Journal of Product & Brand Management

Emerald Article: Effects of promotional-based advertising on brand

associations
Michael Clayton, Jun Heo

Article information:
To cite this document: Michael Clayton, Jun Heo, (2011),"Effects of promotional-based advertising on brand associations", Journal
of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 20 Iss: 4 pp. 309 - 315
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610421111148324
Downloaded on: 22-08-2012
References: This document contains references to 31 other documents
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
This document has been downloaded 2449 times since 2011. *

Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *

Brian D. Till, Daniel Baack, Brian Waterman, (2011),"Strategic brand association maps: developing brand insight", Journal of
Product & Brand Management, Vol. 20 Iss: 2 pp. 92 - 100
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610421111121080

Hong-Youl Ha, Joby John, Swinder Janda, Siva Muthaly, (2011),"The effects of advertising spending on brand loyalty in services",
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 45 Iss: 4 pp. 673 - 691
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090561111111389

Hsiang-Ming Lee, Ching-Chi Lee, Cou-Chen Wu, (2011),"Brand image strategy affects brand equity after M&A", European Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 45 Iss: 7 pp. 1091 - 1111
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090561111137624

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by UNIVERSITAS KATOLIK PARAHYANGAN

For Authors:
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.
Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in
business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as
well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is
a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
 Pricing strategy & practice

Effects of promotional-based advertising on

brand associations
Michael Clayton
Christopher Newport University, Newport News, Virginia, USA, and
Jun Heo
University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, Mississippi, USA

Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate how value-based messaging affects brand associations within a durable goods category.
Design/methodology/approach Brand associations are conceptualized in this paper as brand image, brand attitudes, and consumer quality
perceptions. A 2 2 factorial design was employed with cognitive involvement (high/low) and advertising message (brand/value) as the experimental
factors.
Findings Results suggest that promotional-based messaging is detrimental to all three brand associations, with quality ratings witnessing the most
significant declines. In addition, the current study observed no significant effects of involvement, as measured by attention to the message, on brand
association measures for value-based messaging when compared with brand messaging.
Originality/value The current study suggests that promotional-messaging can be detrimental to brand association measures, compared with non-
value-based brand messaging within a durable goods category. More research is needed to understand the long-term effects of different levels of usage
of promotional-based messaging as part of the marketing mix.

Keywords Advertising, Value, Price, Messaging, Brand equity, Durable, Promotional methods, Brand identity

Paper type Research paper

Introduction product, is an easily observable positive outcome, yet the

Marketers today face growing pressure to meet sales
projections while also building strong brands that will
continue to reap future rewards that are the fruit of strong
brand equity. Not only are current sales easy to measure, but
marketers in many product categories have found sales
promotions to be an extremely effective tool to quickly move
product and meet sales objectives. While the measurement of
brand equity, and subsequently its various components
(brand awareness, loyalty, quality, and brand associations),
has become increasingly more sophisticated over the past two
decades, research on the ability of individual marketing
activities to strengthen or weaken brand equity have been
lacking (Barwise, 1993; Shocker et al., 1994; Yoo et al., 2000).
While a multiple of marketing elements are likely to have an
effect on brand equity, and will be discussed later in this
paper, the sales promotion tool, and corresponding
promotional materials, provides perhaps the most interesting
area of inquiry due to the inverse relationship between its
outcomes. The immediate impact on sales, and liquidation of
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm
Journal of Product & Brand Management
20/4 (2011) 309 315
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
[DOI 10.1108/10610421111148324]
detrimental impact on brand equity often goes unseen or
unnoticed. This issue is of great importance from several
theoretical angles. Framing theory would suggest that price-
based advertising would raise the importance of price in the
consumers decision-making process (Kalra and Goodstein,
1998), and perhaps make consumers more price sensitive.
The attribution theory suggests that consumers would seek to
make meaning of the sales message and may attribute a
manufacturers need to discount a product due to poor quality
or other shortcomings.
Unfortunately, the relationship between price and brand
equity has become blurred. While several brand equity
scholars have included a consumers willingness to pay a
premium for a brand (Lassar et al., 1995) as a key component
of brand equity, new business models have evolved. Google
and Facebook have unquestioned strength in terms of brand
equity in every sense of the term, including brand awareness,
loyalty, quality and brand associations, yet both of these
brands provide a product/service to the consumer that has no
monetary cost. Brands like Walmart and Amazon.com have
built two of the most successful businesses in the world based
on selling products for less not more, yet few are likely to
argue that these brands lack strong brand equity. While the
ability to deliver a premium price is an important element of
consumer-based brand equity for typical manufacturers,
brand associations are able to provide researchers with a
more detailed view of how consumers actually view a brand.

