, and enhance brand. Besides other important factors (such as product features, pricing strategies and distribution channels) to attracts consumers for purchase the most important is the role of effective advertisement.

The respondents of this research strongly agreed that product photographs, images, attractive colors, model were the most attention getting factors. People usually like those ads whose meanings are clear from the point of view of understandability and benefits believability. People regarded the best ad as attention getting, informative, unique, and warm-hearted.

Overall, the management of brands through print media advertising is thought to be critical. This has obvious implications for some of the current brand management functions as the need for broader commercial awareness within this role grows.

Introduction
Advertising has been a vital part of business for centuries. Tradesmen signs existed during the early Greek and Roman civilizations (Signs of the Times, 1976). Up to the middle of the 17th century, advertising was exclusively an outdoor medium used to direct customers to local merchants. With the widespread adoption of the printing press, local newspapers were published and carried classified advertising. In the 19th century, enterprising merchants used the press and the postal system to print the first commercial catalogs. America’s first catalog was produced in 1856 by the Orvis Fishing Company (The Orvis Company, 2006).

Figure 1: Generic Model of Advertising’s Impact on Buyer Behavior

Sorce and Dewitz (2007) explains The generic model of Advertising’s Impact on Buyer Behavior. (Figure 1). The model starts with advertising exposure, a measure of the target audience’s opportunity to see the ad while consuming media This first stage is under the control of the advertiser, who determines the message and selects the media and amount of market coverage (budget). Stage 2 is controlled by the media consumer who is able to decide what information to accept. Stage 3 captures the result of the consumer’s focal attention during Stage 2. If the ad was encoded, the message content within the advertisement is represented by a change in the media user’s mental state. These “intermediate effects” can be cognitive (a change in awareness, beliefs, or knowledge), affective (emotional or attitudinal variables such as liking, preference or trust), or experiential (through interactions with the product itself

1

In addition to recognition, branding may consist of building emotional responses (Volvo with a feeling of safety) or cultural responses (Mountain Dew with youth). As consumers are bombarded with a variety of products to meet the same need, branding provides a way for consumers to reduce their decision making to consider only those products that they feel are relevant to them or that have met their needs acceptably in the past. There is no question that a strong brand is an important corporate asset. Brand equity cannot be measured in dollars and cents but rather it is a direct result of how consumers value a brand based on their experiences and perceptions (Spaeth, 1993). It is these experiences and perceptions that permit the brand to earn greater volume or margins than it could without the brand name.
Brand Equity

The value of a brand as derived from consumer attitudes, behaviors, awareness, and perceptions. There are many steps involved with building a brand’s equity including; brand awareness (unaided/aided), brand attributes, message association, brand favorability, brand preference, and ultimately brand loyalty. Each has an important role in moving a consumer towards a purchase and should be understood in terms of their specific function.
Brand Awareness (unaided:)

Is the brand "top of mind" for the consumer?

Early Brand Awareness (aided):

Is the brand something that the consumer recognizes when presented with the name?
Early Brand Attributes

Is the brand cool? Hip? Intelligent? Good value? Stable? Innovative? etc.
Middle Message Association

Does the brand offer a specific value proposition to the consumer?

Middle Brand Favorability

Is the brand well-respected and appreciated beyond being known and even used?
Late Brand Preference

Where does the brand stand when consumers are asked to choose among a competitive set?
Late Brand Loyalty

Is the brand strong enough to keep consumers coming back for more? After conversion most, if not all of these metrics are derived through attitudinal research. While loyalty can be measured behaviorally, behavioral metrics alone cannot help marketers understand why consumers act the way they do. Having the answer to the ‘why’ question, or what Duboff and Spaeth call ‘true commitment,’ will identify the reasons for loyalty and as a result help marketers identify the source of brand profitability (Duboff and Spaeth, 2000)

2

So how do you measure ad effects on brand equity components such as brand awareness, brand familiarity, brand favorability, brand image, and brand loyalty? By definition, these metrics are cognitive in nature and cannot be inferred from consumer behavior. As a result, marketing researchers must derive the branding value of advertising through interviewing consumers. While methodologies vary for different media, most involve the widely practiced exposed and control methodology. In this design, the impact of an advertisement is isolated from other potential variables through placing a sample of consumers into one of two groups; exposed to an ad or not exposed to an ad. Both take a survey with questions regarding the test brand and differences between the two samples are tested for statistical significance.
Print Media Advertising

During the 1960s, Alfred Politz conducted three classic studies to show the effectiveness of print advertising. Each study took place in a controlled setting whereby specially prepared magazines were left with consumers. These subjects were asked to review a magazine for editorial content and were unknowingly exposed to varying numbers of test ads in these magazines. Later, consumers were asked to rate the advertised brands on a number of dimensions (Kim, 1992). In all three studies Politz found: Brand familiarity increased with number of exposures Claim familiarity and belief increased with the number of exposures. Purchase intent increased with the number of exposures. Some critics of the study cite the potential bias that results when experiments are conducted in a controlled setting. Since the subject knows he/she is participating in an experiment, they may spend more time than they normally would interact with the stimulus.

