Name of ICE: Comp Ad ICE

Section and Group No: Section 1 Group 2

Absentees if any: Nil

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Descriptive Statistics Dependent Variable: Manipulative Intent
Dependent Variable: Manipulative Intent Type III Sum Mean
Comp ad Comparison Std. Source of Squares df Square F Sig.
a
format Strategy Mean Deviation N Corrected Model 28.862 3 9.621 9.183 .000
Indirect Multi Brand 3.9354 .81565 49 Intercept 2812.405 1 2812.405 2684.47 .000
Market Leader 3.6064 1.02766 47 5
Total 3.7743 .93533 96 compadfo .151 1 .151 .144 .705

Direct Multi Brand 3.3129 .92523 49 compstra 5.936 1 5.936 5.666 .018

Market Leader 4.3400 1.26571 50 compadfo * 22.400 1 22.400 21.381 .000

Total 3.8317 1.21929 99 compstra

Total Multi Brand 3.6242 .92232 98 Error 200.102 191 1.048

Market Leader 3.9845 1.20812 97 Total 3049.836 195

Total 3.8034 1.08638 195 Corrected Total 228.964 194

a. R Squared = .126 (Adjusted R Squared = .112)
Q. What would your advice to an advertiser be? Please use the results, common sense and knowledge
of industry conditions/realities to give this advice.

Ans.

1) First, we would advise the advertiser to follow a direct comparative advertising format with
multiple brand comparison strategy i.e. in their comparative advertisement, specify all the major
competitors directly by their name.

Reason: As we can see the perceived manipulative intent for direct comparative advertising with
multiple brand comparison strategy has the lowest value (3.3129), which means the advertisement
effectiveness is better as compared to others, it is most trust worthy and acceptable by the
viewers. As from the plot we can also infer the lower value of perceived manipulative intent for
multiple brand comparison strategy with direct comparative format. Which again point the same
inference as from the descriptive table.

Indirect or direct comparative advertisement format is not statistically significant as the

comparative advertisement format has a p-value (0.705) which is greater than 0.05 but that
doesn’t mean they don’t matter because they also have a statistically significant interaction effect
with p-value (0.000) which is less than 0.05.

2) At last, we would advise the advertiser to concentrate more on multiple brands for comparative
strategy for having a good effect on the preferred comparative advertisement format. As this can
increase their positive interaction effect and make the advertisement more credible.

Reason: Viewers prefer those advertisements that have relevant point of differences and point of
parity while defining their product’s features and value better as compared to their competitors.