309
 Effects of promotional-based advertising on brand associations
Michael Clayton and Jun Heo
This exploratory study seeks to understand the role of
promotional-based messaging in affecting brand associations
towards a brand within a durable goods category. For the
purpose of this paper promotional-based messaging is defined
as marketing communications in which the main message is
related to a limited time discount being available. While
consumer price elasticity is related to brand equity, literature
reveals several other factors that must be taken into
consideration, but are often out of the control of the
advertising manager, most notably behavior of competitors
and retailers. Through an experimental design this study seeks
to isolate promotional-based messaging and brand messaging
to determine if promotional-based messaging is detrimental to
the key dimensions of brand associations, including image,
attitude and quality. Brand associations have great
significance to marketers in brand positioning and
differentiation, as well as creating positive attitudes and
feelings toward brands (Low and Lamb, 2000).
Literature review
A comprehensive literature review by Kaul and Wittink
(1995) identified 18 studies involving the impact of
advertising on price sensitivity and prices. Of those studies
identified, 14 used consumer non-durable goods (instant
coffee, ground coffee, dog food, aluminum foil, frozen waffles,
liquid bleach, bathroom tissue, ketchup, liquid cleaner,
disposable diapers, cat litter, hair lacquer, and sparkling
wine), and the remaining used personal services (legal services
and airlines), or some combination thereof. Studies regarding
consumer durable goods were conspicuously absent. It can be
argued that brands play a lesser role in the purchase of low-
involvement non-durable goods where consumer processing
typically utilizes the peripheral route to persuasion and risk is
likely lower. For this reason, price elasticity may be of greater
importance in low-involvement categories whereas brand
associations may be of more importance in high-involvement
decision-making scenarios where risk increases and the brand
plays a greater role in the decision.
Since Kaul and Wittinks review, several studies have
examined a variety of positioning strategies, including price
and value messages, as well as, the introduction of brand
equity as a dependent variable. In addition, studies have
looked at durable good product categories for the first time.
Kalra and Goodstein (1998) suggested that Kaul and
Wittinks classification of advertising messaging as price and
non-price was too narrow. Testing seven positioning
conditions, including product attribute, comparative
positioning, and value positioning, the authors found that
different price positioning strategies had different effects on
price sensitivity, and therefore brand equity. The authors also
tested these positioning conditions in two studies utilizing
high advertising processing conditions for washing machines
and single lens reflex cameras. Consistent with framing
theory, the authors found that the relative importance of
price is significantly higher for subjects exposed to value
positioning (Kalra and Goodstein, 1998, p. 214). This study,
like many of its predecessors, used the absolute value (specific
prices) that consumers were willing to pay for a product as the
dependent variable. The authors concluded that value-
oriented positioning could be detrimental to brand equity
and may lead to lower quality ratings. Furthermore, Yoo
et al.(2000) proposed a conceptual framework identifying the
310
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 20 Number 4 2011 309 315
relationship between individual marketing elements (price,
store image, distribution intensity, advertising spending and
price deals) and the dimensions of brand equity. Their results
suggested that frequent price promotions were detrimental to
brand equity. These results were supported in a subsequent
study by Villarejo-Ramos and Sanchez-Franco (2005) which
examined consumers perceptions regarding price deals
relative to a durable goods purchase, utilizing the scale
created by Yoo, et al. In both of these studies the authors
relied on consumers feedback regarding perceived marketing
efforts, and thus neither was able to directly connect the
detrimental influence of promotion-based messaging on
brand equity through any specific stimulus.
Conceptualization and operationalization of brand
associations
Keller (1993) conceptualized brand image as the output of
the types, favorability, strength, and uniqueness of
brand associations. He also postulated that brand associations
constitute the physical and non-physical product attributes
and benefits aligned with attitudes to create a brand image in
the mind of the consumer.
Low and Lamb (2000) created a three-factor, twelve-item
scale to measure brand associations. The scale operationalizes