Discussion of Literature Review Findings:
The most influential findings were those that emerged from the Advertising Research Foundation's (ARF) study of "Printed Advertising Rating Methods" (PARM). The original PARM investigation produced recall and recognition scores for the same cross-section of ads that had appeared in a single issue of Life magazine. Lucas (1960) examined how the mean level of these scores varied as the interval between the respondents' last reading of the issue and the time of the readership interview increased. Wells (1964) found that reader interest was more strongly correlated (across ads) with recognition than with recall. He also showed that recognition scores were more sensitive to the ad size and the use of the color than were recall scores. Other evidence reported by Wells indicated that ratings of an advertisement's "attractiveness" were more highly correlated with recognition than recall while the reverse was true for ratings of” meaningfulness."

Bagozzi and Silk(1983) found that recall and recognition do not measure a single underlying memory state. Rather, memory is multidimensional, and recall and recognition capture only a portion of memory, while at the same time reflecting other mental states.

3

Measuring the impact of advertising has been a top concern of advertisers for over 100 years. A now famous quote by John Wanamaker,* department store owner in the early 20th century, demonstrates this point: “Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don’t know which half.”

Design, content and placement are of central importance. In an increasingly digital and online environment, creativity and connecting with readers may well hold the key to retaining the attention of the target audience for as long as possible. (Green, 2006)

When the economic environment becomes difficult, marketers demand proof of advertising’s effectiveness, preferably in numerical terms. Unfortunately, few marketers can agree on what standards advertising is expected to meet, or even what constitutes definitive proof. We are in such a period now. In a time of recurring recession and in an environment of advancing globalization of companies, products, and brands, many brands are experiencing low growth in unit volume and increasing competition from private brands and generics ( Eechambadi, 1993). In this business climate, advertisers want to know what they are getting for their advertising dollars. Industry researchers are often asked whether academic research will provide answers.

In industry, interest appears to be growing in measures of advertising effectiveness that focus on consumer response at the individual level (e.g., Lebenson & Blackston, chap. 8, this volume; McDonald, 1993). However, responses to measures that offer rich and diagnostic insights into consumer reactions can be difficult to obtain, particularly in samples large enough to provide reliable assessments of ad effectiveness. One approach that has shown promise in this regard focuses on consumers’ cognitive responses. As yet, however, very few studies have examined the predictiveness of cognitive responses after a delay (but see Chattopadhyay & Alba, 1988), so not much is known about the stability of cognitive responses and the degree to which they predict long-term advertising effectiveness. Indeed, as Sawyer and Ward (1979) lamented, “little is known about the delayed effects of advertising at the individual level” (Chattopadhyay & Alba, 1988, p. 1). Advertising can exert a powerful retroactive effect on how consumers remember their past experiences with a product. As Wells put it “Advertising helps consumers interpret these experiences. It suggested what should be noticed. It provides cues and clues to help consumers understand and appreciate their feelings. And in this way it can change the nature of the response” (1986) When advertising works in this manner it can exert an insidious effect on consumer behavior.

Problem Statement:
There is always a gap between desired and current state which the researcher is trying to cover up. Researcher wants to find out: “What are the different motivating factors which contribute to brand name recall in print media?” Area of the research has been narrowed down to the print media only to see the effects of those motivating factors on brand name recognition and later purchase intent.

4

Theoretical Frame Work

MV
Attention getting factors in advertisement
Descriptive Profile

Concept or feeling associated with ad Brand Recall Understandability Purchase Behavior Relevancy

Believability

Motivation

IV

Intervening variable

DV

5

Hypothesis Development
Hypothesis -1 Ads having pictures are more motivating as compared to without pictures Hypothesis -2 Ads containing familiar models are more motivating as compared to others. Hypothesis -3 Ads having innovative designs are more motivating as compared to simple ones. Hypothesis -4 Meaningful, believable, and relevant ads lead to better brand recall.

