Advertising Creativity Matters

MICAEL DAHLEN Could "wasteful" advertising creativity that does not add to the functionaiity of the
Stockholm School of
advertisement (i.e., it neither enhances recaii and iiking of the advertising, nor
Economics
micael,dahlen@hhs.se increases comprehension and persuasiveness of the communicated message) be
useful? An expérimentai study shows that it can. By signaling greater effort on behaif
SARA ROSENGREN
Stockholm School of
of the advertiser and a greater ability of the brand, advertising creativity enhances
Economics both brand interest and perceived brand quaiity. The effects are mediated by
sara.rosengren@hhs,se
consumer-perceived creativity, suggesting that consumers are important Judges of
FREDRIK TORN creativity. Bringing advertising creativity into new iight, the resuits provide impiications
Stockholm School of
for the development, measurement, and positioning of creative advertising.
Economics
fredrik,torn@hhs.se

INTRODUCTION advertising agencies spend a great deal of time

There is no guarantee that creativity in an adver-
tisement makes it more memorable or appealing
to consumers (Kover, Goldberg, and James, 1995).
In fact, research by, for example, Kover, James,
and Sonner (1997) suggests that many creative
advertising efforts may be wasted, in the sense
that they do not add to the functionality of the
advertisement (i.e., they neither enhance con-
sumer recall and liking of the advertising, nor
increase comprehension and persuasiveness of the
communicated message). However, this article ar-
gues that such wasteful advertising creativity may
have other positive effects. Previous research on
advertising spending has found that, when by-
passing functional aspects of high spending, for
example, that bigger advertisements increase at-
tention or that repeated exposures facilitate com-
prehension and breed liking, wasteful expenses
have positive effects on brand perceptions (e.g..
Ambler and HoUier, 2004; Kirmani and Rao, 2000).
The present research investigates whether or not
the same conclusion follows with respect to ad-
vertising creativity.
A common view is that creativity is a mission of
the entire advertising industry, its raison d'être
(Koslow, Sasser, and Riordan, 2003). The fact that
and energy competing for creative awards, even
though they are not sure that these efforts actually
increase the functionality of their work, suggests
that creativity is perceived to be important in its
own right (e.g., Helgesen, 1994; Kover, James, and
Sonner, 1997). In a frequently cited study. Gross
(1972) showed that wasteful advertising creativity
in advertising agencies, in the form of an abun-
dance of creative ideas, yield more effective ad-
vertisements in the long run. This article takes the
notion of wasteful advertising creativity to the
level of the individual advertisement to see whether
an abundance of creativity (that does not enhance
functionality) in a single advertisement yields pos-
itive effects.
Building on the research on marketing signals,
we suggest it does. Studies show that the very
employment of various marketing elements, such
as warranties (long-lasting) or price (correlates
with quality), sends signals about the brand that
guide consumer evaluations and choice (e.g., Kir-
mani and Rao, 2000). Advertising expense has
been found to be a signal that consumers interpret
as the marketers' efforts due to their belief in the
brand (Kirmani, 1990; Kirmani and Wright, 1989)
or as proof of the brand's superiority or "brand

3 9 2 JDÜBOIIL OF (IDÜERTISinG BESEflRCH September 2 0 0 8 DOI: 10.2501/S002184990808046X