brand associations through brand image, perceived quality
and brand attitude, the most common dimensions within
brand equity research (Aaker, 1991, 1996; Keller, 1993,
1998). These three constructs were defined in that study as
follows:
1 Brand image the cognitive or emotional perceptions
consumers attach to brands (Dobni and Zinkhan, 1990).
2 Brand attitude consumers overall evaluation (good or
bad) of a brand (Mitchell and Olson, 1981).
3 Perceived quality consumers judgment about a products
overall excellence or superiority (Zeithaml, 1988; Aaker
and Jacobson, 1994).
Low and Lamb (2000) concluded that there were instances in
which these three separate constructs could be encapsulated
within a single construct under a brand association variable,
but that each should be measured and evaluated
independently. This model has been selected for use in this
study due to its high construct validity for measuring brand
associations across product and service brands, as well as
various product categories, including high and low familiarity
brands.
Conceptualization of price and non-price advertising
Several schemes have been presented by researches to
distinguish between different forms of advertising. Typically,
authors have limited the discussion to price or non-price
advertising (e.g. Kaul and Wittink, 1995; Popkowski Leszczyc
and Rao, 1989). Others have delineated non-price advertising
as differentiating or reminder advertising (Mitra and Lynch,
1995). Kalra and Goodstein (1998) created perhaps the most
robust scheme to date, classifying advertising into one of
seven groups depending on positioning tactics. These seven
groups were:
1 highlighting favorable aspects of a brand without
mentioning limitations;
2 value-orientation;
3 comparisons with a premium;
4 unique attribute positioning;
 Effects of promotional-based advertising on brand associations
Michael Clayton and Jun Heo
5 meaningless attribute positioning;
6 endorsements by product-relevant celebrities; and
7 premium versus premium brand comparison (Kalra and
Goodstein, 1998, p. 211).
They concluded that value-orientated positioning (where
absolute pricing was not included) led to greater price
sensitivity. Karla and Goodstein sought to identify the direct
effect of value-oriented positioning on prices consumers were
willing to pay for a durable good, and thus decided it was
necessary to remove absolute pricing from all stimuli and
instead to focus on value. The current study seeks to build
on these findings to understand what other effects are caused
by promotion-based messaging within a durable goods
category.
Conceptualization of involvement and attention
The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) illustrates how
advertising can influence a reader based on central or
peripheral processing (Petty and Cacioppo, 1981; Petty et al.,
1983). Antecedents of this processing have been subsequently
identified as ability, opportunity, and motivation to process
information, the latter of which has garnered the
involvement label (Andrews, 1988). Researchers have also
determined that motivation, ability, and opportunity are
strong influencers of consumers attention and
comprehension processes (Batra and Ray, 1986). A highly
involved consumer is more likely to fully read a print
advertisement and to cognitively process the message,
including the creation of support arguments or challenging
questionable statements. Whereas, in the peripheral route a
reader would have less involvement and would rely more
heavily on superficial cues like colors and talent used in the
advertisement. Petty et al. (1983) found that strong
arguments performed better under scenarios of high
involvement, whereas celebrity endorsers meant more in
scenarios involving low involvement. Since the early ELM
work, involvement has become a construct of frequent study
in marketing literature, and has been subsequently measured
in terms of involvement with brands, products, messaging,
tasks, etc. (Bruner et al., 2005).
Greenwald and Leavitt (1984, p. 584) posited that there are
actually several different levels of involvement based on
varying degrees of attention, these level were classified as
preattention, focal attention, comprehension, and
elaboration. Shortly after, Celsi and Olson (1988, p. 219)
found that as subjects felt involvement increased so did their
attention to respective advertisements. This same study also
found that consumers domain knowledge was not related to
consumers attention toward advertisements.
Hypothesis
While it is generally accepted that promotional price-based
advertising leads to increased price sensitivity, other effects of
this messaging are less clear. While the effectiveness of this
messaging in terms of delivering short terms sales has been
validated by businesses time and time again, the longer term
effects on key brand health measures still needs to be studied.