Research Design
The extent of scientific rigor in a research study depends on how carefully researcher chooses the appropriate design alternatives taking into consideration its specific purpose. This is a form of hypothesis testing study because it explains the nature of certain relationships or establishes the difference among groups or the independence of two or more factors in a situation. In this study we want to see the variance in the dependent variables i-e brand recall and purchase behavior with respect to age and gender. It is a form of field experiment and is conducted in a noncontrived setting. For this one-shot or cross-sectional study, unit of analysis was graduates of university, studying management sciences and information technology. “Non Probability Sampling” Further in nonprobability sampling, judgmental & convenience sampling was chosen.

Methodology
A survey was used to gather cross-sectional data because of relative efficiency. Data collection was done with the help of questionnaires. Telephone interviews are not appropriate because of the nature of data which was to be collected. 191 respondents filled up the questionnaire. Participants were shown five different ads labeled as Ad A, Ad B, Ad C, Ad D and Ad E. These ads were chosen from different fashion magazines which are popular among the university students and related to toiletries and cosmetics industry. Before selecting these ads for the actual data collection an expert opinion was taken to offset the biasness of the researcher. A sample of 273 students was taken, the ads were displayed and then questionnaires were distributed. The advertisement were rated on the basis of different factors such as concept or feeling attached with the advertisement, factors in the advertisement drawing attention. Last not least which type of ad overall is attractive to this particular sample.

6

Findings and Discussions
On the basis of the choice among different advertisement Ad A was the most favorite of all. Almost 45% of the respondents liked it as the best advertisement. 22% favored for ad E, and 18% favored for ad B. Which ad would you probably watch most often? Cumulative Percent 45.0 63.9 70.2 78.0 100.0

Valid

Ad A Ad B Ad C Ad D Ad E Total

Frequency 86 36 12 15 42 191

Percent Valid Percent 45.0 45.0 18.8 18.8 6.3 6.3 7.9 7.9 22.0 22.0 100.0 100.0

Which ad would you probably watch most often?
100

80

Frequency

60

40

20

0 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

Mean = 2.4293 Std. Dev. = 1.6235 N = 191

Which ad would you probably watch most often?

For the ad which was the best choice 59 % respondents comment that achievement and success was closely associated with the particular ad.

7

Achievement and success Cumulative Percent 6.8 40.0 100.0

Valid

Not associated somewhat associated closely associated Total Missing System Total

Frequency 13 63 114 190 1 191

Percent Valid Percent 6.8 6.8 33.0 33.2 59.7 60.0 99.5 100.0 .5 100.0

acheivement and success
125

100

Frequency

75

50

25 Mean = 2.5316 Std. Dev. = 0.62281 N = 190

0 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50

acheivement and success

Making smart choices was closely associated almost 60% commented.

8

Making smart choices Cumulative Percent 5.3 39.5 100.0

Valid

Not associated somewhat associated closely associated Total Missing System Total

Frequency 10 65 115 190 1 191

Percent Valid Percent 5.2 5.3 34.0 34.2 60.2 60.5 99.5 100.0 .5 100.0

making smart choices
140

120

100

Frequency

80

60

40

20 Mean = 2.5526 Std. Dev. = 0.59528 N = 190

0 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50

making smart choices

9

Caring for other was somewhat associated, 43% of the respondents answered that about the ad which they had liked more. Caring for others Cumulative Percent 15.8 59.5 100.0

Valid

Not associated somewhat associated closely associated Total Missing System Total

Frequency 30 83 77 190 1 191

Percent Valid Percent 15.7 15.8 43.5 43.7 40.3 40.5 99.5 100.0 .5 100.0

caring for others
120

100

Frequency

80

60

40

20 Mean = 2.2474 Std. Dev. = 0.71037 N = 190

0 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50

caring for others

10

Personal security, being a good parent, making a better world was not associated with the ad. The ad message was understandable, 59.7% strongly agreed. About believability 40% of the respondents agreed. The ad message is understandable Cumulative Percent .5 3.2 7.9 39.7 100.0

Frequency Valid strongly disagree 1 disagree 5 neutral 9 agree 60 strongly agree 114 Total 189 Missing System 2 Total 191

Percent Valid Percent .5 .5 2.6 2.6 4.7 4.8 31.4 31.7 59.7 60.3 99.0 100.0 1.0 100.0

The ad message is understandable
120

100

Frequency

80

60

40

20 Mean = 4.4868 Std. Dev. = 0.75518 N = 189

0 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

The ad message is understandable

11

Almost 27% respondents were interested to buy the product after viewing the ad which they had particularly liked. After viewing i would consider purchasing the product Cumulative Percent 2.1 10.1 38.3 72.3 100.0

Frequency Valid strongly disagree 4 disagree 15 neutral 53 agree 64 strongly agree 52 Total 188 Missing System 3 Total 191

Percent Valid Percent 2.1 2.1 7.9 8.0 27.7 28.2 33.5 34.0 27.2 27.7 98.4 100.0 1.6 100.0

After viewing i would consider purchasing the product
80

60

Frequency

40

20

0 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

After viewing i would consider purchasing the product

Mean = 3.7713 Std. Dev. = 1.01107 N = 188

12

It was found that product photographs, images, attractive color, innovative designs were the most attention getting factors.