fitness" (Amhler and Hollier, 2004): The
greater the expense, the more confident
the marketer and the more fit the brand.
Categorizing advertising creativity as a
marketing signal, we expect that greater
creativity signals more effort (as creative
advertising is harder to produce than "no-
frills" advertising) and greater fitness (as
the sender must have the knowledge re-
sources to take the extra communicative
leap and communicate in a nontraditional
marmer) and thus produces more favor-
able brand perceptions.
By investigating the signaling effects of
advertising creativity on brand percep-
tions, we bypass the functional aspects
that have previously been in focus in cre-
ativity research. Previous research focuses
on intermediate effects such as advertis-
ing recall, liking, and comprehension (e.g.,
Kover, James, and Sonner, 1997; Stone,
Besser, and Lewis, 2000; Till and Baack,
2005), or different facets of creativity, such
as originality, meaningfulness, and emo-
tions (e.g., Ang and Low, 2000; Kover,
Goldberg, and James, 1995; White and
Smith, 2001). As advertising (and creativ-
ity) can take many shapes and forms, it is
not very surprising that most authors seem
to agree that the research on advertising
creativity to date is troubled by contradic-
tory and inconclusive findings (e.g., El-
Murad and West, 2004; Koslow, Sasser,
and Riordan, 2003: Stone, Besser, and
Lewis, 2000). For instance, some (award-
winning, which is often the criterion in
these studies) creative advertising may be
very original and yield high recall, but
low liking, whereas other advertising could
produce strong emotions and liking, but
be harder to recall. Avoiding such obsta-
cles may be achievable by focusing on
creativity as a signal in itself, rather than
its facets and intermediate effects.
The present study includes a number of
elements that are novel to advertising cre-
ativity research. First, rather than using
real advertisements as representatives of
more versus less creative advertising, the
study manipulates advertising creativity
in the same manner as Ambler and Hol-
lier (2004) manipulate advertising ex-
pense. Thus, we are able to compare
advertising for the same brands with the
same messages and control for the func-
tionality of the tested advertisements. Most
research to date has employed real adver-
tisements, which makes it harder to dis-
cern the effects of the creativity in itself,
as it also becomes a matter of different
brands with different messages. Second,
our manipulation does not produce cre-
ative advertising that is "outstanding,"
but rather moderately creative. As noted
by Haberland and Dacin (1992), the focus
on awards creates a dichotomous view of
advertising as creative yes/no. It is more
likely that advertising varies in its degree
of creativity. Not all advertisements win
prizes for creativity, but that does not
mean that those advertisements are not
creative. Third, in addition to manipu-
lating advertising creativity, we also
measure consumer-perceived creativity.
Previous research has usually kept the
degree of creativity "hidden" from con-
sumers, utilizing awards and expert judg-
ments as assessments of creativity. Whereas
advertising effects materialize to a consid-
erable degree without consumer aware-
ness (e.g.. Heath and Nairn, 2005), the
present study tests the notion that con-
sumer explicit thoughts about advertising
creativity matter.
ADVERTISING CREATIVITY AS A
MARKETING SIGNAL
Most markets are flooded with products
for consumers to choose between. As con-
sumers are unable to sample all products
that are available to them, or even assess
the quality of all the products they have
actually consumed, they rely on market-
ing signals (Kirmani and Rao, 2000). Ad-
September 2 0 0 8 JDUIIOIIL OF HDUERTISIOG RESEHRCH 3 9 3
ADVERTISING CREATIVITY MÄHERS
vertising expense is the marketing signal
that has gained most attention in adver-
tising research. According to Kirmani and
Wright (1989), advertising expense is an
indicator of marketing effort: The more
money spent on advertising, the greater
the effort—meaning that the advertiser
must really believe in the product. Spend-
ing a great deal of money on advertising
is a more powerful signal to consumers
about the quality of the product than the
content of the advertising, as the adver-
tiser "put their money where their mouth
is." More money means greater risk, and
thus consumers feel safe that the adver-
tiser will deliver on her promise (Kir-
mani, 1997).
In tests of advertising expense, Kirmani
(1990,1997) manipulates advertising sizes,
colors, endorsers, and repetition and finds
that they may all increase perceived mar-
keting effort. Interestingly, Kirmani (1990)
notes that it is possible that perceived
advertising quality ("includes the care and
creativity used to design the ad") could
also have an effect on perceptions of mar-
keting effort. However, Kirmani (1990) does
not manipulate advertising quality (and
more specifically, advertising creativity).
Such a manipulation would result in per-
ceptions of greater marketing effort.
Coming up with a creative concept is
more demanding for the advertiser than
simply applying a standard solution based
one's own or others' previous efforts. Con-
sumers are "advertising literate" enough
today to infer that creative advertising is
probably the result of a development pro-
cess that is both longer and more costly
(they may even refer this to the employ-
ment of a "fancy advertising agency").
HI: Advertising creativity increases
perceived marketing effort.
Ambler and Hollier (2004) suggest that
advertising expense may not only serve
ADVERTISING CREATIVITY IVIATTERS
An extra degree of creativity may send signais about
tiie advertiser tiiat rub off on consumer perceptions of
tiie brand.
as a signal of effort, but also as a more
direct signal of "brand fitness." Referring
to the biological theory of handicapping,
they argue that advertising expense may
be a signal of wealth—arguably, the ad-
vertiser can afford such wastefully expen-
sive advertising. The wealth, in tum, could
be interpreted as proof of previous suc-
cess due to the brand's great ability to
serve the market. Extending the reason-
ing to advertising creativity, wasteful cre-
ativity (i.e., the surplus creativity that does
not add to the functionality of the adver-
tisement) could work as a signal of wealth
as well, wealth in the form of knowledge
and smartness. For example, the literature
on rhetorical figures (which are a form of
wasteful creativity as they convey n\es-
sages in unnecessarily clever ways) sug-
gests that they may signal smartness on
behalf of the sender (e.g., Toncar and
Munch, 2001, 2003). However, this notion
has not been tested.
Ambler and Hollier's (2004) concept of
"brand fitness" is especially interesting in
light of the growing body of research on
perceived corporate ability. Perceived cor-
porate ability refers to consumers' beliefs
that the company is able to improve the
quality of existing products and to gener-
ate new products innovatively (Luo and
Bhattacharya, 2006). Studies show that per-
ceived corporate ability influences the suc-
cess of new-product introductions and
marketing activities, as well as the market
value of the entire company. In fact, per-
ceived corporate ability may be the most
powerful source of sustainable competi-
tive advantage (Brown and Dacin, 1997;
Luo and Bhattacharya, 2006).
3 9 4 JOÜIIIlflL DfflDÜERTISinGRESEflRCH September 2 0 0 8
Advertising creativity could be a signal
of brand ability (the equivalent of corpo-
rate ability on the individual, advertised,
brand level). Coming up with a creative
advertising concept signals the ability and
desire to "think outside the box" and think
in new and different ways compared to
the competition and compared to the
brand's history. Thus, advertising creativ-
ity says less about the brand's historical
success and more about what could be
expected from it in the future.
H2: Advertising creativity increases
customers' perceived abuity in the
brand.
ADVERTISING CREATIVITY'S EFFECTS
ON BRAND PERCEPTIONS
Recent advertising literature argues that
the most important and reliable mea-
sures of advertising effectiveness are con-
sumers' perceptions and experiences of
the brand rather than of the advertising
itself. This influence is due to the facts
that consumers are not able to remember
or discern all the advertising they encoun-
ter (e.g.. Heath and Nairn, 2005; Weil-
bacher, 2003). Powerful advertising affects
consumers' perceptions of the brand im-
mediately (Hall, 2002). As creativity is
supposed to make powerful advertising,
the expectation is that more versus less
powerful advertising results in immedi-
ate effects on brand perceptions.
The main brand perception that has
been uncovered in previous studies of
marketing signals is perceived quality. As
mentioned previously, perceived market-
ing effort signals confidence on behalf of
the advertiser (e.g., Kirmani and Rao, 2000).
Perceived brand ability would also signal
high quality, as cor\sumers expect the brand
to improve quality over the competition.
Therefore, the hypothesis is that advertis-
ing creativity enhances perceived brand
quality.
H3: Advertising creativity enhances
customers' perceptions of brand
quality.
Conventional wisdom holds that creative
advertising pushes the message into
consumers' minds (e.g., El-Murad and
West, 2004; Kover, James, and Sonner,
1997). However, recent literature argues
that the individual brand does not really
have much to say (e.g., Ehrenberg, Bar-
nard, Kennedy, and Bloom, 2002; Heath
and Nairn, 2005). In the massive mar-
ketspace and mindspace competition, it is
increasingly difficult to be unique and
virtually impossible to persuade consum-
ers to buy your product (Weilbacher, 2003).
In line with this notion, a survey among
top-level agency créatives ranked the same-
ness among brands as the number one
reason for improved creativity; rather than
communicating a specific message (which
is likely to resemble competitors'), adver-
tising creativity must make the brand in-
teresting and exciting (Reid, Whitehill King,
and DeLorme, 1998).
This goal is particularly relevant to es-
tablished brands, which make up the ma-
jority of the marketplace. The greatest
enemies to these brands are predictability
and consumer disinterest (Machleit, Allen,
and Madden, 1993). Brands must contin-
uously reinvent themselves and challenge
expectations to stay in touch with consum-
ers. This touch could be achievable with
creative advertising. Creative advertising
in itself suggests that the brand has some-
thing interesting to offer, as it signals ef-
fort and confidence, and ability to deliver

something different from the competition.
Therefore, the study expects a positive
relationship between advertising creativ-
ity and brand interest.
H4: Advertising creativity enhances
brand interest.
CONSUMERS AS JUDGES OF
ADVERTISING CREATIVITY
Most research on advertising creativity
conceptualizes it as a "hidden tool" for
advertising professionals to create power-
ful advertising. That is, it is impor-
tant that the professionals perceive the
advertising to be creative for it to be ef-
fective, but consumers are not supposed
to think in such terms, rather just to like
the advertising, remember it, and select
the brand (e.g., Koslow, Sasser, and Rior-
dan, 2003; Stone, Besser, and Lewis, 2000;
Till and Baack, 2005). However, a profes-
sional judgment of advertising creativity
is no guarantee that the advertising will
be successful (e.g., Kover, James, and Son-
ner, 1997). For instance. Stone, Besser, and
Lewis (2000) found that while 70 percent
of the advertising that consumers remem-
bered and liked was categorized as cre-
ative by trained judges, 47 percent of
strongly disliked advertising was also cat-
egorized as creative by the judges.
White and Smith (2001) compare cre-
ativity ratings between advertising profes-
sionals and the general public and found
that the two groups differed in their rat-
ings. The question is, who is the better
judge? Kover, James, and Sonner (1997)
argue that less professionalism is needed
in the judgments of creativity, as at the
end of the day, consumers' perceptions
are what matter. The present study puts
this argument to the test by testing whether
manipulated advertising creativity (pre-
tested on advertising professionals) has a
direct effect on our hypothesized vari-
ables, without consumers being aware
of this "hidden tool," or if consumer per-
ceptions of advertising creativity are nec-
essary and mediate the effects. The
hypothesis is that consumer perception of
the advertising creativity is the first step
in the process that leads to all the hypoth-
esized effects in H1-H4:
H5: The effects of advertising creativ-
ity are mediated by consumer-
perceived creativity.
METHOD
To test the hypotheses, we must be able to
compare responses between consumers
who have been exposed to a more cre-
ative versus a less creative advertisement
for the same brand with the same mes-
sage. Furthermore, to test with certainty
whether consumer-perceived advertising
creativity is an intervening, mediating step
between manipulated creativity and our
hypothesized effects, we must measure
creativity perception before versus after
the other variables (for H5 to hold, cre-
ativity perception should have a greater
effect when measured before the other
variables, cf. Kenny, 1975). To this end,
we chose a 2 (more creative/less creative
advertisement) X 2 (perceived creativity
before/after) experimental design where
informants were randomly assigned to one
of the four cells.
To avoid stimulus specific effects, four
different brands and accompanying mes-
sages were used for a total of 16 experi-
ment cells. All four brands are established
and well known in their respective prod-
uct categories (pain relief, coffee, vodka,
and condoms). We chose well-known
brands for two reasons. First, the majority
of advertising in major media are for
established brands (e.g., Kent, 2002). Sec-
ond, as consumer perceptions of well-
known brands are harder to influence than
those of unfamiliar brands, the test brands
make a more robust test of our hypotheses.
September 2 0 0 8 JOURIIIIL OF HDUERTISIOG RESERRCH 3 9 5
ADVERTISING CREATIVITY MÄHERS
Research instrument development
Similar to Ambler and Hollier (2004), we
wanted to ensure that only the wasteful-
ness of creativity would differ between
advertisements, not their functionality with
respect to what was communicated. There-
fore, we needed to develop advertising
stimuli differing only with respect to the
creative execution. To this end, a method
similar to that of Toncar and Munch (2003)
was used. Four pairs of print advertise-
ments were developed, one pair for each
brand. Print advertisements usually have
three main elements: the brand, text, and
pictorial. In our manipulation, the brand
and the pictorial was kept constant, while
the text was varied to communicate the
same message in a more (employing rhe-
torical figures, cf. Tom and Eves, 1999) or
less (without rhetorical figures) creative
way. The number of words was kept
constant.
The advertisements were pretested to
make sure that the pairs communicated
the same message, and equally strongly.
Twenty plus twenty consumers from the
target population (below) were asked
"how well do you agree that the adver-
tisement's main message is. .." and rated
one of the advertisements from each
pair on a scale of 1 = totally disagree/
7 = totally agree. There were no signifi-
cant differences within the pairs
(A^more creative = 5.4 verSUS Mjess creative =
5.5).
Next, 12 plus 12 advertising profession-
als from eight major agencies rated one
of the advertisements from each pair on
creativity (scale: 1 = not at all creative/
7 = very creative). The more creative
advertisements rated significantly higher
than the less creative advertisements
(Mmore creative = 4.0 verSUS Mjess creative =
2.7, p < 0.01). Notably, although signifi-
cantly different from each other, neither
of the two groups of advertisements was
seen as particularly creative. However,
ADVERTISING CREATIVITY MÄHERS
By focusing too much on award-winning advertising and
treating creativity as a yes/no variabie, one misses out
on ail the improvements that can be made and effects
that can be attained at more moderate levéis.
we are not interested in the absolute lev-
els of creativity; the goal is to compare
differences in degree of creativity. This
approach differs from most previous
research, which often employs "outstand-
ing" (award-winning) creative advertise-
ments. The fact that the degree of creativity
is fairly low in our more creative adver-
tisements makes our test of the effects
of advertising creativity more robust. It
also makes the results more applicable
in practice, as most advertisements do
not win awards, but may still be creative
(e.g., Haberland and Dacin, 1992; Kover,
James, and Sonner, 1997).
Procedure
We employed a procedure similar to Am-
bler and Hollier (2004). The participants
were part of an internet panel of a pro-
fessional market research firm and re-
cruited to represent a cross section of the
working population (56/44 female-male
breakdown, age range 18-65 years, aver-
age 39 years). In total, 1,284 consumers
participated in the study, making a cell
size of approximately 80 respondents.
Asked to participate in an advertising
pretest, consumers were randomly ex-
posed to one of the stimulus print adver-
tisements online and then directly filled
out a questionnaire.
Measures
A number of measures were employed to
test the advertisement's functionality
(which is supposed to be the same across
conditions):
3 9 6 JOÜBflflL OFflDUERTISlOGflESEflRCHSeptember 2 0 0 8
Brand identification was measured as an
open-ended question, where respondents
typed in the brand name they believed
was featured in the advertisement. Key
message identification was measured by
asking respondents to tick the correct mes-
sage out of four alternatives (the alterna-
tives were the same across all cells and
were designed to be plausible for all four
brands). Furthermore, we measured diffi-
culty of comprehension (1 = very easy to
comprehend/7 = very difficult to compre-
hend), advertising attitude ("What is your
opinion about the advertisement you just
saw?"), and brand attitude ["What is your
opinion of (brand)?," both on a scale from
1 (very bad) to 7 (very good)].
We also measured brand familiarity and
price estimates to rule out confounding ef-
fects of consumer knowledge or compet-
ing signals (cf. Kirmani and Rao, 2000).
Similar to Till and Baack (2005) familiar-
ity with the brand was measured before
exposure (1 = never heard of it/7 = know
it very well). Price estimates were mea-
sured after exposure with an open-ended
question where respondents were asked
to type in how much they estimated that
the advertised product cost (employing
familiar brands and products in the study,
we expected no differences between con-
ditions). We calculated differences in price
estimates within the advertising pairs and
compared them by product category.
The following measures were used for
the hypothesis tests:
Perceived marketing effort (HI) was mea-
sured with two items on a 7-point scale.
"How much do you think development
of the advertisement cost?" (1 = very
cheap/7 = very expensive), and "How
much time do you think has been de-
voted to the development of the adver-
tisement?" (1 = very little/7 = very much).
We included the variables both separately
and as an index (r = 0.52) in the analyses.
Perceived brand ability (H2) was mea-
sured with three items (1 = do not agree/
7 = agree completely): "(Brand) is smart,"
"(Brand) is likely to develop valuable prod-
ucts in the future," and "(Brand) is good at
solving consumers' problems." We included
the items both separately and as an index
(Cronbach's alpha = 0.83) in the analyses.
Perceived brand quality (H3) was as-
sessed by asking: "What is the general
quality level of the brand?" with answers
given on a scale from 1 (very low quality)
to 7 (very high quality).
Brand interest (H4) was measured with
two items on a 7-point scale: "I find (brand)
interesting," and "I want to buy the brand"
(1 = do not agree/7 = agree completely).
We included the variables both separately
and as an index (r = 0.68) in the analyses.
Perceived advertising creativity (H5) was
measured by asking: "To what extent do
you think that the advertisement you just
saw is creative?" (1 - not at all creative/
7 = very creative). The question was placed
before the measures of perceived effort
(HI) and brand ability (H2) in one-half of
the questionnaires and after the same mea-
sures in the other half. This design en-
ables us to test the direction of causalities
between the variables (Kenny, 1975). It
has been used in previous research on, for
example, the causal effects between slo-
gan evaluations and brand perceptions
(Dahlén and Rosengren, 2005).
RESULTS
Manipulation and confound checks
Comparing the groups of more creative
versus less creative advertisements.
 ADVERTISING CREATIVITY MÄHERS

perceived creativity rated significantly TABLE 1

higher for the group of more creative ad- Effects of Advertising Creativity
vertisements (M = 3.94 versus M = 3.37,
p < 0.01), suggesting that our manipula- More Creative Less Creative
tion of advertising creativity was success- Advertisements, Advertisements, Planned
ful. See Table 1. Furthermore, the analyses M {SD) M (SD) Comparisons
include testing for differences in function- ,. . , .
Manipulation check
ality between the groups with respect to r, • ^ ••
•^ 5 i- F Perceived creativity 3,94 (1.51) 3.37 (1.64) p < 0.01
brand identification, message identifica-
tion, comprehension, and advertising and ^^'^^ °^ advertising functionality
brand attitudes. Only comprehension and ....^rapd identification 0.99(0.26) 0,98(0.28) n.s.
advertising attitude differed between con- iVIessage identification 0.99(0.18) 0,99(0,11) n,s,
ditions, suggesting that the more creative Comprehension 4.96 (1.71) 4.64 (1.79) p < 0.01
advertisements were more difficult to com-
, , . , ,., , , , Advertising attitude 4.08(1.47) 3.81(1.28) p < 0.01
prehend and were better liked than the ° • • •• ••
less creative advertisements. To rule out .....^.'[^üf?..^.^^.'!^.'^.^.? f^.:^l.'íh^^). ^.^^..{hf!'^). ".:!;
competing effects from these variables. Confounding variables
they were included as covariates in the Brand familiarity 4-,58 (2,23) 4.44 (2.23) n.s.
subsequent analyses, meaning that these ^ ^. ^ . . ,.„ „„^ „, . .^.
^ •> ° Estimated pnce, difference +0.04 Not significantly
differences were accounted for in the re- ,. ^ ,.„ ,
by product category different from zero,
suits. Brand familiarity and estimated
prices did not differ between the two
groups, suggesting that they should not ....l^'P^íy«^.««?^* 3:28.(1:45) 2.96 (1.58) p < 0.01
intervene in the effects on the dependent Time 3.14 (1.54) 2.78 (1,50) p < 0.01
variables. Expense 3,41 (1,75) 3.16 (1.71) p < 0.01
H2
Hypotiiesis tests
_. ^ A^Axir^wA / u- •. Perceived abiiity 3.67(1,71) 3,42(1.40) p < 0.01
First, we ran a MANOVA (multivariate • • • • •• ••
analysis of variance) on all dependent vari- ....Smart 3.22 (;i.26) 3.-.04.(1.37) P..<.0;10
ables to test the hypotheses simulta- .Develop valuable products 4.25 (1.19) 4.00 (1,70) p < 0.01
neously. Comprehension and advertising „ . ., . ^ . . ,^ ,-^^ ^ ^ , r-^
' ^ & QQQ(J problem solver 3.44 (1.51) 3.12 (1,50) p < 0,01
attitude were included as covariates and
had significant effects on the dependent
variables. Even when accounting for com- ...^'^^^y^.^ViuM)! 4.89 (1.20) 4.64 (1.21) p < 0.01
peting effects from these covariates, ad- H4
vertising creativity had significant effects Brand interest 3.86 (1.35) 3.56 (1.37) p < 0.01
on all dependent variables (F(ll, 1,084)= interesting 3.68(1.49) 3.44(1,52) p < 0.05
14.24, p < 0.01, WUkes'lambda, 0.94). Next,
, , , . Purchase intention 4.00 (1.72) 3.73 (1.69) p < 0,01
we employed planned comparisons to test
each hypothesis individually (Table 1), Al- Noie: f fl2, l,08i) = 24.24, p < 0.02, W¡7te' lambda, 0.94; n.s. = not significant.
though the absolute differences are not
that large (which is likely due to the mod-
est differences in our manipulated creativ- effort. In support of the hypothesis, a shows, both perceived expense and per-
ity), they are all significant, suggesting comparison between the two groups ceived time in design of the advertise-
that the effects are systematic. reveals that the more creative advertise- ments follow similar patterns.
Hypothesis HI states that advertising ments rated significantly higher on per- Hypothesis H2 states that advertising cre-
creativity increases perceived marketing ceived effort than the less creative. As Table 1 ativity increases perceived brand ability.

September 2 0 0 8 JDUIinflL OF RDUERTISIOG RESEHRCH 3 9 7

ADVERTISING CREATIVITY MATTERS

A comparison hetween the two groups sup- TABLE 2

ports H2 (refer to Table 1). Consumers ex- Regression Coefficients, Test of Mediation by Perceived Effort
posed to the more creative advertisements
rated the brand's ability significantly higher a n d B r a n d Ability
than those exposed to the less creative ad- Standardized
vertisements (M„o,e creative = 3.67 versus variables Beta Coefficient t-Statistic p<
Miesscreative = 3.42, p < 0.01). The brand's
perceived smartness (marginally signifi- dependent variable
cant at p < 0.10), ability to develop valu- ....P^^^i^^.^f^^í ÍJr'^'íy
able products, and ability as a problem Independent variables
solver are all rated higher in response to Advertising creativity 0.21 2.12 0.01
the more creative advertisements. Advertising creativity (after inclusion of 0.15 1.46 n.s.
Testing H3, comparisons were made be- perceived marketing effort)
tween the more and the less creative ad-
Perceived marketing effort 0.16 4.32 0.01
vertisements on rated brand quality. The
mean perceived brand quality is M = 4.89 Advertising creativity (after inclusion of 0.11 1.27 n.s.
for the more creative advertisements and ?.^'^^^}^^^..^.^^!}^..^^'!]]}È
M = 4.64 for the less creative advertise- Perceived brand ability 0.61 18.92 0.01
ments ( » < 0.01), supporting H3. _ ^ * • K,
^^ " rr 6 Dependent variable
Brand interest was significantly higher „ ...
^ .>' & Brand interest
among consumers exposed to the more
creative advertisements than those who '^^^P^ndent variables
saw the less creative advertisements ....^^^'^''^éoreatmy, 0,17 2.15 0.01
(Aímore creative = 3.86 versus Miesscreative = Advertising Creativity (after inclusion of 0.14 1.75 0.10
3.56, p < 0.01), which supports H4. A perceived marketing effort)
breakdown of the two components re- Perceived marketing effort 0.15 1.87 0.10
veals a more significant effect on pur-
Advertising creativity (after inclusion of 0.10 1.31 n.s.
chase mtention (» < 0.01) than on the
perceived brand ability)
brand s mterestmgness (p < 0.05).
The development of H3 and H4 was ....^.^'^^^j^^^^^.^^'}!^..^^'!}]^)'.. ?.-.49 18.47 0.01
based on the reasoning that perceived Note: n.s. = not significant.
marketing effort (HI) and perceived brand
ability (H2) should work as signals of
quality and interestingness. To put this
reasoning to a direct test, we performed added as independent variables in the brand quality or brand interest. A quick
tests of mediation following Baron and same regressions, and (3) the effect of glance at the beta coefficients in Table 2
Kermy's (1986) frequently used procedure advertising creativity as independent vari- also reveals that perceived brand ability
(see Table 2). If advertising creativity en- able on the dependents should decrease seems to have a greater effect than per-
hances perceived brand quality and brand significantly as a result of this. As Table 2 ceived marketing effort on the dependent
interest through signals of marketing ef- shows, all three conditions hold. Adver- variables.
fort and brand ability, then (1) advertising tising creativity is a significant single in- Hypothesis H5 states that the effects
creativity should have direct effects on dependent variable in both regressions, in H1-H4 are mediated by consumer-
brand quality and brand interest as the but when perceived marketing effort and perceived advertising creativity. To get an
single independent variable in regres- brand ability are added in the regres- overview of the effects of perceived ad-
sions, (2) perceived marketing effort and sions, the effects of advertising creativity vertising creativity on all the dependent
brand ability should have direct effects decrease substantially, so that it has no variables, we ran a MANOVA comparing
on brand quality and brand interest when significant influence on either perceived the lower and upper thirds of perceived

3 9 8 JOUBnilL DFflDUEBTISinORESEflRCH September 2 0 0 8

 ADVERTISING CREATIVITY MATTERS

creativity (below 3 versus above 4) as the
factor (and including the same covariates
as in the previous analysis). It had sig-
nificant effects on all the dependents
(F(4,729) = 80.40, p < 0.01, Wilkes' lambda,
0.53). Planned comparisons are listed in
Table 3. As the table reveals, the effects of
perceived advertising creativity are sub-
stantial and seemingly greater that those
of manipulated ("hidden") advertising
creativity.
To test whether consumer-perceived
advertising creativity mediated the ef-
fects of advertising creativity, we used
Baron and Kenny's (1986) procedure once
again (see Table 4). The previous media-
tion test reveals that perceived market-
ing effort and brand ability did indeed
work as signals and mediated the effects
of advertising creativity. To see whether
these signals are contingent upon con-
sumer perceptions of the advertisement's
creativity, we tested whether (1) manip-
ulated advertising creativity had direct
effects on perceived marketing effort and
brand ability as the single independent
variable in regressions, (2) consumer-
perceived advertising creativity has di-
rect effects on perceived marketing effort
and brand ability in the same regres-
sions, and (3) the effect of advertising
creativity as independent variable on
the dependents decreases significantly as
a result of this. As Table 4 shows, all
three conditions hold. The results thus
support H5.
Consumer-perceived advertising creativ-
ity is a rarely used measure. Some au-
thors suggest that consumers may not
be able and suited as judges of creativity
(e.g.. Till and Baack, 2005). In light of
this, one could question our tests of H5.
Could the relationships between consumer-
perceived advertising creativity and the
marketing signals actually be a halo ef-
feet; that is, could consumer ratings of
advertising creativity be a result of their
perceptions of the advertiser's effort and
ability? To discern the direction of causal-
ity and ascertain that consumer-perceived
creativity precedes and causes the signals,
we designed the study according to Ken-
ny's (1975) test of causal direction. As
described in the Method section, we mea-
sured consumer-perceived creativity be-
fore the other measures in one-half of the

TADI C O questionnaires, and after the other mea-

sures in the second half. Table 5 lists the
Effects of Perceived Advertising Creativity correlations between consumer-perceived
... ^ , advertising creativity and the two market-
High Low -^
„ . ^ „ . , ing signal variables for both conditions.
Perceived Perceived
^ . . ^ . . As seen in Table 5, the correlation coef-
Creativity, Creativity, Planned
ficients are directionally greater for the
M (SD) M {SD) Comparisons ^ ^
measures of perceived creativity taken
•^ prior to the other measures. Fischer's r-to-z
....P^.'P^.'y^.l^^O':* 3.67 .(1.29) 2.41 (1.55) P,<,0.01 test (Cohen and Cohen, 1983) reveals that
Time 3.68 (1.43) 2.12 (1.57) p < 0.01 the coefficients differed significantly be-
Expense 3.67 (1.55) 2.70 (1.99) p < 0.01 *^^^" conditions. The analysis shows that
(1) significant correlations occur between
H2
consumer-perceived creativity and the mar-
Perceived abiiity 4.41 (1.27) 2.67 (2.50) p < 0.01 , .. . , j /o^ ^u i •
' >. ; >. ; " r...7. ketmg signals, and (2) the correlations are
Smart 4.02 (1.53) 2.37 (1.40) p < 0.01 significantly greater when consumer-
Develop valuable products 5.02 (1.25) 3.35 (1.55) p < 0.01 perceived creativity precedes the other vari-
ables, implying a causal direction from
Good problem solver 4.20 (2.44) 2.29 (1.67) p < 0.01
the former onto the latter.
H3
Perceived brand quaiity 5.48 (1.16) 4.02 (1.50) p < 0.01 DiSCUSSION
H4 Waste in advertising creativity matters.
Brand interest 4.62 (1.51) 2.56 (1.41) p < 0.01 The results of the present study show that

Interesting 4.50 (1.62) 2.39 (1.43) p < 0.01 ^^^ ""^^ ^"'^^^^ ^^ * ^ ^^^^- ^^^^^' *^^"
improving the functionality of the adver-
Purchase intention 4.73 (1.71) 2.73 (1.78) p < 0.01 .. ^ j u ..u
>. ! .\ ; " r:..7. tisement and push the message into
Note: F(4, 729) = 80.40, p < 0.01, Wilkes' lambda, 0.53. Consumers' minds, which conventional

September 2 0 0 8 JDUROHL OF RDUERTISIIIG RESEHRCH 3 9 9

ADVERTISING CREATIVITY MÄHERS

lished brands that consumers were familiar

Regression Coefficients, Test of Mediation by Perceived

_ . . keting signals argues that they are rele-
Advertismg Creativity , .^, ,^ .\.
s ¿ vant mamly when communicating with
Standardized consumers that are unfamiliar with the
gg^g brand (e.g., Kirmani and Rao, 2000), ad-
Variables Coefficient t-Statistic p< vertising creativity is a powerful signal
when communicating familiar brands as
Dependent variable ,,
well.
Perceived marketing effort
Independent variables The signaling power of
Advertising creativity 0.18 2.31 0.01 advertising creativity
Advertising creativity (after inclusion of 0.02 0.16 n.s. Recent research suggests that it is becom-
perceived advertising creativity) "^g increasingly harder to position and
differentiate brands with advertising (e.g..
Perceived advertising creativity 0.33 7.69 0.01
Ehrenberg, Barnard, Kennedy, and Bloom,
Dependent variable 2002; Heath and Nairn, 2005). As markets
....^.^.'[^^}}'.^^..^.^^!^^..^'!^'!}]^y.. are crowded with similar products, com-
Independent variables municating a unique message or making
Advertising creativity 0.29 2.56 0.01 advertising that sticks is virtually impos-

Advertising creativity (after inclusion of 0.16 0.99 n.s. ^^^^^ ™ ^ ^^^ '^^ ^°"^^ *° '^"'^'^^^'^^ '^^^
perceived advertising creativity) " '^ """"'^ important than ever to use
creativity that really pushes the message
Perceived advertising creativity 0.38 5.76 0.01 ,, . / Í T-, », , j , . , r,r,r,A^
^ through (cf. El-Murad and West, 2004).
Note: n.s. = noi significant. Another Conclusion would be that creativ-
ity becomes less a matter of message and
content generation, and more a matter of
y/^BLE 5 form and signaling power. Crowded mar-

Correlation Coefficients, Test of Causality ^^*' ^'''^ ^^''^ °^ differentiation are the
very reasons provided for the use of mar-
Perceived Creativity Perceived Creativity keting signals such as advertising ex-
»•perceived creativity x iVIeasured First iVIeasured Last Difference pense (Kirmani and Rao, 2000). Focusing
„ . . „ -„_ ^ „ , „„^ on the execution in itself, rather than the
Perceived effort 0.35 0.24 p < 0.05
actual message, the advertiser could use
P^-^ived ability 0.42 0.32 p < 0.01 creativity as a powerful marketing signal
Perceived quality 0.43 0.34 p < 0.01 as well.
Brand interest 0.49 0.40 p < 0.01 O " ' analysis reveals that more versus
less advertising creativity produces a sig-
nal of marketing effort that is similar to
advertising expense. This is good news,
wisdom holds to be the major benefit of taken as proof of the brand's smartness, as this revelation implies that the adver-
creativity, an extra degree of creativity and ability to solve problems and de- tiser does not need to spend excessive
may send signals about the advertiser that velop valuable products. As a result, con- amounts of money to signal confidence in
rub off on consumer perceptions of the sumers became more interested in the her product. Instead of spending money
brand. In our experiment, more versus brand and perceived it to be of higher on bigger advertising spaces or longer
less creative advertising signaled greater quality. The latter is a particularly inter- and more frequent campaigns (e.g., Kir-
effort on the advertiser's behalf and was esting result, as the study featured estab- mani, 1990, 1997), the same effects may

4 0 0 JDÜBnflL OF eOÜERTISIIlG BESEIIIICH September 2 0 0 8


be attainable by increasing creativity in-
stead. Thus, the present study provides
compelling evidence that creativity could
be a way to produce greater results per
advertising dollar.
Creativity seems to have the greater
effect through signaling brand ability than
through effort. One reason for this is that
creativity may fit more logically with what
the brand, and advertising in general, is
perceived to be about: displaying great
solutions in the advertised product cat-
egory. While high versus low creativity
also has a signaling effect through per-
ceived effort, most consumers would prob-
ably agree that trying hard is not the true
purpose of any advertising or brand. Ad-
vertising is not primarily about spending
money; advertising is about cleverly pre-
senting the brand, and a desirable goal
for any brand should be to deliver a more
sophisticated product than the competi-
tion (cf. Brown and Dacin, 1997). The
very (creative) form of the advertising
could be a powerful clue to consumers
about the brand.
Creativity Is not a yes/no
The presented numbers reveal that the
advertising creativity in our study was
not very high (ratings were not above the
midpoint of the scale for either the more
or the less creative advertisements). Thus,
the study does not test the effects of out-
standingly creative advertisements. Nei-
ther of the advertisements in the study
would likely win an award. Still, at these
(relative to previous research and to award-
competing advertisements) low levels of
creativity, increases did matter. This result
provides evidence that creativity is not
only important at an award-winning level,
it is important at any level. By focusing
too much on award-winning advertising
and treating creativity as a yes/no vari-
able, one misses out on all the improve-
ments that can be made and effects that
Consumer perceptions of the creativity in an advertise-
ment mediate the advertisement's effects on the brand
and malee the impact of the manipulated ("hidden")
creativity much greater.
can be attained at more moderate levels.
Considering the high risk that is associ-
ated with high levels of creativity (e.g.,
El-Murad and West, 2003; West, 1999),
taking baby steps is both easier and safer
than quantum leaps—viewing creativity
as a spectrum rather than a high absolute
level encourages increases in advertising
creativity across all advertising campaigns.
Creativity is not a iiidden tool
Given the signaling power of advertising
creativity, viewing creativity as a hidden
tool for advertising professionals is a
mistake. Consumer perceptions of the
creativity in an advertisement mediate the
advertisement's effects on the brand and
make the impact of the manipulated ("hid-
den") creativity much greater. This is a
powerful case for Kover, James, and
Sonner's (1997) call to bring consumers
into the agencies' processes and invite
them to partake in the development—and
definition—of creative advertising.
Whereas copy testing is becoming more
common in practice, advertising profes-
sionals still interpret the results on behalf
of the consumer, deciding whether her
responses indicate that the advertisement
is creative or not. Not surprisingly, Kos-
low, Sasser, and Riordan (2006) find that
formal testing had no effect on agencies'
self-assessed creative output. If advertis-
ing professionals both ask the questions
and interpret consumers' answers to them,
what need is there to actuaUy ask consum-
ers? If agencies had included consumer
September 2 0 0 8 JDÜRHIIL OF BDÖERTISIIIG RESEflRCH 4 0 1
ADVERTISING CREATIVITY MÄHERS
perceptions of the advertisements' creativ-
ity in the testing, Koslow, Sasser, and Rior-
dan's findings would probably have been
different. As Kover, James, and Sonner
(1997) suggest, taking a consumer perspec-
tive offers new ideas and nuances in the
creative process and provides more con-
crete feedback on the creative level of the
advertising that would facilitate bench-
marking and enhancement of the creative
output.
In enhancing perceived brand ability,
the very creative form of advertising could
be a way of branding. As suggested in the
corporate ability literature, ability could
be a powerful positioning in itself (Biehal
and Sheinin, 2007; Brown and Dacin, 1997).
For brands that have no particular unique
feature, becoming increasingly common
with the overwhelming number of alter-
natives available in most markets, ability
in itself could be a sustainable source of
advantage leveraging consumer expecta-
tions and trust in any product the brand
introduces. This view is particularly inter-
esting considering the trend toward con-
tinuously releasing new products under
the same brand (Biehal and Sheinin, 2007).
The research on marketing signals fo-
cuses mainly on unfamiliar brands (Kir-
mani and Rao, 2000). Whereas it still needs
to be tested, creativity should have impor-
tant effects on unfamiliar brands as well,
as they may benefit more from marketing
signals in general. However, the present
study shows that high versus low creativ-
ity works as a signal for familiar and
ADVERTISING CREATIVITY MÄHERS
Creative advertising does increase consumer interest in
the brands, not by communicating a new message, but by
communicating the same message in another way.
established brands. Such brands make up
the bulk of advertising in major media
(Kent, 2002), They need to stay interesting
to consumers even when they have noth-
ing new to say (Machleit, Allen, and Mad-
den, 1993), Creative advertising does
increase consumer interest in the brands,
not by communicating a new message,
but by communicating the same message
in another way.
The present study focuses on a small
number of advertisements for consumer
products. We employed only one expo-
sure that was forced on consumers. Our
experimental design was a way to test
previously uncovered effects of creativity
in a controlled setting. This way, we show
that advertising creativity may work in
different ways than in previous literature
and have powerful effects. Whether these
effects materialize in a real setting (with
noise, less motivated consumers), and for
different kinds of products, must be sub-
ject to further research,
MICAEL DAHLÉN is a professor of marketing at the
Stockholm School of Economics, His research fo-
cuses on innovative advertising and brand strategies,
with the ambition to join creativity, business, and con-
sumer value. Having been published in, for example,
the Journal of Advertising Research, the Journal of
Advertising, Psychology & Marketing, the Journal of
Brand Management, he has taken the first baby steps
toward realizing that ambition.
SARA ROSENGREN is a Ph.D. candidate at the Stock-
holm School of Economics, presenting her thesis on
marketing communications in cluttered environments
in the fall of 2008, Her experiments on competition
4 0 2 JOÜBÜfiL OF BDÜEBTISinG RESERRCH September 2 0 0 8
within advertising, PR, and brand communications
have been published in, for example, the Journal of
Advertising Research, the Journal of Advertising, the
Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising,
and the Journal of Brand Management.
FREDRIK TORN is a Ph.D. candidate at the Stockholm
School of Economics, focusing on incongruent brand
communications. His studies have been published in,
for example, the Journal of Advertising, the Journal of
Current Issues and Research in Advertising, and the
Journal of Consumer Behavior.
REFERENCES
AMBLER, TIM, and E. A N N HOLLIER "The Waste
in Advertising Is the Part That Works." Journal
of Advertising Research 44, 4 (2004): 375-89,
ANG, SWEE HOON, and SHARON Y. M , LOW.
"Exploring the Dimensions of Ad Creativity,"
Psychology & Marketing 17, 10 (2000): 835-54,
BARON, REUBEN M , , and DAVID A. KENNY, "The
Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in So-
cial Psychological Research: Conceptual, Stra-
tegic, and Statistical Considerations," Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 51, 6 (1986):
1173-82.
BiEHAL, GABRIEL J., and DANIEL A, SHEININ,
"The Influence of Corporate Messages on the
Product Portfolio." Journal of Marketing 71, 2
(2007): 12-25.
BROWN, TOM J., and PETER A, DACIN, "The
Company and the Product: Corporate Associ-
ations and Consumer Product Responses." Jour-
nal of Marketing 61, 1 (1997): 68-84.
COHEN, JACOB, and PATRICI COHEN. Applied
Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the
Behavioral Sciences. Hiilsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1983.
DAHLÉN, MICAEL, and SARA ROSENGREN, "Brands
Affect Slogans Affect Brands? Brand Equity, Com-
petitive Interference, and the Brand-Slogan Link."
Journal of Brand Management 12,3 (2005): 151-64,
EHRENBERG, ANDREW S. C , N E I L BARNARD,
RACHEL KENNEDY, and HELEN BLOOM, "Brand
Advertising as Creative Publicity." Journal of
Advertising Research 42, 4 (2002): 7-18.
EL-MURAD, JAAEAR, and DOUGLAS C . WEST,
"Risk and Creativity in Advertising," Journal of
Marketing Management 19, 4 (2003): 657-73,
and "The Definition and Mea-
surement of Creativity: What Do We Know?"
Journal of Advertising Research 44, 2 (2004):
188-201.
GROSS, IRWIN, "The Creative Aspects of Adver-
tising." Sloan Management Review, 14, 1 (1972):
83-109.
HABERLAND, GABRIELE S., and PETER A, D A -
GIN. "The Development of a Measure to Assess
Viewers' Judgments of the Creativity of an
Advertisement: A Preliminary Study," Ad-
vances in Consumer Research 19 (1992): 817-25,
HALL, BRUCE F . "A New Model for Measuring
Advertising Effectiveness," Journal of Advertis-
ing Research 42, 2 (2002): 23-31.
HEATH, ROBERT, and AGNES NAIRN. "Measur-
ing Affective Advertising: Implications of Low
Attention Processing on Recall," Journal of Ad-
vertising Research 45, 2 (2005): 269-81,

HELGESEN, THOROLF. "Advertising Awards and
Advertising Agency Performance Criteria." Jour-
nal of Advertising Research 34, 4 (1994): 43-53.
KENNY, DWAYNE A. "Cross-Lagged Panel Cor-
relation: A Test for Spuriousness." Psychological
Bulletin 82, 6 (1975): 887-903.
KENT, ROBERT J. "The Effects of Media-Source
Cues in Ad Recall Tests." Journal of Current
Issues and Research in Advertising 24, 1 (2002):
1-9.
KIRMANI, AMNA. "The Effect of Perceived Ad-
vertising Costs on Brand Perceptions." Journal
of Consumer Research 17, 2 (1990): 160-71.
. "Advertising Repetition as a Signal of
Quality: If It's Advertised So Much, Something
Must Be Wrong." Journal of Advertising 26, 3
(1997): 77-86.
, and AKSHAY R. RAO. " N O Pain, No Gain:
A Critical Review of the Literature on Signal-
ing Unobservable Product Quality." Journal of
Marketing 64, 2 (2000): 66-79.
, and PETER WRIGHT. "Money Talks: Per-
ceived Advertising Expense and Expected Prod-
uct Quality." Journal of Consumer Research 16, 3
(1989): 344-53.
KOSLOW, SCOTT, SHEILA L . SASSER, and E D -
WARD A. RIORDAN. "What is Creative to Whom
and Why? Perceptions on Advertising Agen-
cies." Journal of Advertising Research 43,1 (2003):
96-110.
and "Do Marketers Get
the Advertising They Need or the Advertising
They Deserve? Agency Views of How Clients
Influence Creativity." Journal of Advertising 35,
3 (2006): 81-101.
KOVER, ARTHUR J., STEPHEN M . GOLDBERG, and
WILLIAM M . JAMES. "Creativity vs. Effective-
ness? An Integrating Classification for Adver-
tising." Journal of Advertising Research 35,6 (1995):
29-40.
, WILLIAM L. JAMES, and BRENDA S. SON-
NER. "To Whom Do Advertising Créatives Write?
An Inferential Answer." Journal of Advertising
Research 37, 1 (1997): 41-53.
Luo, XuEMiNG, and C. B. BHATTAGHARYA. "Cor-
porate Social Responsibility, Customer Satisfac-
tion, and Market Value." Journal of Marketing
70, 4 (2006): 1-18.
MAGHLEIT, KAREN A., CHRIS T. ALLEN, and
THOMAS J. MADDEN. "The Mature Brand and
Brand Interest: An Alternative Consequence of
Ad-Evoked Affect." Journal of Marketing 57, 4
(1993): 72-82.
REID, LEONARD N . , KAREN WHITEHILL KING,
and DENISE E . DELORME. "Top-Level Agency
Créatives Look at Advertising Creativity Then
and Now." Journal of Advertising 27, 2 (1998):
1-16.
September 2 0 0 8 JDURDHL OF HDUEIITISIOG RESEflRCH 4 0 3
ADVERTISING CREATIVITY MATTERS
STONE, GERALD, DONNA BESSER, and LORAN E.
LEWIS. "Recall, Liking and Creativity in TV
Commercials: A New Approach." Journal of Ad-
vertising Research 40, 3 (2000): 7-18.
TILL, BRIAN D . , and DANIEL W . BAAGK. "Recall
and Persuasion. Does Creativity Matter?" Jour-
nal of Advertising 34, 3 (2005): 47-57.
TOM, GAIL, and ANMARIE EVES. "The Use of
Rhetorical Devices in Advertising." Journal of
Advertising Research 39, 4 (1999): 39-43.
ToNGAR, MARK E , and JAMES MUNGH. "Con-
sumer Responses to Tropes in Print Advertis-
ing." Journal of Advertising 30, 1 (2001): 55-65.
, and . "The Influence of Simple
and Complex Tropes on Believability, Impor-
tance and Memory." Journal of Marketing Theory
& Practice 11, 4 (2003): 39-53.
WEILBAGHER, WILLIAM M . " H O W Advertising
Affects Consumers." Journal of Advertising Re-
search 43, 2 (2003): 230-34.
WEST, DOUGLAS C . "360° of Creative Risk."
Journal of Advertising Research 29,1 (1999): 39-50.
WHITE, ALISA, and BRUGE L . SMITH. "Assess-
ing Advertising Creativity Using the Creative
Product Semantic Scale." Journal of Advertising
Research 41, 6 (2001): 27-34.