While some may argue that there is an opportunity cost to
diverting advertising funds from brand building messaging
into short-term price promotional messaging, we hypothesize
that the short-term price promotional messaging itself is
actually detrimental to the brand in the case of durable goods.
This study seeks to understand the relative performance of
311
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 20 Number 4 2011 309 315
value-based messaging versus brand advertising, on brand
associations for a durable good:
H1. Non-comparative advertising for durable goods
containing promotional-based value messaging (non-
absolute value) produces significantly lower brand
associations results (image, attitude, and quality) than
comparable non-price brand advertising.
Caves and Greene (1996) studied brands quality levels,
prices, and advertising outlays, and found that quality
signaling is not the function of most advertising in
consumer good segments. Their study utilized Consumer
Reports data, based on performance measured by experts, as
the measure of quality, thus measuring actual quality and
not necessarily consumer perceived quality. Advertising
outlays were obtained from LNA/Arbitron, but these figures
did not include most forms of sales promotion, and the
analysis had no way of identifying the different messaging
within the advertising expenditures. Conversely, this study
seeks to understand the role of promotional-based messaging
in influencing consumer quality perceptions, as well as
image and brand attitudes.
H2. High involvement with the advertising message
significantly increases the detrimental effect of
promotional-based value messaging (non-absolute
value) compared to non-price brand advertising.
Assuming the first hypothesis is supported, the ELM predicts
that increased attention and cognitive processing of the
message will have a greater effect on cognitive evaluations
than more low involvement processing utilizing the peripheral
route to persuasion.
Study
Method
A total of 105 male and female undergraduate students
enrolled in an introductory advertising course at a large
southeastern university volunteered to participate in a mixed
advertisement study. Extra credit was awarded for
participation in the study. Subjects were randomly assigned
to one of four experimental conditions: high-involvement,
non-price brand advertising (HINP), low-involvement, non-
price brand advertising (LINP) or high-involvement, value-
oriented advertising (HIV), low-involvement, value-oriented
advertising (LIV).
Procedure and stimuli
Testing the hypotheses required the measurement of
consumer responses to non-price and value-oriented
messaging for durable products under conditions of high
and low cognitive involvement with the messaging. A 2 2
factorial design was employed with cognitive involvement
(high/low) and advertising message (brand/value) as the
experimental factors. In each condition the participant was
asked to view a portfolio of four advertisements. In
accordance with the preferred procedure for advertising
involvement studies where recipient, message, and medium
characteristics are held constant, study participants were
randomly assigned to high and low message involvement
groups (Petty et al., 1983). Manipulation of involvement with
the message is described within the independent variables
section of this paper.
 Effects of promotional-based advertising on brand associations
Michael Clayton and Jun Heo
The durable good category selected was electronics (a Zune
digital MP3 player) due to the samples familiarity with the
product category and the brands second-tier status within the
category. Two advertisements were created for Zune. One
advertisement contained detailed information about product
attributes obtained from the brands official web site. The
second advertisement contained no detailed information
about the product but instead focused solely on the fact
that there was a limited-time offer and that the consumer
should act now to take advantage of substantial savings. The
absolute price of the product was absent in both scenarios,
but copy referring to the price discount in the form of
percent off was included in the value-oriented stimulus.
Three additional advertisements from brands in non-
competing product categories were used as filler brands to
disguise the nature of the study and prevent hypothesis
guessing. In addition, all advertisements contained an
identical design template in order to disguise the test
advertisements and to moderate the effects of Aad. Those
design elements included: a large visual of the product
encapsulating the top 70-80 percent of the space, a 22 pt
headline, a two-three sentence 16 pt copy block on white
background, and brand logo in the bottom right corner of the
advertisement. The Zune advertisement was always placed in
position two of four to prevent primacy and recency effects. In
addition, the order of the filler advertisements was constant so
that mood effects created by any filler advertisement were
controlled for across all conditions. At the conclusion of
viewing all four advertisements, participants were instructed
to turn over advertisement materials and to refrain from
referring back to them. At that time the participants were
asked to complete a brief survey regarding attitudes towards
the brands detailed in the advertisements.
Instrumentation
Dependent variables
The dependent variable was measured using a brand
association scale from Low and Lamb (2000). The scale
contains 12 items to measure three dimensions of brand
associations: brand attitude, perceived quality, and brand
image. The order of all 12 measurement items was
randomized in the questionnaire to prevent a possible carry-
over effect between adjectives.
Item purification was performed based on the internal
consistency of the scale. Brand attitude (bad/good,
worthless/valuable, and unpleasant/pleasant) and
perceived quality (inferior/superior, low quality/high
quality, and poor/excellent) were acceptable with
Cronbach alphas of 0.76 and 0.85, respectively. However,
the six items for brand image showed low reliability:
Cronbachs alpha was only 0.21. According to Park and
Srinivasan (1994), brand image measures should be
customized for the unique traits of specific product
category. The six items included in the current study were
originally developed utilizing the shampoo product category.
Thus, we excluded three items, which fit less well with
durable goods, such as harsh/gentle, unfriendly/friendly,
and natural/artificial. The reliability of the revised scale for
brand image improved to 0.80, with the three items included:
outdated/modern, not useful/useful, and popular/
unpopular. Further, the scale for brand associations with
the selected nine items together demonstrated very high
reliability, 0.93.
312
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 20 Number 4 2011 309 315
In order to confirm the structure of the brand association
scale suggested by Low and Lamb (2000), an exploratory
factor analysis (EFA) was conducted. The results of this
analysis indicated that the items were loaded on one factor
only, suggesting the uni-dimensionality of the scale. In their
paper, Low and Lamb (2000) mentioned that the
dimensionality of the scale may depend on the familiarity of
the product/brand under test. Thus, the current authors had
to ensure construct validity of the scale and conducted a
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with the selected items.
After allowing error of one of the items for brand attitude to
be correlated with perceived quality measure, the goodness-
of-fit for the measurement model significantly improved and
showed fair fit: x2 24 60:03, p 0:00, RMSEA 0:12,
CFI 0:97, SRMR 0:05, NNFI 0:96. Although the x2
test for the measurement model was significant, other
goodness-of-fit indices were considered acceptable
(Schumacker and Lomax, 2004). Additionally, each item
demonstrated higher factor loading than 0.60, which is a
condition for acceptable construct validity. The factor
loadings ranged from 0.66 for one of the brand attitude
items to 0.85 for one of the items of perceived quality.
Accordingly, a total of nine items for brand association
constructs three items per each construct were included
in the study for the subsequent analyses. Factor loading of
each item and Cronbachs alpha coefficients for each
construct are demonstrated in Table I.
Independent variables
Involvement was manipulated through study instructions
which asked one group to review the advertisements as if they
were going to be shopping for goods in each of the four
product categories in the next week, and would be asked to
describe how the details in each advertisement affected their
consideration of the brands. The low involvement subjects
were asked to review four advertisements at their leisure and
then answer a series of questions regarding the advertisements
they just reviewed. In order to operationalize this construct
the authors chose to measure attention rather than
involvement as a way to mitigate the participants domain
knowledge on this subject matter. Attention to the message
was measured utilizing a scale originally developed by
Table I Internal consistency and factor loadings for measurement
scales of brand association
Cronbachs a
Factors and items L (standardized)
Brand attitude 0.758
Bad/good 0.75
Worthless/valuable 0.66
Pleasant/unpleasant 0.78
Perceived quality 0.853
Inferior/superior 0.82
Low quality/high quality 0.85
Poor/excellent 0.78
Brand image 0.799
Outdated/modern 0.81
Not useful/useful 0.79
Popular/unpopular 0.70
 Effects of promotional-based advertising on brand associations Journal of Product & Brand Management
Michael Clayton and Jun Heo Volume 20 Number 4 2011 309 315

Laczniak et al. (1989). This five-item, seven-point Likert scale Table II Multivariate analysis of variance results: involvement and
ranging from none/not at all to very much measures the message type with brand association (brand attitude, perceived quality,
amount of attention dedicated to the written messages within and brand image)
advertisements (Bruner and Hensel, 1996). This scale was
chosen for its specificity in measuring message attention to an Multivariate analysis
adverstisement, as well as its high reliability. In this Factor Wilks l df F p
experimental setting where we were seeking to create felt Message involvement 0.95 3 1.87 0.14
involvement we believe that measuring the attention
Message type * 0.88 3 4.37 0.01
dedicated to the specific advertisements is a suitable
Message involvement 3 message type 0.99 3 0.34 0.80
substitute for a more traditional involvement measure.
Error 99
The delineation of promotion-based and non-price
messaging followed the procedure outlined in the Note: *Significant at the 0.05 level
procedure and stimuli section. By creating the
advertisements from scratch and only manipulating the
copy, the authors believe the stimuli was a true test of the
Table III Univariate analysis of variance results: involvement and
messaging, and able to mitigate the majority of Aad confounds
message type with brand association (brand attitude, perceived quality,
due to the similarities in visuals, format, and fonts, with the
and brand image)
only differences being the copy which was written in the same
matter-of-fact tone. Univariate analysis
In order to measure the level of attention dedicated to Brand association Source of variation df MS F p
viewing the advertisements, using the seven-point Likert scale
referenced previously (Laczniak et al., 1989), respondents Brand attitude Involvement 1 0.65 0.64 0.42
were asked How much attention did you pay to the written Message type * 1 9.70 9.56 0.00
message in the advertisement?, How much did you notice Involvement message type 1 0.35 0.35 0.56
the written message in the advertisement?, How much did Error 101 1.01
you concentrate on the written message in the Perceived quality Involvement 1 0.00 0.00 0.98
advertisement?, How involved were you with the written Message type * 1 16.70 13.19 0.00
message in the advertisement?, and How much thought did Involvement message type 1 0.52 0.41 0.51
you put into evaluating the written message in the
Error 101 1.27
advertisement?. With all five items, the coefficient alpha
was not satisfactory at 0.34. To ensure reliability of the scale, Brand image Involvement 1 0.64 0.44 0.51
one item, How much did you concentrate on the written Message type * 1 13.60 9.23 0.00
message in the advertisement? was omitted, and the Involvement message type 1 1.39 0.95 0.33
coefficient alpha improved to 0.89. Error 101 1.47
Note: *Significant at the 0.05 level
Results
To measure the success of the manipulation of the two
involvement treatments, high and low, a one-way analysis of F(3, 99 1:87, p . 0:05) and the interaction between
variance (ANOVA) was performed in which the four message involvement and message type (Wilks
manipulation check scales were the dependent variables and Lambda 0:99, F(3, 99 0:34, p . 0:05), respectively.
the two factors (e.g. high vs low involvement) were the This finding would indicate that the effects of messaging on
independent variables. Results showed involvement for the brand associations, including brand attitude, perceived
high involvement subjects was significantly higher than for the quality, and brand image, do not differ depending on the
low involvement subjects (respective means of 5.06 and 4.56, level of message involvement.
F 4:49; p 0:037). Therefore, it can be concluded that our The ANOVA results showed that message type has a
manipulation yielded the correct conditions for a test of the statistically significant main effect on each of the brand
hypotheses. association dimensions, suggesting brand attitude
The hypotheses were tested by entering the dependent (F(1,101) 9.56, p , 0.05), perceived quality
variable, brand association with three dimensions: brand (F(1,101) 13.19, p , 0.05), and brand image
attitude, perceived quality, and brand image, into a (F(1,101) 9.23, p , 0.05) differ depending on message
multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with message type. It suggests that perceived quality with the highest
involvement (high vs low) and message type (promotional F-value, 13.19, is the most influenced variable of promotion-
messaging vs. non-price messaging) as the independent based messaging, followed by brand attitude, 9.56, and brand
variables. image, 9.23.
As shown in Tables II and III, the result of the MANOVA Concerning message type (promotional-based messaging
revealed statistically significant difference based on message vs. non-price messaging); Table IV demonstrates that means
type across the three dimensions all together (Wilks of brand association are less when subjects saw promotion-
Lambda 0:88, F(3, 99 4:37, p , 0:05), suggesting based messaging than value-based messaging across all three
brand association significantly differs depending on message dimensions. That is, subjects exposed to promotional-based
type. While, 95 percent and 99 percent of observed variability messaging are more likely to form less favorable attitudes
of all combined dimensions of brand association are not (M 4:36, n 51) toward the tested brand than subjects
explained by message involvement (Wilks Lambda 0:95, exposed to value-based messaging (M 4:99, n 54); F(1,

313
 Effects of promotional-based advertising on brand associations Journal of Product & Brand Management
Michael Clayton and Jun Heo Volume 20 Number 4 2011 309 315

Table IV Means and standard deviations for brand attitude, perceived Directions for future research
quality, and brand image by message involvement and message type Marketing scholars should look to develop longitudinal
Brand Perceived Brand studies to explore how a corporations long-term focus on
attitude quality image promotional-based advertising affects brand equity and long-
n M SD M SD M SD term sales within durable good categories. As discussed
earlier, price sensitivity and other effects of price advertising
Involvement have tended to focus on consumer non-durable goods where
High 44 4.61 1.07 4.45 1.25 4.95 1.28 brand equity is presumed to hold less value due to the lower
Low 61 4.74 1.04 4.42 1.15 4.77 1.26 perceived risk among most non-durable categories. While we
Message type found a significant negative effect of pricing message on brand
equity in the durable goods category, it would be meaningful
Promotion-based 51 4.36 0.85 4.00 1.99 4.44 1.25
to compare durable goods to non-durable goods in terms of
Value-based 54 4.99 1.13 4.83 1.23 5.22 1.17
effects on brand associations. In addition, the study should be
replicated on a variety of different media types to examine
whether consumers respond differently to value-based
101 9:56, p , 0:00. And, subjects exposed to promotion- messaging across different media types. Different types of
based messaging are more likely to perceive the brand quality media may result in different psychological processes as
lower (M 4:00, n 51) than those exposed to value-based different media may have different informational expectations
messaging (M 4:83, n 54); F(1, 101 13:19, p , 0:05. (Swanson, 1987). For example, consumers searching for
Also, brand image scores among subjects exposed to product information on the Internet may have a different
promotion-based messaging are lower (M 4:44, n 51) attitude toward promotional-based messaging than those who
than those among subjects exposed to non-price messaging are skimming through a lifestyle magazine.
(M 5:22, n 54); F(1, 101 9:23, p , 0:05.
Managerial implications and applications
Summary and general discussion
While corporations and marketers are increasingly pressured by
This study examined the effects of promotional-based Wall Street to meet sales and revenue expectations, a long-term
messaging on brand associations, an indicator of consumer- orientation is required to understand the potential consequences
based brand equity. These effects were tested under low and of promotional-based messaging. While others have illustrated a
moderately high involvement conditions. The results support framing effect which causes consumers to become more price
the first hypothesis that promotional-based messaging lowers sensitive in the face of value-oriented messages, this study
brand association measures, specifically, the brands image, concludes that these messages also have the potential to
attitudes toward the brand and a brands quality perception. Of deteriorate brand associations, another key component in
these three dimensions the brands quality perception suffered developing brand equity. Since strong brand equity is what
the most with exposure to a promotional-based message allows many marketers to demand a premium price for their
compared to a non-price brand message. These findings were goods and maintain strong brand loyalty, the relationship
not surprising given the extensive research on the relationship between promotional-based messaging and brand associations is
between price and quality. While these findings are by no an important topic for further consideration. The long-term
means conclusive as to the true impact of all promotional- effects of promotional-based messaging are at this point still
based advertising across different product categories and fairly inconclusive, but multiple studies show that these forms of
luxury and non-luxury brands, these findings do call into communication do have the potential to denigrate brand equity,
question the negative effects of promotional-based advertising and thus erode margins, profits and loyalty.
and messaging. While the short-term sales effects of sales
promotions have been well documented, the long-term effect
on key brand health measures has been less explored. It is our
References
hope that this study will create greater interest in advertising Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on
messaging and budgeting of communication plans in order to the Value of a Brand Name, The Free Press, New York, NY.
better understand brand building. Aaker, D.A. (1996), Building Strong Brands, The Free Press,
The findings from this study failed to support the second New York, NY.
hypothesis, that involvement with the value messaging would Aaker, D.A. and Jacobson, R. (1994), The financial
affect brand association measures. While the results of the information content of perceived quality, Journal of
manipulation check indicated that there were significant Marketing Research, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 191-201.
differences in the levels of involvement, it is plausible that the Andrews, J.C. (1988), Motivation, ability, and opportunity
artificial nature of the experiment likely led to a level of to process information: conceptual and experimental
involvement higher than a consumer would experience when manipulation issues, Advances in Consumer Research,
consuming advertisements in a standard printed media Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 219-25.
vehicle. Barwise, P. (1993), Brand equity: snark or boojum?,
Limitations of this study included the lack of breadth in International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 1,
product categories and the studys ability to fully replicate in- pp. 93-104.
market shopping where price indicators may hold greater Batra, R. and Ray, M.L. (1986), Situational effects of
relevance to consumers. This study also failed to account for advertising repetition: the moderating influence of
pre-existing familiarity issues with the brand, including motivation, ability, and opportunity to respond, Journal
category involvement and prior usage of brands. of Consumer Research, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 432-45.

314
 Effects of promotional-based advertising on brand associations
Michael Clayton and Jun Heo
Bruner, G.C. and Hensel, P.J. (1996), Marketing Scales
Handbook: A Compilation of Multi-item Measures, American
Marketing Association, Chicago, IL.
Bruner, G.C., Hensel, P.J. and James, K.E. (2005), Marketing
Scales Handbook Volume IV: A Compilation of Multi-item
Measures for Consumer Behavior and Advertising, Thomson
Corporation, Mason, OH.
Caves, R.E. and Greene, D.P. (1996), Brands quality levels,
prices, and advertising outlays: empirical evidence on
signals and information costs, International Journal of
Industrial Organization, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 29-52.
Celsi, R.L. and Olson, J.C. (1988), The role of involvement
in attention and comprehension processes, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 210-24.
Dobni, D. and Zinkhan, G.M. (1990), In search of brand
image: a foundation analysis, in Goldberg, M.E., Gorn, G.
and Pollay, R.W. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research,
Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT,
pp. 110-19.
Greenwald, A.G. and Leavitt, C. (1984), Audience
involvement in advertising: four levels, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 581-92.
Kalra, A. and Goodstein, R.C. (1998), The impact of
advertising positioning strategies on consumer price
sensitivity, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 35 No. 2,
pp. 210-24.
Kaul, A. and Wittink, D.R. (1995), Empirical
generalizations about the impact of advertising on price
sensitivity and price, Marketing Science, Vol. 14 No. 3,
pp. G151-60.
Keller, K.L. (1993), Conceptualizing, measuring, and
managing customer-based brand equity, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Keller, K.L. (1998), Strategic Brand Management: Building,
Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity, Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Laczniak, R.N., Muehling, D.D. and Grossbart, S. (1989),
Manipulating message involvement in advertising
research, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 28-38.
Lassar, W., Mittal, B. and Sharma, A. (1995), Measuring
customer-based brand equity, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 11-19.
Low, G.S. and Lamb, C.W. Jr (2000), Measurement and
dimensionality of brand associations, Journal of Product &
Brand Management, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 350-70.
Mitchell, A.A. and Olson, J.C. (1981), Are product attribute
beliefs the only mediator of advertising effects on brand
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
315
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 20 Number 4 2011 309 315
attitude?, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 318-32.
Mitra, A. and Lynch, J.G. Jr (1995), Toward a reconciliation
of market power and information theories of advertising
effects on price elasticity, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 644-59.
Park, C.S. and Srinivasan, V. (1994), A survey-based
method for measuring and understanding brand equity and
its extendibility, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31
No. 2, pp. 271-88.
Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1981), Attitudes and
Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches, William
C. Brown, Dubuque, IA.
Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T. and Schumann, D. (1983),
Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness:
the moderating role of involvement, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 135-46.
Popkowski Leszczyc, P.T.L. and Rao, R.C. (1989),
An empirical analysis of national and local advertising
effect on price elasticity, Marketing Letters, Vol. 1 No. 2,
pp. 149-60.
Schumacker, R.E. and Lomax, R.G. (2004), A Beginners
Guide to Structural Equation Modeling, Lawrence Erlbaum,
Mahwah, NJ.
Shocker, A.D., Srivastava, R.K. and Ruekert, R.W. (1994),
Challenges and opportunities facing brand management:
an introduction to the special issue, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 149-58.
Swanson, D.L. (1987), Gratification seeking, media
exposure, and audience interpretations: some directions
for research, Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media,
Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 237-54.
Villarejo-Ramos, A.F. and Sanchez-Franco, M.J. (2005),
The impact of marketing communication and price
promotion on brand equity, Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 431-44.
Yoo, B., Donthu, N. and Lee, S. (2000), An examination of
selected marketing mix elements and brand equity, Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 2,
pp. 195-211.
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), Consumer perceptions of price,
quality, and value: a means-end and synthesis of evidence,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 2-22.
Corresponding author
Michael Clayton can be contacted at: michael.clayton@cnu.edu