Images were attention getting factor
140

120

100

Frequency

80

60

40

20 Mean = 2.5767 Std. Dev. = 0.56558 N = 189

0 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50

Images were attention getting factor

Attractive colors were attention getting factors
140 120 100

Frequency

80 60 40 20 0 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 Mean = 2.672 Std. Dev. = 0.54412 N = 189

Attractive colors were attention getting factors

13

Model is attention getting factor
125

100

Frequency

75

50

25 Mean = 2.5714 Std. Dev. = 0.65349 N = 189

0 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50

Model is attention getting factor

The ad is attention getting, informative, unique, memorable, warm-hearted and honest.

Innovative designs were attention getting factors
120

100

Frequency

80

60

40

20

0 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50

Innovative designs were attention getting factors

Mean = 2.3069 Std. Dev. = 0.70786 N = 189

14

Almost 54% strongly agreed that ad was attention getting, 36 % agreed and 5.8% were neutral. The ad is attention getting Cumulative Percent 2.1 2.6 8.5 45.0 100.0

Frequency Valid strongly disagree 4 disagree 1 neutral 11 agree 69 strongly agree 104 Total 189 Missing System 2 Total 191

Percent Valid Percent 2.1 2.1 .5 .5 5.8 5.8 36.1 36.5 54.5 55.0 99.0 100.0 1.0 100.0

The ad is attention getting
120

100

Frequency

80

60

40

20 Mean = 4.418 Std. Dev. = 0.8055 N = 189

0 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

The ad is attention getting

15

Conclusion

The purpose of this research has been to determine the most important factors for brand recognition in print media advertising. It was accomplished by asking the university graduates how effective print advertising is as compared to other media. It was concluded that print advertising plays a necessary role in the advertising mix for a myriad of marketing situations. Based on this research we may conclude that product photographs, images, attractive colors, innovative designs and model are the most attention getting factors in print media advertising. People liked those ads more which had clear understandability& benefits believability and they remember these ads as honest and warm-hearted.

References: Bagozzi P, R., and Silk J, A., (1983) “Recall, Recognition, and the Measurement of Memory for Print Advertisements” Marketing Science, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 95-134

http://www.jstor.org/stable/184113 (last accessed: 28/06/2008)

Green, A., (2006) “What are the key factors contributing to the effectiveness of my print advertising”? WARC Media FAQ.

Hoffman, H.,(1992). “Does Advertising Work: A Review of the Evidence.” The Journal of Consumer Marketing, “Statistics Explained.” The Animated Software Company, 2001. Kim, Peter. 9, 4 (1992): 5-19.

LaTour, B., Tour La, A., (2004) “Assessing the Long-term Impact of a Consistent Advertising Campaign on Consumer Memory” Journal of Advertising,

LaTour, B., Tour La, A., (2004) “How and When Advertising Can Influence Memory for Consumer Experience” Journal of Advertising, .

Lucas, D. B. (1960), "The ABCs of ARF's PARM," Journal of Marketing, pp. 9-20.

Signs of the Times. (1976, September). A brief history of the sign industry., http://www.signmuseum.com/exhibits/histories/brfhist/briefhistory.html (last accessed on 06/08/2006)

16

Sorce, P., Dewitz, A., (2007), “The Case for Print Media Advertising in the Internet Age” A Research Monograph of the Printing Industry Center at RIT Rochester

Spaeth, J.,(2001) “Brand Equity and Advertising; Lessons from Jimi Hendrix.” Advertising Research Foundation Internet Direct Marketing and Advertising Services.. Wright, G. A. (2005). Breaking the ceiling on direct marketing response through testing initiatives. http://gawright.com/resources/index. (last accessed on 10/06/2008)

Stafford, M. R., Lippold, E. M., & Sherron, C. T. (2003, June). The contribution of direct mail advertising to average weekly unit sales. Journal of Advertising Research, 43(2), pp. 173–179.

The Orvis company. (2006). Vermont Liviing Magazine. http://www.vtliving.com/orvis/ (last accessed on 06/08/2006)

Wells, W. D. (1964), "Recognition, Recall, and Rating Scales," Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 3, pp. 2-8. Xia, L., & Monroe, K. (2005). Consumer information acquisition. In Naresh K. Mahotra (Ed.), Review of marketing research. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

17

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful